Gun Control: Say What you Mean.

[Something completely different]

Never said anything like that.

And I never said that it was nececery to have marauding mobs in the streets to be a failed sociaty.

So quit putting words into peoples mouths.

But we can by cutting billions and billions in useless spending and reforming the tax system. That and a few others things put us in the position to pay off the debt without borrowing more than we pay back.

Healthcare is not useless spending.

Will people stop getting older?

Answered in previous post.

Why ask the same question twice?

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.

Please. We aren't the only ones. Besides, my main qualm with socialism isn't its healthcare system.

DO NOT CALL ME SOCIALIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That is my main problem with you people!

"YOU Socialist!"

"You commie!"

Only because I like social healthcare BECAUSE IT WORKS this doesnt mean that I am a commie.
So quit calling me and others who support a a single bit of social contract that.

That categorisational way of political thinging is for demagogs and if you cannot resist to do it, I will no longer respond.

Didn't you say earlier that the price of unification was worth it?

The unificiation ment taking east german debt, and it was worth it.
But the main cause for the financial crisis of the 90s was Helut Kohls idiotic economic policies with the east, privatising buisness and giving it to the vultures that his market deregulations have produced.

That claim is complete bullshit and you know it. Do you honestly think Ludwig von Mises knew nothing about economics?

Yeah it was bullshit.

Let`s just say the guys who vote for you people.

The kind of people who launder the mobs money, hide cash in swizerland and pay millions of dollars to members of parlament to vote on certain legislation.

What a nice electorate.

I was talking about you bailing out your own economy.

We didn`t bail out our car industry, we came to other and in the end more productive solutions.

We bailed out our banks, who thanked us by investing into more rotten shit.

Because they could. Whcih should be forbidden.

And not whiped away with the annoying theory that the magical market will clean itself.

You're right- sort of.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germ...73635.html

The babyboomers are noe in their 40s the, people go into retirement in Germany in their 60s, it will be the kids of my generation and of the generation after me which count.

And by the way, the article refers to a failed conservative attempt to increase the birth rate.

I believe increasing the birth rate will not solve the problem.

I read that article when it came out in it`s german original.

So there isn't a significantly increased waiting period for specialized care in a country that has a higher percentage of specialists? Must be the best in the world.

Because most specialists are located in cities and urban eras, we have a problem here with doctors refusing to work in nonurban ereas, resulting in long waitinglist for patients from the countryside.

Problems which come up when the question which healthcare system to have is solved and one can go over to handle administrative problems.

And it is your healthcare system in the US which left people to rott.
Since pointing out that thing by taking your system as example, are you defending it now??????

Solutions have been proposed (not failed yet, sorry) and everybody in your country and ours knows they won't work.

HA!!!

What givies you the "knowlege" which some of the best german sociologists lack?

Your arrogants, pff astaunding, I will wait to actualy read through the proposals during the election before making a judgment based on a unquestionable belief in a political daydream.

Why can't you do that yourself?

Are you serious?!

I defend social healthcare and have given examples of nations where it exists and defended these.

You defend the liberterian version and dont even acknowlege the only existing example in the western world as "real" because it reeks of misadministration and of how horrific it is.

Now show me that wonderfull example of a perfect working privatised healthcare system?

Communism is pretty close to your system, and it's shit. See how bad that argument is?

So now you call me commie?

Well go fuck yourself asshole!!!!!

Communism is the nationalisation off all buisness and inferstructure.
Social healthcare nationalises healthcare and leaves the option for some
to have privat insurance, which is a system I defend.

So if you call me something, back it up, or fuck off!!!!

No, I'm not. You said something that made your point unclear.

Then point out where I was unclear and I will take the time to make things more clear.

This is such a typical Socialist argument, and it's an obvious argumentum ad misericordiam. I've done my research on socialist healthcare and you need to do yours on libertarian healthcare.

I warned you about calling me things which you cannot back up.

Well why dont you explain to me yourself.
What happens to a man in a liberterian utopia who has no insurance who gets cancer?

Do the fairies heal him?!?!?!

You didn`t bring anything to disprove my point and just throw arround with the word socialist to give you the comfort of calling names.

That doesn't even happen under healthcare systems that aren't libertarian.

Letting someone die because he didn`t have the nececery means to survive is social darwinism.

Prove that your system works otherwise.

I am convinced by facts, not by theories.
So bring me the facts, the structure models which show how it would work and provide care for everyone.
I dont have to research it, because I am not the one defending your position.

How many times do I have to fucking hammer it through your skull? That is an incomplete comparison. Let's get a scenario where we can use your argument. I'm skilled in technology and I can build computers running Windows 7 with a default efficient antivirus system. A man who has a Windows 7 PC complains to me that his PC has viruses and that because he couldn't fix the problems or prevent them it's the fault of his computer's maker. Not only that, but because I use Windows 7, my computers are terrible and should not even be tried.

That's faulty logic, isn't it? It is in this scenario and it is when you use it.

LOL incomplet comparison? equating a human life to a computer as if it were some product!

I hope you recognise how fucking outright sick that is.

