Michael Moore's - Sicko !!!

anabolicrhino

anabolicrhino

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
NEW WORLD RHINOS: MICHAEL MOORES NEW FILM !!!

This is a must watch. It shows the reality of the American health cares system and the quality of life as opposed to France, Canada and Cuba !!!

It was ripped onto Bit Torrent site and is up on Google video right now, but I don't know for how long.

You can download it from Google but you need to download their their player first
-------------------------------------------------------------

MICHAEL MOORE'S "SICKO"
 
Squeaks4ver

Squeaks4ver

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
Oh Rhino, this is where you and I will start fighting again:nono: and we were getting along so well:nutkick:
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
I can't wait to see what creative editorial choices he made in this one.
 

Rufio

Member
Awards
0
I would prefer a healthcare system more like Canada's. Michael Moore sucks regardless. His one redeeming quality is that he's funny, sorta like Glenn Beck.
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
I would prefer a healthcare system more like Canada's. Michael Moore sucks regardless. His one redeeming quality is that he's funny, sorta like Glenn Beck.
Takes himself too seriously to be funny. George Carlin or Bill Maher are more to my taste for far left comedians.
 
somewhatgifted

somewhatgifted

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
I like moore, but the truth for some is too inconceivable, take it for what its worth its more so an eye opener than to be taken a pure fact. Look at the editing george bush and his censorship crew are doing but noone cares about that side of the coin. Who else is looking out for the american people bush isnt.
 
somewhatgifted

somewhatgifted

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
Hopefully this film creates interest, and in turn people arm themselves with valid info. Instead of complaining about the editing as if it has no relevance bc they dont like one aspect of a huge problem. Like a murder who has 100 pices of evidence against him but the glove doesnt fit.........
 
anabolicrhino

anabolicrhino

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Oh Rhino, this is where you and I will start fighting again:nono: and we were getting along so well:nutkick:
...can't we still be friends ???

I am not one for taking health advice from a fat guy and Moore certainly has his flaws,like the 911 movie, but there are some redeemable facts in his movies.

This one shows how "volunteer" rescue workers who helped recover lower Manhattan after 911, suffering from lung aliments that were caused by the exposure to the toxic environment at ground zero.

They are unable to find compensation from the US government specifically because they were "volunteers" and are not eligible for insurance claims !!! Talk about dis incentive to volunteer!!!

They travel to Cuba where they can get help because in Cuba they have free universal health care !!!:clap2:
 

Rufio

Member
Awards
0
And this is where it turns into a debate over universal healthcare leading to America turning into a socialist nation. I'm generally against increased government interference, but I think this is worth it. Look at Canada. It makes a lot more sense than affirmative action or many long-term welfare programs.
 

Nullifidian

Banned
Awards
1
  • Established
I think we should do it like India.

Seperate hospitals, public and private. Public hospitals are run by the government and are free.

Private hospitals are run by private organizations and have very little regulation. However because people could just go to a government hospiatl for free, private hospitals can only compete if their care is exemplary. Thus they actively seek to recruit the best physicians and offer the best care possible. Because of the lack of regs, they also though compete with respect to pricing.


Many people in the US have been flying to India to have expensive surgeries done because it is extremely inexpensive there but of equal quality to the US. I read about stuff like surgeries that cost half a million dollars in the US costing only $5000-10000 in India
 
Jayhawkk

Jayhawkk

Legend
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
But the lack of regulation is the side of the knife that cuts when you have a bad surgery and can do nothing about it. Sometimes you get what you pay for. Our healthcare system is pissy and i have my own personal experiences and stories and i have good coverage but the thread was about Moore's films


He may take some truth but he distorts it to fit his own agendas and doesn't have the people in mind, in my opinion. Lies and deceit are wrong no matter who it comes from.
 

Nullifidian

Banned
Awards
1
  • Established
But the lack of regulation is the side of the knife that cuts when you have a bad surgery and can do nothing about it. Sometimes you get what you pay for. Our healthcare system is pissy and i have my own personal experiences and stories and i have good coverage but the thread was about Moore's films


He may take some truth but he distorts it to fit his own agendas and doesn't have the people in mind, in my opinion. Lies and deceit are wrong no matter who it comes from.

