Gun Control: Say What you Mean.

[Surtr]

Of course I can claim that we have our financial system under control.
People pay taxes, the banks didnt go broke and people arent burning greek flags in the streets.

This is the second time you've said that a system needs rioting mobs of people in order for it to be faulty.

Unlike other nations, we dont have silly redneck halfwits and liberterian "I KNOWS HOW THE WORLD WORKS AND HOW TO BE IT`S FÜHRER" screamer

I never claimed to fully know how the world works. I did, however, use information from international sources.

who opose tax increase on rich people during a time of financial risk.

Raising income tax on the rich does not help anything. Maryland tried it and it ended up losing 257 million instead of gaining the projected 106 million. One of the reasons Libertarians don't like the income tax.

but ours not so fast.

It's losing ground just as fast as many others.

Funny how when running out of arguments on healthcare you try to debate the overall financial situation.

You started that when you said:

And again, we have our financial household under very good control right noww.

Pov erty has been here since before the crisis because germany went through a financial crisis 20 years ago.

REALLY? I thought your country would have absolutely no poverty!

The bailouts are currently not working because the greeks are to incompetent to change their corrupted rotten state.

Of your own economy.

Here you go, the only relevant part of the first link. The baby boomers will cost alot.

(Gee, what happened to the others?)
And people will stop getting older after that, right?
You missed this, by the way:

Because of the universal nature of Germany’s health insurance system, greater demand exists for health care professionals, resulting in longer average waiting periods for primary care physicians than in the United States.

And? Our state is aware of that challenge

And your solutions have failed.

Privatise the healthcare system and then letting the pentioneers rott????

The Libertarian solution greatly lowers the cost of healthcare and makes it easier for pharmaceutical drugs to reach the public. It also allows people to choose on whether or not they want healthcare or not (Yes, there are people who don't want healthcare. Yes, there are many more than you think. Yes, I don't think they should be forced to get it if they don't want to.)

Wow! Privatisation sounds so wonderfull!

You are once again assuming that I support the current system.

And guess why I dont trust people who have dumped the world economy and other fraudelent behavior

....you blame the American public?

Health is not a product, like some breakfest cerial!!!

I can see what I'm about to say will anger you.

Healthcare is NOT a human right. Healthcare is a good.

When we claim to have a right to something we mean that we have dominion over that something and that others are obligated to respect this dominion. The Declaration of Independence reflects this natural rights tradition in America: we are all created free and independent, we have certain inherent natural rights that precede the State and therefore cannot be granted nor taken away by the State, among those rights we have life, liberty, and the means of possessing private property to pursue and obtain happiness and safety.

When person A claims that he owns this watch, person B’s obligation is to recognize this watch as A’s property. B is therefore precluded from taking it from A unless (1) A sell’s it to B, (2) A gifts it to B, (3) A lends it to B temporarily. If B steals it from A, B may enjoy it, but B does not have a right over it because in stealing B violated A’s dominion to the watch, therefore A has the right to demand its return, if necessary use violence against B to claim it back, and in addition, exact a punishment against B.

When person A claims that he has a right to his life, person B’s obligation is to recognize A’s body and refrain from harming it. A’s right to life does not demand action on the part of B. It demands restraint. If A is drowning, A’s right to life does not force B to save A from death. But A’s right to life does force B to not drown A.

Strictly speaking, then, rights place an obligation on others to not act in a way that invades that which is claimed by those rights. A’s right to the watch places an obligation on B to not take away the watch unless conditions 1, 2 or 3 above are met. A’s right to life places an obligation on B to not take A’s life. Rights do not demand action from others to sustain that which is claimed by those rights. A’s right to the watch or to his life does not demand that B support A’s ability to enjoy the watch or his life, for example by requiring that B repair the watch if it were broken or requiring that B financially support A’s lifestyle. Rights demand recognition, respect and restraint on the part of others. Rights do not demand action.

It is in this strict negative sense of the definition of rights that we must evaluate whether or not health is a human right. If we state that A has a right to health, this right cannot place an obligation on B to act in any way other than to not act, that is, to recognize A’s right, to respect A’s right and to restrain from causing A to become unhealthy.

When supporters of the central coordination of the provision of healthcare by the state say that healthcare is a human right they mean that this right ought to place an obligation on everyone not just to refrain from causing harm, but to act in such as way as to support everyone else’s health needs and to force everyone to relinquish part of their income or wealth to the state so that the state may finance or provide health services to someone else, presumably someone in need.

But we have already concluded that rights cannot place a positive obligation on others to act, but only a constraint or a negative obligation to recognize, respect and restrain from causing harm to others; therefore, a right to healthcare cannot exist other than in a negative rights sense. The state’s claim that a positive right to health exists is only justified by the state’s use of violence or threat to use violence to force its subjects to comply with its demand that someone’s health needs be met. Through the state’s use of violence those who receive state sponsored health services may enjoy the fruit of the state’s expropriation, but in no way can these recipients claim they have a right to the state’s largesse. They can enjoy it but they do not have a right over it. Neither can the state argue that it is justified by the healthcare rights of those in need to expropriate the income or wealth of others. Once again, the state can enjoy that privilege due to its threat or actual use of violence, but it cannot have a right to do so.

Government interventions and market distortions are at the root of lack of access to health care in the United States today. Advocates of government-run medicine may have less than the best intentions in mind, and may have some of the very worst, most vicious, most evil ideas at heart. The first country to promote "cradle-to-grave" healthcare was none other than the Soviet Union.

Let's see what Romney's socialization of medicare did in Massachusetts (Maybe just because Romney was a twat):
RomneyCare killed more than 18,000 jobs in MA in 2010.
Romney's health care law reduced personal income by hundreds of dollars for individual workers and families.
Under RomneyCare, private health insurance costs have risen by $4.311 billion in Massachusetts.
Access to primary care physicians is becoming more restricted, as wait times continue to increase.
Most primary care practices are closed to new patients.

A baby boom generation would also wreck a privatised healthcare system, unless it cuts out it`s customers.

Really? I don't have to pay for their insurance and they can afford it. Where does it go sour?