Gun Control: Say What you Mean.

[Something completely different]

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

Would you claim that a system in which rioting mobs roam through the streets, ministers are physicaly attacked, the police is so corrupt that it even scares refugees from syria to go there and other....

Is doing fine????

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

Indeed, most people dont post sources and just post their naivish silly daydreams or simply declare things they cant argue against as irrelevant.
So I do really appreciate that.

But I can say that you have interpreted the sources wrong.

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.

I was not talking about a general rise for all times I was talking about the crisis in specific. In times of crisis one shouldnt be suprised if income tax rise.
One cannot solve a dept problem by lowering the taxes, that is like extinguishing a fire with a flamethrower.

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

It is merely confronted with the babyboom generation, otherwise it would have collapsed earlyer.

Again: Social healthcare has been in Germany for more than 140 years

If social healthcare was a system which for some mysterious reasons which only the chosen liberterians can understand is destined to collapse it would have collapsed earlyer.

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

I never stated that!

But poverty is defined differently. We have a low number on homeless people, and our unemployment rate is pritty low in average (5%).
The main problem confronting us is the east, which came to us in the 90s, mainly the damaged iferstructure, the enormous polution, and the failed industry is costing alot.

But guess what, not a single so wonderfull and allcaring corporation set to the task of rebuilding a inferstructure and clearing east germany from it`s polution, that task was left to the taxpayer.
Whilest vulture financial gamblers from all sorts of trading organisations bought up east german buisness, loaded it with dept, to then sell it off.
wohuuuu Mit Romney style.
Helmut Kohls handeling of the 90s finacial crisis was a catastrophy and one prime example of why liberterians should never be involved in the process of solving a financial crisis.

Because they dont understand economics, only how to make money.

Of your own economy.

What do you mean? Are you equating the German economy to the greek economy?

Even a 15 year old would know that that is nonsence.

(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.

nope but the birthpyramid will reach a stabil point once again, and therefor younger generations will be capable to pay the older generations healthcare.

And by the way, you also missed something, which I also pointed out and you probably chose to ignore, tztztz are we a bit disingenious:

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. Remarkably, waiting periods for specialized care are not significantly longer.

You cannot beat a system, when it is run with german efficiancy.

And your solutions have failed.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

The problem hasn`t even kicked in jet because the babyboomers arent in pention age jet!!!!

Therefor a solution hasn`t jet even been found!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is one of the main talking points of this years German election!!!!!!!!!

Your assertions have failed you. Or at least I hope so, because I dont think that your lying.

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.)

Show me the specifics and where it is implemented.

And most importently:

Where has privat healthcare worked for more than 140 years?

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

It is closesed to your ideal.

and it`s shit.

....you blame the American public?

And now you are disingeniously putting words in my mouth.

Nope not the american public, but the mindset which thinks that a basic human need can be sold as product and access to it prevented if the person in need cannot afford it.

Because that is what it essentialy is, and you cannot deny it.

Watching people die.

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

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

Nope Healt is a human right, a basic need, a fundermental framework for a functioning sociaty.

And therefor to valuable to be handed over to people who plaied with peoples savings as if they were in a casino.

If health would be a good, one could argue that some couldnt afford it, which would lead to social darwinism.

I am not just angered by the thought of you people taking this importent sector of sociaty over, I am angered at the arrogants with which you refuse to see how the system has worked good so far and how yours has failed!!!!!!

And then you people whine arround

"But the american modle isnt real liberterian"

Well I have heared enought communist dipshits argue that:

"Stalin wasn`t a real communist"

Face it boy!!! If something associated with your idiology is seen as bad, it doesnt simply lose that association by dishonestly and patheticaly calling it "unreal".

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.

Yes!!! And I have the right to a healthy life!!! And I have the right to hope that the person who would simply watch me die because I couldnt pay him, will be assraped in jail by a guy who has a tear tattood to his left cheek and a scar arround his throat, for the rest of his greedy disgusting existance!

And dont you come with the "OHHH but there will be charity" argument.