Just because there is virtually no regulation doesn't mean you can't sue the hospital when the surgeon screws up. The courts however have caps on those kinds of settlements, and malpractice insurance isn't MANDATORY like in the USA. As a result in order to attract customers, malpractice insurance firms have to offer low premiums. In the US, malpractice insurance is required in order to practice medicine; this creates an artificial demand. This artificial demand coupled with uncapped lawsuits, and a system that favors frivolous lawsuits, you get drastically inflated malpractice insurance premiums. Those inflated malpractice premiums result in overinflated billing. That inflated billing results in inflated health insurance premiums. Negotiated rates that insurance companies agree to result in hospitals barely covering costs. That in turn results in bills going to uninsured people being preposterously high leaving many indebted to the hospital for the rest of their lives and in some cases, an entire family indebted to the hospital for life.

Add into the mix a cartel with a monopoly on medical licensing and antiquated requirements to practice medicine and you've got the most screwed up healthcare system in the industrialized world.
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
They travel to Cuba where they can get help because in Cuba they have free universal health care !!!:clap2:
Which is the rub of the matter. Nothing is free. Someone is going to pay for it. The only question is who and how and the consequences of any particular system.
 
Jumper

Jumper

New member
Awards
0
They travel to Cuba where they can get help because in Cuba they have free universal health care !!!

I believe if you check this one out you will find that there are in fact two different levels of health care in Cuba. One for the elite party members and one for the masses. Separate and unequal. Be careful what you wish for. We may get it.
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
They travel to Cuba where they can get help because in Cuba they have free universal health care !!!

I believe if you check this one out you will find that there are in fact two different levels of health care in Cuba. One for the elite party members and one for the masses. Separate and unequal. Be careful what you wish for. We may get it.
It also helps if you reduce demand by throwing half your population in prison or outright killing them.
 
Dwight Schrute

Dwight Schrute

I am faster than 80% of all snakes
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
So lets take the 2nd most unorganized and corrupt industry and combine with the most corrupt and disorganized industry (government). Yeah, makes sense :rolleyes:
 
Dwight Schrute

Dwight Schrute

I am faster than 80% of all snakes
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
Many people in the US have been flying to India to have expensive surgeries done because it is extremely inexpensive there but of equal quality to the US. I read about stuff like surgeries that cost half a million dollars in the US costing only $5000-10000 in India
Its a matter of money. They come to the US to be educated, then go back and practice many fields in which malpractice insurance costs and lawsuits threaten US doctors here.

Doctors are leaving BECAUSE of more regulation, not less.

India is actually pushing for much more regulation because its rankings and care is horrible according to the WHO. The private sector dominates their health care system and the lobbyists are keeping any type of regulation out....
 
Dwight Schrute

Dwight Schrute

I am faster than 80% of all snakes
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
I would prefer a healthcare system more like Canada's.

Virtually impossible with a population of 300 million.
 
Dwight Schrute

Dwight Schrute

I am faster than 80% of all snakes
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
Just because there is virtually no regulation doesn't mean you can't sue the hospital when the surgeon screws up. The courts however have caps on those kinds of settlements, and malpractice insurance isn't MANDATORY like in the USA. As a result in order to attract customers, malpractice insurance firms have to offer low premiums. In the US, malpractice insurance is required in order to practice medicine; this creates an artificial demand. This artificial demand coupled with uncapped lawsuits, and a system that favors frivolous lawsuits, you get drastically inflated malpractice insurance premiums. Those inflated malpractice premiums result in overinflated billing. That inflated billing results in inflated health insurance premiums. Negotiated rates that insurance companies agree to result in hospitals barely covering costs. That in turn results in bills going to uninsured people being preposterously high leaving many indebted to the hospital for the rest of their lives and in some cases, an entire family indebted to the hospital for life.

Add into the mix a cartel with a monopoly on medical licensing and antiquated requirements to practice medicine and you've got the most screwed up healthcare system in the industrialized world.
Now add that into the government bureaucracy and see what you get. You think its bad now? Just wait until they get their hands on it.
 

Rufio

Member
Awards
0
The libertarian position of privatized health care is all well and good for those who can afford it, but my problem is that you still end up with people who can't afford things like life-saving surgery. I'm all for less government interference in most cases, but I don't want a system where people who can't pay for adequate life-saving procedures are screwed. I don't want Social Darwinism in the field of healthcare.
 

Nullifidian

Banned
Awards
1
  • Established
Now add that into the government bureaucracy and see what you get. You think its bad now? Just wait until they get their hands on it.

India's healthcare is considered pisspoor because they have over a billion people and 900 million are living in abject poverty!!

Their private hospitals are top notch due to increased competition brought on by lack of government interference.


