Gun Control: Say What you Mean.

[Surtr]

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.

I never said you did. I said that you implied a system had to have mobs of rioting civilians in order for it to be faulty.

Look at all the ralies and demonstrations held all throughout Europe to abolish their soial wellfare systems which have been in place for years.
Oh the power of this movement can be felt all throughout Europe.

Healthcare is not useless spending.

I meant things like military and unnecessary government programs and departments.

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

That is my main problem with you people!

"YOU Socialist!"

"You commie!"

I never said that you were Socialist. Who's putting words in people's mouth now? You. You've been doing it the entire fucking time.

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

I wouldn't care if you stopped. I've grown weary of you putting words in my mouth and making ridiculous claims about how I'm a stereotypical redneck.

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.

I've never heard anyone say that. Not even critics of Helmut Kohl say that; they try to claim that the current crisis was caused by German reunification.

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

...do you even know what the hell you are talking about?

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.

All I was trying to imply is that you're doing the same useless things as us.

The babyboomers are noe in their 40s the

The baby boomers of the 1945-1964 era are not in their forties.

Since pointing out that thing by taking your system as example, are you defending it now??????

No. You made a rather interesting claim that your system was the best in the world because you had a waiting time a bit shorter than the US time.

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

I got that knowledge from YOUR own fucking politicians and YOUR own fucking people.

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

Likewise, I defended mine. I'm sorry you're too lazy to research opposing viewpoints unlike me.

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.

The current US healthcare system is NOT an example of a Libertarian healthcare system.
I think that's proof enough that you're not even fucking listening to me. You've used that same fallacious argument in your last 3-4 posts.

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

There exists no example of a Libertarian healthcare system.

So now you call me commie?

Well go fuck yourself asshole!!!!!

Are you fucking retarded?

I DIDN'T CALL YOU COMMUNIST. I was simply using the same faulty logic you used in your previous argument to demonstrate how ineffective it was.

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

You have a Socialist view on healthcare and that was a typical Socialist argument.

What happens to a man in a liberterian utopia who has no insurance who gets cancer?

I've already explained to you twice what would happen and you ignored me. And in a Libertarian system, cancer treatments would cost much less.
http://www.libertariannews.org/2012/05/1...-pet-care/
It may seem like a crazy idea at first, but it is really a sound system.

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

And it doesn't happen.

I dont have to research it, because I am not the one defending your position.

I went out and researched German politics and healthcare for the sake of this argument and you can't even return the favor?

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.

I wasn't comparing human life to a computer. I was displaying how your comparison of the Libertarian healthcare system and the US healthcare system was faulty. Do you have ANY reading comprehension at all?

A humans life and his health are to valuable to be dealt with as if they were a product!

So health care professionals and doctors should be held liable for people's health and defending their "right" to health?

Health care (or healthcare) is the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease, illness, injury, and other physical and mental impairments in humans. Health care is delivered by practitioners in medicine, chiropractic, dentistry, nursing, pharmacy, allied health, and other care providers. It refers to the work done in providing primary care, secondary care and tertiary care, as well as in public health.

It's a product that is bought and sold in a society. Your country provides it to it's people like it's a product. It's simply given for free because your government has this delusion that it is a right. Government exists to protect our preexisting rights, not to determine that a product or service given to the people is one of their rights. The so-called right to health care infringes on negative rights by imposing forceful obligations on taxpayers and health care providers. What about the right of the taxpayer to keep the fruit of his own labor? Should a doctor ultimately decide who he treats, or should he be forced to treat everyone whether he likes it or not?

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.

That's simply a blind insult.

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

Working for slightly less pay is not working for no pay.

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

"Sudden"
Like I said earlier, hundreds of billions are donated to various charities every year. There is no reason to believe that donations wouldn't be given to hospitals in a Libertarian system.

NO!

I am not the one defending it.

Wah, wah, wah. Stop acting like a child. I explained it to you earlier anyways.

holy slaveowners.