Tell that the greeks where the wealthiest are still hidding their money in swizerland and wher the only charitable thing did by them

WAS A FUCKING ROSEGARDEN BUILT IN A FUCKING PARK!!!!

I am shure that will help the needy. What awsome charety.

Social healthcare gives numbers statistics and a plan.

Whilest yours relies on a shady prediction! You should finaly get used to replacing the word "will be" with "could be"
because that`s what it is!!!

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.

I live under the black, red and gold banner under the constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany, the releations to your nation might be good, but when it comes to our healthcare I dont give a toss about your constitution.

And by the way, do you know what our founding documents were?

The Holy Roman Empire of German Nationhood.
And the founding documents guaranteed that empire a unquestionable right to be the supreme ruler of Europe.

Now that turned out to be a curse for us.

So why do people in the US always constantly point to that 200 year old piece of paper when trying to fix modern problems?
I never understood that, dont you see that modern problems demand modern solutions?

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.

If person A watches me die of cancer because I cant pay person A for saving me.

Person A is an imoral cunt.

If person A gives the system as excuse because the system requires him to let that person die due to the lack of paiment.

The people defending that system are inmoral cunts.

It is that simple.

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 persons (plural) alphabet decide that their comunitie has a basic need which should be covered to ensure the entire comunities efficiancy, this comunity can chose tho pull together to assure everyones basic need in that category is fullfilled.

Throw arround as much philosophy as you like.

Utilitarism, Kant whatever....

The fact remains, Social healthcare has worked in Germany for more than 140 years.
Privatised healthcare in the US, is shit.

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.

The supporters????????

here is a suporter of the right to health:

http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publicati...heet31.pdf

yes your representatives signed that.

And here is the law where I live:

http://www.buzer.de/gesetz/2497/l.htm

Which guarantees every German citizen and every non German citizen within Germany the unlimited and unconditional access to the healthcare, medication and medical assistance needed to assure their health, disobaing this law is considered a failure to assist a person in danger and therefor serverly punishable.
This is not done because of a dream of socialist utopia (we have some of the lowest market regulations in Europe) but to assure the health of the communities.

And to simply hope that some rich person might be noble enought to help, might be a nice daydream.

But it doesnt assure anything.

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.

I would like to see the source of this text.

jerkingofftotheprophetofianrand.com ?

AND THE SOVIET UNION IS EVERYWHERE IN EUROPE!!!!

I wish there was a godwins law for people who scream commie at everything bad.

For the first time:

The Federal Republic of Germany, is not a communist dictatorship.

Again:

Social healthcare has worked in Germany for 140 years

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.

I dont give a fuck about romneys plan to invade mars.

I care about my healthcare and that it works.

Just like the one in France, Austria, Netherlands, Belgium, Norway and on and on and on.

And if something works one does not abolish it because of some dentists sons daydream utopia.

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

Just arround the corner where I live there was a butchery, the butcher had a apprentice, the aprentice disgarded animal bones each afternoon by throwing them into a giant sharp bladed bone grinding monster of a machine.

One day he slipped and fell into it.

The grinder grinded his legs to a almoust unsaveable state.

But due to the social healthcare system, the operation to save his legs and for his absolutly full recovery could be payed.

3 million euros!!!!!!

A private insurer would have eighter bankrupted the butchers buisness or amputated his legs, and I am not just saying that, that is what the head of the hospital said in an interview.

Plus he pointed out, that the recent trouble which confront german privat insurance companies do not suprise him, because the cost of medical operations, and even the smalest kind of medical attention is so huge that a private healthcare system can only work through saving cash by putting the patients at risk.

And I take the word of a hospital director over the word of a dentists son.

But why am I arguing with you anyway!!!!

You will never change your opinion.

You see, I am a pragmatists, I have voted for various parties, and I do not have one fixated political affiliation.
I believe that a minimum wage is bad, I believe in federalist decentralisation, I believe in social healthcare.
In things from various different fractions. I am a pragmatist, I support what works!! And not what sounds nice.

You hang on you idiology, denying it`s failure where it exists and posing where it works, without ever considering that the right thing might not be the thing that sounds nice, but the thing that works.