Do not however confuse this with the hospitals which receive government tax breaks. Those hospitals are regulated nearly as heavily as government ones. The best hospitals there are the truly private ones.

I do think it's a good idea though to have SOME healthcare options that are free. I can think of no justifiable reason to leave the lower class without any healthcare solution whatsoever. And if you want to point to VA hospitals as an example of government run healthcare that's a poor example since VA hospitals in the US are outsourced to private companies. The only reason to outsource are either because they'll do it better or they'll do it cheaper. We got the opposite of both when we outsourced our VA hospitals. That's just corruption plain and simple.
 
Dwight Schrute

Dwight Schrute

I am faster than 80% of all snakes
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
The libertarian position of privatized health care is all well and good for those who can afford it, but my problem is that you still end up with people who can't afford things like life-saving surgery. I'm all for less government interference in most cases, but I don't want a system where people who can't pay for adequate life-saving procedures are screwed. I don't want Social Darwinism in the field of healthcare.

But that's where socialized health care has failed for the most part. They AREN'T getting adequate care or they are put on a waiting list that lasts forever.

Theory is good, implementation in large populations is another. Small countries can handle it, larger ones simply can't...even in pure socialist and communist countries.
 
Dwight Schrute

Dwight Schrute

I am faster than 80% of all snakes
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
India's healthcare is considered pisspoor because they have over a billion people and 900 million are living in abject poverty!!

Their private hospitals are top notch due to increased competition brought on by lack of government interference.


Do not however confuse this with the hospitals which receive government tax breaks. Those hospitals are regulated nearly as heavily as government ones. The best hospitals there are the truly private ones.



I do think it's a good idea though to have SOME healthcare options that are free. I can think of no justifiable reason to leave the lower class without any healthcare solution whatsoever.



"The private sector dominates health care in India, but inadequate legislation and failure to enforce regulations are contributing to poor quality medical services, says a World Bank publication released in New Delhi last week.

Eighty per cent of spending on health in India is from personal funds, but existing laws do not ensure that private medical services maintain even minimum standards, says the report.

“Powerful medical lobbies have opposed government efforts to regulate the private sector,” it says, adding that India's medical councils are not enforcing laws relating to registration and licensing of medical practitioners.

In a section on private healthcare services the report acknowledges problems that consumer health organisations have long complained about: doctors overprescribing drugs, recommending unnecessary investigations and treatment, and failing to provide appropriate information for patients.

It says there are no laws regulating the geographical distribution of healthcare providers and the types of technology to be made available, and it suggests that the influx of technology may have led to unreasonable use of equipment. Yet, despite such problems most people still choose the private sector, because of accessibility and shorter waiting times for diagnosis and treatment.

Health sector analysts say the private healthcare system in India should be segmented so that the relation between quality and prices of services can be examined. “We would probably find that some private sector establishments offer excellent quality at a high price,” said Professor Subrata Chakraborty of the Indian Institute of Management, Lucknow, who analysed the private sector in India's largest state, Uttar Pradesh, for the report. “The typical consumer doesn't separate the two issues.”

“The Indian Medical Association has consistently opposed any kind of regulation,” said Ravi Duggal, coordinator of Mumbai's Centre for Enquiry into Health and Allied Themes, a nongovernmental organisation that has been long been campaigning for minimum standards.

A survey in Mumbai in the mid-1990s showed gross deficiencies in the quality of medical services. “There were clinics operating out of residential flats, with kitchens turned into operating theatres,” said Dr Abhay Shukla, project coordinator at the centre."
 

Nullifidian

Banned
Awards
1
  • Established
But that's where socialized health care has failed for the most part. They AREN'T getting adequate care or they are put on a waiting list that lasts forever.

Theory is good, implementation in large populations is another. Small countries can handle it, larger ones simply can't...even in pure socialist and communist countries.


Then change our government to a confederacy and ditch nearly all federal spending. Let each state handle its own healthcare. States are like small countries in a confederacy.
 
Dwight Schrute

Dwight Schrute

I am faster than 80% of all snakes
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
I do think it's a good idea though to have SOME healthcare options that are free. I can think of no justifiable reason to leave the lower class without any healthcare solution whatsoever. .
We do have it. Its called Medicaid. Look at its track record.
 
Dwight Schrute

Dwight Schrute

I am faster than 80% of all snakes
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
Then change our government to a confederacy and ditch nearly all federal spending. Let each state handle its own healthcare. States are like small countries in a confederacy.

Some do. Don't you know that?
 