Some of them opposed slavery. Besides, enslavement of blacks was so commonplace at the time, it wasn't really thought of. What would be the reaction of congress and the people if slaves were freed? America's economy was bolstered quite a lot by slavery and America wasn't reading to give up slaveowning yet. I don't criticize MLK for being a Christian, Gandhi for having some warped political ideas based on his religion, or Bismarck for turning a blind eye to slavery practices in Germany.

And it is what comes closest to your ideal!

Didn't I already explain how this is a fallacy? Oh yeah, I did. This is another of the many recycled arguments you are using.

What is the diference between you and a fanatic marxist?

You're the one claiming I am fanatic, why don't you tell me how I am one?

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.

where in that publication does it say so?

You said that while criticizing the US healthcare system.

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

You sound like a theist right now.
"ohhh, you can't assure that people will donate to hospitals out of compassion and charity like they do now! I bet that all donations will just stop when Libertarian healthcare is put in place!"

"ohhh, you can't prove god exists! I bet when you die you'll just go straight to hell regardless of how much evidence you have!"

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]

I knew you would do that. I knew you would ignore a source for having a viewpoint that opposed your own. You're arrogant. I've provided evidence throughout this entire debate and you keep ignoring me and asking the same questions.

Why are you lying?

Cradle-to-grave insurance.

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

Once again assuming a hospital would have no profit....

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

Under your system. And the other people of your country have to pay it for them. How is healthcare a right when it infringes on other people?

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.

No, that's because healthcare providers are businesses who act in their own interests. One major problem with the American system now is that is puts way more emphasis on treatment than prevention.

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

Sorry, forgot to finish that.

What trouble? Privatized healthcare is actually becoming more popular, especially among the rich in Germany.

Might be a wrong sterotyp

It is.

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.

Oh, I have. You've just ignored me.

Hospitals certainly aren't making enough profits.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germ...99537.html

Primary care physicians in the United States make $186,000 per year on average versus $131,000 in Germany.

German doctors are being paid WAY less than doctors in other countries. Bad as our healthcare system is, German doctors love to come here to get higher wages. You want to raise those wages? Where does the money come from? What will you do, tax your citizens more? Looks like some of the "greedy, money loving crooks" who are all over America according to you are also in your hospitals!

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

So was yours talking about how you voted.

Your concept is based on the dreamish assertion that some people might be charitable.

It's not based on charity. This is why I told you to research Libertarian healthcare, because you AREN'T LISTENING TO ME.

And for the past 140 years social healthcare has concquerd all the obstecals.

Do you know how many times your healthcare system has been changed since it was implemented? Bismarck basically put it in place to make the new German Empire happy. You make the same mistake of ignoring preventative medicines and emphasizing treatments. Doctors are leaving your country. Costs are increasing. That means taxes raise. The public sector swells. It's not good, and I've said that before.

prove that for healthcare.

Look at America right now. So many are uninsured. Privatization of healthcare is a good idea but it cannot work if government regulations have a stranglehold on it that raises costs and lowers availability.

Now you have turned into a prophet.

So I guess Sweden doesn't count? What do you have against Sweden?

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

That's rather arrogant, don't you think? Assuming that I think that way? I would rather have socialized medicine than the piece of shit system in this country.

[BGChuckLee]

Libertarians are about getting rid of both kinds of bail outs, for corporate welfare and general welfare- we think those who are inadequate and can not cut it, should not be supported with stolen money, since it will make them less competitive. So you can not really claim we are for the rich. We think more people should lose their job, and the competent, strong, healthy, smart should flourish economically.

We have many high energy youth, coming out of schools, not able to get a job- and would gladly work in a factory for less than minimum wage, if they want to work, let them work- the government should get out of the way and let the nature of economics take it's course.

Not to mention other areas like healthcare; health is best handled in the private industry, since you will have companies competing to give you a cheaper, higher quality service. For example, across the board in public dominated healthcare- costs have gone up. Yet in laser eye surgery, which is largely privatised costs have significantly gone down due to the competitiveness in the market, and quality has significantly gone up.