A humans life and his health are to valuable to be dealt with as if they were a product!
And for that matter, I dont even bother to have to pay more taxes to help a system which provides everyone with care.
Rather than to live in a sociaty which sees ones life as a product and which would be ready to let someone die based on that persons previous decision.

So complete economic failure and greedy rich people providing no charity equates to doctors providing no charity in a country where there is not a complete economic failure?

Oh so you think doctors will be generous enought to work for no pay?

Or rather believe? This is still no assurance that your system will work.

And certainty that healthcare is provided is required for your system to be acceptable.

To rely on a promisse of sudden human charety is a gamble not worth taking.

Once again: Please research Libertarian healthcare.

NO!

I am not the one defending it.

You're assuming it can't be changed.

Oh I know it can be changed, and it is being changed.

But still everyone refers to the founding fathers as if they were holy.

holy slaveowners.

You're assuming that socialism is the only system that provides health. The Libertarian system, like I said earlier, provides affordable, accessible healthcare with charity by doctors to those who cannot afford anything at all.

Nope I am assuming that it is the only system which provides health to everyone unconditionaly

show me that I am wrong if I am.

I agree!

And it is what comes closest to your ideal!

So why not simply accept that whilest your idiology is good in the management of small buisness and the real economy in general, it doesnt qualify to provide basic social inferstructure?

What is the diference between you and a fanatic marxist?

Utopias are for fools, there is no idology which could ever provide a completly perfect sociaty, only a indefinet number of new coming problems which have to be solved with the best possible solution.

According to you my representatives don't think health is a human right. Make up your mind.

where in that publication does it say so?

(we have some of the lowest market regulations in Europe) but to assure the health of the communities.

Good on you then.

Who thinks that? Actually, Libertarians never rely on the charity of anyone but doctors, but we know that billions and billions in charity from people of all income levels come in ever year.
But it doesnt assure anything.

And what makes you think that all these "billions" could be invested in health care.

and what makes you think that doctors will work for free and be charitable?
what makes you think that this would logisticaly work?

It is a daydream relying on someones good will. A risk not worth taking when talking about something as essential to sociaty as health.

no blueprint, actual logistical concepts nothing.

No plan how this could ever work in reality. Only one big utopian wish.

http://www.humblelibertarian.com/2011/11...-with.html
Number 24.

Oh not just any liberterian but "the humble" one.

[sarcasm]

I am certain that they have a completly unbiased view on political matters.

[/end of sarcasm]

Ayn Rand?

Not very popular in europe where people actualy care for other people and know that she only regurgatated things which where said before.

Just informing you where that system came from.

Social healthcare is a scandinavian invention and not one from the soviet
union.
Hell, Germany had social healthcare before the soviet union even existed.

Why are you lying?

If he had affordable insurance than the same would have happened. That is what happens to an insured person in our country. And I know this because I've heard about it happening and I know people who have had it happen to them.

And what about those who cannot afford it?

And what when the company has to actualy pay off for it`s customers when they go into retirement?

Go to a hospital and ask arround how much things cost?

A chemo therapy can cost as much as a new mercedes.

Health is a expensive thing, which is one of the reasons why in the privat owned healthcare system in the US so many people are denied medication and treatment by their insurers.

What trouble? Rich people are going

Can you be a bit more specific, why post such short unclear punchlines?

Who?

Might be a wrong sterotyp, all german liberterians I met were rich parents kids who never had a job which required the cleaning of toilets or doing any actual work at all - which frankly would do them good.

How do you think I feel? You misquote me, you change the subject, and you bring up unrelated subjects.

Because you didnt provide a blueprint for your system neighter did you acknowlege that the US had your system and you ignore the fact that:

Social healthcare has worked here in Germany for more than 140 years, that is before the Soviet union has even existed, in a conservative Germany ruled by a monarchy, if social healthcare was destined to fail it would have happened earlier.

I used to be a democrat until I realized that nothing new was going on and that the two parties were so similar that the system had broken. I realized it was time for a change.

A nice statement.

Nice and all good phrased and all, but in essence void of all meaning.

Providing healthcare to everyone sounds nice, but does not work.

Nope, it is a goal. To provide healthcare to everyone not depending on their background, income, social status and ethnicity.
And to achieve that goal one has to deliver concepts.
Our concept has worked for 140 year.
Your concept is based on the dreamish assertion that some people might be charitable.

It's not a magic fix-it-all to all healthcare problems.

To believe that there is a solution to all problems, a system which is perfect, or a destined goal of social greatnes, is maninds greates falacy.

There is no social perfection, only good and bad solutions to problem, which when solved will be replaced by other problems.
And for the past 140 years social healthcare has concquerd all the obstecals.

Increased government involvement means increased prices.

prove that for healthcare.

And providing the healthcare for free does not make costs dissipate.

Never statet that.

But letting people die, is something not worth doing as a sociaty, no matter the price.

The public sector swells. Taxes have to be raised. Then wages of government employees have to be lowered. Hospitals are less profitable. It's just a gradual failure, like it has been in Sweden.

Now you have turned into a prophet.


"Everything shall be bad, except for us and our glorious solutions!"