Dwight Schrute

Dwight Schrute

I am faster than 80% of all snakes
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
Hopefully this film creates interest, and in turn people arm themselves with valid info. Instead of complaining about the editing as if it has no relevance bc they dont like one aspect of a huge problem. Like a murder who has 100 pices of evidence against him but the glove doesnt fit.........
Did he mention the lack of tort reform (he has too)? Considering the Democratic party is probably 90% lawyers I don't tihnk you will be seeing that anytime soon. On goes the astronomical costs of malpractice insurance to protect from those "legit" lawsuits.

"Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards, a successful trial attorney, was criticized by tort reform advocates for lawsuits that he brought against obstetricians on behalf of children who suffered severe birth injuries; reformers criticized the suits as relying on junk science, while Edwards denied the allegation. Edwards's profits from the stated lawsuits were substantial and are certainly not a subject of dispute."


Now I know why maternity insurance is ridiculous.

Kind of ironic you mentioned the "glove" and everything. Love those lawyers.
 
Dwight Schrute

Dwight Schrute

I am faster than 80% of all snakes
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
I like moore, but the truth for some is too inconceivable, take it for what its worth its more so an eye opener than to be taken a pure fact. Look at the editing george bush and his censorship crew are doing but noone cares about that side of the coin. Who else is looking out for the american people bush isnt.



Bush Derangement Syndrome: the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency -- nay -- the very existence of George W. Bush.
 
Sunder

Sunder

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
I'll be the first to admit that I am naive. But I don't fully understand why Americans keep on saying they want a health care system like we have in Canada. I was under the impression that life-threatening surgeries couldn't be turned away - but are done in state hospitals.

In Canada, state hospitals is effectively all we have. For all real "advanced" surgeries, we get sent to the States. And waiting lists here are long. I had to wait 6 months to have my hernia operated on. Other ppl are on 1 - 2 year waiting lists. If I wanted to pay more and get in faster - I couldn't. Our system is bogged down with a bunch of people that "abuse" the system. Let's just say the majority of those people are from a segment of society where taking care of yourself is not a top priority. There, that sounded PC. But these people are in the waiting rooms all the time - it's gross and annoying. I wish showers were mandatory.

We're all equal here (except for politicians of course). Whether you work hard at your job, are homeless, or just live off the government. Considering I'm part of the working class, I do get annoyed with the free-loaders.

I thought most companies in the States have health benefits.

Regardless, if you want the same health care as Canada, just cut your take home pay in half. You don't get to keep the money you earned - it goes...elsewhere...
 
Dwight Schrute

Dwight Schrute

I am faster than 80% of all snakes
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
I'll be the first to admit that I am naive. But I don't fully understand why Americans keep on saying they want a health care system like we have in Canada.
Because the left wing liberal media keeps telling everyone its better. And they believe them.
 
Dwight Schrute

Dwight Schrute

I am faster than 80% of all snakes
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
I'll be the first to admit that I am naive. But I don't fully understand why Americans keep on saying they want a health care system like we have in Canada. I was under the impression that life-threatening surgeries couldn't be turned away - but are done in state hospitals.

In Canada, state hospitals is effectively all we have. For all real "advanced" surgeries, we get sent to the States. And waiting lists here are long. I had to wait 6 months to have my hernia operated on. Other ppl are on 1 - 2 year waiting lists. If I wanted to pay more and get in faster - I couldn't. Our system is bogged down with a bunch of people that "abuse" the system. Let's just say the majority of those people are from a segment of society where taking care of yourself is not a top priority. There, that sounded PC. But these people are in the waiting rooms all the time - it's gross and annoying. I wish showers were mandatory.

We're all equal here (except for politicians of course). Whether you work hard at your job, are homeless, or just live off the government. Considering I'm part of the working class, I do get annoyed with the free-loaders.

I thought most companies in the States have health benefits.

Regardless, if you want the same health care as Canada, just cut your take home pay in half. You don't get to keep the money you earned - it goes...elsewhere...

And always good to hear personal experience.... :)
 
somewhatgifted

somewhatgifted

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
lmao , i always get the koolaid reference when my mediocre opinions arise. Damnit id have to sit at the kids table in politican discussion land. The problem is bush is deep in a hole that it is impossible not to complain about him. hes done one thing right, he's created the perfect job a job where you cant do it worse than the last guy.
 

spunkles182

Member
Awards
0
We're all equal here (except for politicians of course). Whether you work hard at your job, are homeless, or just live off the government. Considering I'm part of the working class, I do get annoyed with the free-loaders.



Regardless, if you want the same health care as Canada, just cut your take home pay in half. You don't get to keep the money you earned - it goes...elsewhere...


:goodpost:
 
anabolicrhino

anabolicrhino

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Which is the rub of the matter. Nothing is free. Someone is going to pay for it. The only question is who and how and the consequences of any particular system.
Rub this ! The USA has subsidized police and fire protection as well as the mail system, so its not completely foreign to our system of government to tax the population to provide a better life!

Our system is better if you are young ,strong and healthy, but if you happen to become old, weak and sick there is a problem. If you don't have any money nobody wants to help you !
 
Squeaks4ver

Squeaks4ver

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
A friend of mine playes foot ball here in the states but he was brought over for soccer from Ireland. He had this big time shoulder injury that needed to have an operation. He was stunned that in the same day of his injury he had an MRI, X Ray and went home knowing what was wrong and when they were going to fix it. He said it would have taken them almost a year to get those results via "universal" health care. He said most people who get hurt playing sports are usually unable to ever return because the lag time between injury and operation makes everything worse.

If we want to help with our older population and our inner city folks, we must cut off all those who are not legal in this country from any type of medical care. We can save millions if not billions if we ended this come on come all practice. their countries have free health care... let them go there.. because M. moore is right.. it is so much better!
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
Rub this ! The USA has subsidized police and fire protection as well as the mail system, so its not completely foreign to our system of government to tax the population to provide a better life!
Nor does that make it a good idea. As for the mail system, if you want the people at the DMV or the post office handling your health care, you might have issues.

Our system is better if you are young ,strong and healthy, but if you happen to become old, weak and sick there is a problem. If you don't have any money nobody wants to help you !
Where is it written you have a right to live forever, or even as long as is humanly possible, especially on someone else's dime? No where. If you are truly concerned about health care then you should be concerned about increasing the supply and decreasing the price of it. Nationalization will achieve the exact opposite, especially in this country where demand will very soon outstrip supply once it is 'free', or more correctly once someone else is paying the bill.
 
Dwight Schrute

Dwight Schrute

I am faster than 80% of all snakes
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
The problem is bush is deep in a hole that it is impossible not to complain about him.
Really? Last time I checked the newly elected Congress has worse ratings but we wouldn't want the reality of health care costs to get in the way of "complaining".

Just be careful some facts don't go flying over your head while you continue to complain.
 
Dwight Schrute

Dwight Schrute

I am faster than 80% of all snakes
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
Nationalization will achieve the exact opposite, especially in this country where demand will very soon outstrip supply once it is 'free', or more correctly once someone else is paying the bill.
You mean you don't want to pay 65% of your income to nationalized programs? How selfish of you! :D

It amazes me that the people who constantly complain about the inadequacies and complete incompetence of our government actually want them to run the health care system.
 
Dwight Schrute

Dwight Schrute

I am faster than 80% of all snakes
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
Rub this ! The USA has subsidized police and fire protection as well as the mail system, so its not completely foreign to our system of government to tax the population to provide a better life!
Yeah, the welfare and medicaid system are prime examples of this glorious success :rolleyes:
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
You mean you don't want to pay 65% of your income to nationalized programs? How selfish of you! :D
Technically we're not to far off from that already. Probably wouldn't be too big of a step financially.

It amazes me that the people who constantly complain about the inadequacies and complete incompetence of our government actually want them to run the health care system.
People always want the government to have all the power they don't want it to abuse, and then get all surprised when it abuses all the power it gets. They complain about the imperfections of the market, never understanding that the same people who make the market imperfect work in the government too. Only in the government they have guns, prisons, the force of law and regulation, and no accountability beyond a heavily managed election every few years, if that. It's a paradox, and to my mind it's all the educational system's fault. Government control there never should have been accepted or tolerated, as a government controlled school system will in the end do nothing but raise good automatons who will constantly cheer the state on despite it's glaring failures.
 
Dwight Schrute

Dwight Schrute

I am faster than 80% of all snakes
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
Technically we're not to far off from that already. Probably wouldn't be too big of a step financially.
Not according to my tax records.
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
Not according to my tax records.
You have a better accountant than I do. Plus your tax records don't include sales taxes paid, excise taxes paid, tariffs, sin taxes, etc. All of which consumers end up paying for in one way or another, plus the inflationary debt load that makes your salary's real value wilt like lettuce in a compost heap.
 
Sunder

Sunder

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
Technically we're not to far off from that already. Probably wouldn't be too big of a step financially.
I'm sure it feels like that - but you guys are sitting on a tax-free goldmine from how we see it on this side of the border. Not only do Americans have much less income tax deducted, but you usually only have 1 sales tax (we have 2), plus all the other hidden taxes on all manufactured and imported goods, plus your dollar is stronger (not as much as it used to though...).

But there is a reason why my friends who move to the States from Canada tell me that they almost immediately have double disposable income from what they were previously used to.

(There's also a reason why Canadians take trips to the States to buy as many items as they can, even with our poorer dollar, the gas and hotel bill to get there, and the duty we're charged at the border - it still works out cheaper than buying locally many times).

Of course, countries like Russia and the Ukraine look at Canada with envy with all our money. And the Japanese and Europeans can't believe how much free space we have to live in. It's all a matter of perspective. We usually want a few things other countries have, but don't want any of their negatives...

Canada is a great place to live if you don't want to work, or if you expect to be sick all the time, or if you have kids and don't want them shot, lol. We're not a great place to live if you want to make money though. That's why most of our smartest people move south...
 

Rufio

Member
Awards
0
Because the left wing liberal media keeps telling everyone its better. And they believe them.


Actually I've paid extremely little attention to any form of media, which is obviously by and large biased in favor of the country it operates in rather than other countries. I was judging more by what I've heard from most Canadians I've spoken to. What Sunder's claiming is a first for me.


As for your other post, I agree that there is a difference between theory and practice. However, what do you advocate -- that people's health should be determined by their bank accounts? Screw anyone who can't afford critical treatment? I think you need a good middle ground between Socialism and Social Darwinism, even if it's harder said than done.
 

Rufio

Member
Awards
0
Where is it written you have a right to live forever, or even as long as is humanly possible, especially on someone else's dime? No where.


This sounds an awful lot like support for Social Darwinism. When you're talking about some of the ridiculous ways people can get onto welfare programs or things like affirmative action, I agree with the Libertarians. Now when you say "Screw the poor and elderly; if they can't fend for themselves they don't deserve to live" I take exception. Saving the lives of people who can't save themselves is only human, IMO.
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
This sounds an awful lot like support for Social Darwinism.
That sounds like you didn't answer thw question. Where is it written you have a right to live forever, or even as long as is humanly possible, especially on someone else's dime?

When you're talking about some of the ridiculous ways people can get onto welfare programs or things like affirmative action, I agree with the Libertarians. Now when you say "Screw the poor and elderly; if they can't fend for themselves they don't deserve to live" I take exception. Saving the lives of people who can't save themselves is only human, IMO.
Doing it yourself is only human. Using the government to take resources from other people and using that to help people is a different story. I may well want to help someone in their old age, I shouldn't get to kick you out of your house so they have some place to live. And once more, where is it written you have a right to live forever, or even as long as is humanly possible, especially on someone else's dime?

Health care has to be provided, which means someone has to provide it to another person, and someone has to pay for it. The mechanicians of government can't hide or erase that fact. Universal health care is forcing everyone to pay each other's bills. And there is no way to stop freeloaders. The whole point of the program is free stuff for people. Such programs always and forever expand and expand until they collapse. There is no way to stop that.
 

Rufio

Member
Awards
0
That sounds like you didn't answer thw question. Where is it written you have a right to live forever, or even as long as is humanly possible, especially on someone else's dime?

That's a red herring. No one really has a "right" to anything. In civilized society we strive to ignore our natural greed and, for lack of a less religious phrasing, treat others as we'd like to be treated.


Doing it yourself is only human. Using the government to take resources from other people and using that to help people is a different story.

That description fits all forms of tax.


Living in a society means that you assist and are assisted by that society in a number of ways. Because of the structure of the society you live in, you have certain job opportunities that you wouldn't have on your own. Part of what is asked in return is taxes. If you lived on a remote island you wouldn't have to pay taxes, but you sure as hell couldn't make the kind of money as you do in an industrialized country. As a member of a society, you accept both what it gives to you and the fact that you'll have to give back to it.


Beyond that, helping people to survive is a much better cause than a lot of the crap that tax money is used for.





I may well want to help someone in their old age, I shouldn't get to kick you out of your house so they have some place to live.

That's really a gross misrepresentation of the actual issue. It's making sure that a portion of your income -- which is going to be taken away anyway -- and pushing for it to be used for a noble cause. Commandeering property isn't remotely on the same level.




And once more, where is it written you have a right to live forever, or even as long as is humanly possible, especially on someone else's dime?

Health care has to be provided, which means someone has to provide it to another person, and someone has to pay for it. The mechanicians of government can't hide or erase that fact. Universal health care is forcing everyone to pay each other's bills. And there is no way to stop freeloaders. The whole point of the program is free stuff for people. Such programs always and forever expand and expand until they collapse. There is no way to stop that.

So your point is that you want to do away with all taxes? Or that you want taxes to be collected on a voluntary basis? Or is it just that you feel this is a lesser issue than the other crap taxes are used for?
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
That's a red herring. No one really has a "right" to anything. In civilized society we strive to ignore our natural greed and, for lack of a less religious phrasing, treat others as we'd like to be treated.
So there is no such thing as a right to free speech, or a right to freedom of religion, or freedom of movement, or to be free from aggression? And when did greed come into things? Sounds like your ideology is coming out to me. That's a new one on me though, no such thing as rights.

That description fits all forms of tax.
Yes it does.

Living in a society means that you assist and are assisted by that society in a number of ways. Because of the structure of the society you live in, you have certain job opportunities that you wouldn't have on your own. Part of what is asked in return is taxes. If you lived on a remote island you wouldn't have to pay taxes, but you sure as hell couldn't make the kind of money as you do in an industrialized country. As a member of a society, you accept both what it gives to you and the fact that you'll have to give back to it.
This is sheer nonsense for a few billion reasons, not in the least because it equates society with income taxes. There are many forms of taxation, many ways to generate funds for government functions. Low tarriffs for example, which are not charged directly to people and only slightly hinder production in the long run. Sales taxes, which are paid at the point of sale and directly affect production and which are also hard to hide through account manipulations. None of which require much if any individual sacrifice of surplus productivity. Taxes are not synonymous with society or civilization. In fact taxes and other economic penalties levied upon people are the primary cause of wars throughout history. Taxes are the cause of the breakdown of civilization more often than its supporter.

Then, the idea of 'giving something back' to society is sheer nonsense. First off, no one asked to be here. They were brought here by the will of others. Second off the idea of 'giving something back' ignores the fact that taxes are taken, not given. If you don't pay you go to jail. If you resist being sent to jail you are shot. You're completely ignoring the distinction between voluntary and coerced exchange in this poorly thought out social contract nonsense.

Beyond that, helping people to survive is a much better cause than a lot of the crap that tax money is used for.
I wouldn't argue that but in the end it is irrelevant. When it comes to taxes it's not a matter of taking funds A and deciding to spend them on B or C. If both B and C are wanted, more taxes are levied and/or debt is created. The idea that you can create a government program and then restrain its spending is nonsense and proven incorrect through history. Spending goes up. Even on a gold standard, spending always has gone up, and it does so despite drops in supply and the quality of the service supposedly being delivered.

That's really a gross misrepresentation of the actual issue. It's making sure that a portion of your income -- which is going to be taken away anyway -- and pushing for it to be used for a noble cause. Commandeering property isn't remotely on the same level.
It is the exact same thing actually. Money is property. There is no difference between taking someone's house to give to someone else or emptying that man's wallet to give to someone else. money is merely a commodity traded for work. It is productivity made tangible through voluntary exchange. It is property as much as your house, car or shoes are property.

So your point is that you want to do away with all taxes? Or that you want taxes to be collected on a voluntary basis? Or is it just that you feel this is a lesser issue than the other crap taxes are used for?
My point is wealth transfer programs always grow and distort the market, and hinder the very mechanisms that will lead to people being able to afford the things they supposedly lack or can't afford now. My point is that taxation is and always will be theft no matter what the funds are used for, and so should be minimized as much as possible, and you don't accomplish that by nationalizing entire industries. My point is socialism, nationalization, whatever you want to call it, has well known failings that in this particular situation will be more obvious than a **** stain on a wedding dress if we try and nationalize our health care system.

Not in the least also my point is that the idea that you can arbitrarily make something free or affordable flies in the face of a few centuries worth of economics, supply and demand, stuff like that. Someone has to pay for it or the supply shrinks and the quality suffers. Now you may well not mind taking a few billion from the rich and funding a health care system to serve the poor. But those billions would have been spent elsewhere, and the people in those industries now see lower demand and have to curtail production and probably will be out of work. You can't just snap your fingers and magically nullify all the laws of economics to make something free. Someone will always pay for it, one way or another.
 

Rufio

Member
Awards
0
So there is no such thing as a right to free speech, or a right to freedom of religion, or freedom of movement, or to be free from aggression? And when did greed come into things? Sounds like your ideology is coming out to me. That's a new one on me though, no such thing as rights.


Those are all artificial concepts that society has created so that we can function. If you're pulling the "it's not in the Constitution" card, I could bring up the rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Note "life" in there. You do realize that insitutions to support freedom of religion and free speech have been funded by taxes as well, right?






This is sheer nonsense for a few billion reasons, not in the least because it equates society with income taxes.


I'm not going to get into a debate about the income tax issue. I'm talking about causes that taxes should support, not how they are gained. I've read so much crap about income tax from different sources that I don't know what to believe anymore. All I know is that chances are we're gonna have to pay.





Taxes are not synonymous with society or civilization. In fact taxes and other economic penalties levied upon people are the primary cause of wars throughout history. Taxes are the cause of the breakdown of civilization more often than its supporter.


A lot of government activities cause the breakdown of society, but taxes HAVE been around since the earliest civilizations. Nero even instituted a tax on p***.



Then, the idea of 'giving something back' to society is sheer nonsense. First off, no one asked to be here. They were brought here by the will of others. Second off the idea of 'giving something back' ignores the fact that taxes are taken, not given. If you don't pay you go to jail. If you resist being sent to jail you are shot. You're completely ignoring the distinction between voluntary and coerced exchange in this poorly thought out social contract nonsense.

You're ignoring the fact that you can leave the society and join an uninhabited island, thereby escaping taxes and the social contract. I understand the lack of favorable choices, but that's life. And I wasn't talking about people "coming" here, but going into occupations that they KNOW are going to get them taxed. You make an active choice.


I wouldn't argue that but in the end it is irrelevant. When it comes to taxes it's not a matter of taking funds A and deciding to spend them on B or C. If both B and C are wanted, more taxes are levied and/or debt is created. The idea that you can create a government program and then restrain its spending is nonsense and proven incorrect through history. Spending goes up. Even on a gold standard, spending always has gone up, and it does so despite drops in supply and the quality of the service supposedly being delivered.


Yes. My idea would be more along the lines of eliminating some of the more wasteful spending and having an "affirmative action" based on economic status rather than ethnicity.


It is the exact same thing actually. Money is property. There is no difference between taking someone's house to give to someone else or emptying that man's wallet to give to someone else. money is merely a commodity traded for work. It is productivity made tangible through voluntary exchange. It is property as much as your house, car or shoes are property.

Yes, but your parallel is false because of the difference in scope. For it to be accurate, the government would be taking away 90% of more of your income, to the point you couldn't make ends meet.

What we're discussing is along the lines of a (coerced) blood donation. Your example is more like ripping one person's liver out to give it to someone else.



That's not the best analogy, but the point is that your example involves an ENORMOUS difference in scope from the reality of the issue.






My point is wealth transfer programs always grow and distort the market, and hinder the very mechanisms that will lead to people being able to afford the things they supposedly lack or can't afford now. My point is that taxation is and always will be theft no matter what the funds are used for, and so should be minimized as much as possible, and you don't accomplish that by nationalizing entire industries. My point is socialism, nationalization, whatever you want to call it, has well known failings that in this particular situation will be more obvious than a **** stain on a wedding dress if we try and nationalize our health care system.

Not in the least also my point is that the idea that you can arbitrarily make something free or affordable flies in the face of a few centuries worth of economics, supply and demand, stuff like that. Someone has to pay for it or the supply shrinks and the quality suffers. Now you may well not mind taking a few billion from the rich and funding a health care system to serve the poor. But those billions would have been spent elsewhere, and the people in those industries now see lower demand and have to curtail production and probably will be out of work. You can't just snap your fingers and magically nullify all the laws of economics to make something free. Someone will always pay for it, one way or another.


Assuming that you're a proponent of privatizing everything (just the impression I get), have you considered the sheer cost of that? Beyond that, I ask again: are you saying "screw old people and poor people" or would you be in favor of a tradeoff between assisting them while cutting out other forms of wasteful spending? Would you support opportunities for assistance that come from sources other than income tax? What do you think of student grants?


It sounds like you advocate complete laissez faire conditions. I'm not going to enter into a debate over whether it works or not because it's been done to death and IMO the debate's been fairly inconclusive.
 

Similar threads


Top