With public healthcare and programs- there is no competition or drive for profit, hence why it's slacking behind privatised practices, with leaner and meaner minds working to make something the market likes, rather than just getting from 9 to 5 quickly as possible. You will understand this if you have ever tried to start your own company.

[DeistPaladin]

In a nutshell, Chuckie, you want to go back to the Gilded Age.

America, Britain and other Western Nations have tried that. It's not pretty. I don't want to go back to it.

[Brian37]

Libertarians are about getting rid of both kinds of bail outs, for corporate welfare and general welfare- we think those who are inadequate and can not cut it, should not be supported with stolen money, since it will make them less competitive. So you can not really claim we are for the rich. We think more people should lose their job, and the competent, strong, healthy, smart should flourish economically.

We have many high energy youth, coming out of schools, not able to get a job- and would gladly work in a factory for less than minimum wage, if they want to work, let them work- the government should get out of the way and let the nature of economics take it's course.

Not to mention other areas like healthcare; health is best handled in the private industry, since you will have companies competing to give you a cheaper, higher quality service. For example, across the board in public dominated healthcare- costs have gone up. Yet in laser eye surgery, which is largely privatised costs have significantly gone down due to the competitiveness in the market, and quality has significantly gone up.

With public healthcare and programs- there is no competition or drive for profit, hence why it's slacking behind privatised practices, with leaner and meaner minds working to make something the market likes, rather than just getting from 9 to 5 quickly as possible. You will understand this if you have ever tried to start your own company.

Everything sounds nice on paper in the form of simple one word labels.

But in our current climate what you and other Libertarians cannot work. It would require less selfishness and more direct dealing with workers. You are great at saying "cut out the middle man" but don't want to set the conditions to make that work.

Less of a government nipple for anyone requires better pay, cheaper education, lower pay gap. Right now libertarians are simply republicans on steroids and would simply be gas on the fire.

Nick Hanour is a billionaire. He says that the "job creators" are not people like him. That is not a poor person saying that, but a billionaire. He says the only thing that causes him, or any business owner to hire one more person, is demand. The people that create the bulk of demand in western markets are the workers, not the uber rich. The less money the workers have in their pocket the less demand there is. Business owers sell society and themselves short thinking like you.

I work with middle class and working poor every single day. I know that they don't want any government help, but take it because simple evolution will drive them to do that. So if you want that "less government" which sounds nice, I would suggest you and the uber rich follow the advice of their fellow billionaire Nick Hanour.

[downbeatplumb]

Rich people do not create wealth for anyone else. They are rich because they keep hold of the money.

[Darkstar]

Rich people do not create wealth for anyone else. They are rich because they keep hold of the money.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-13...-says.html

Give the wealthiest Americans a tax cut and history suggests they will save the money rather than spend it.

Tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 under President George W. Bush were followed by increases in the saving rate among the rich, according to data from Moody’s Analytics Inc. When taxes were raised under Bill Clinton, the saving rate fell.

The findings may weaken arguments by Republicans and some Democrats in Congress who say allowing the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to lapse will prompt them to reduce their spending, harming the economy.

[TaraJo]

Rich people do not create wealth for anyone else. They are rich because they keep hold of the money.

And because when they must spend money, they're experts at finding ways to cut corners. Why do you think most of our manufacturing is moving to China? Why are there so many call centers in India? Executives an still bring home multi billion dollar pay checks while paying their work force almost nothing. Stop calling them 'job creators' and start calling them 'third world job creators' if you want to be honest about it.

[The Grand Nudger]

The other side of the coin is protectionism, which - to be fair- has been shown to be equally as destructive (if destructive is the word, along every metric we might criticize outsourcing for).

So the question is this. If you cant compete on price (and we can't) what do you compete on? Is the area you've identified for competition important to the product you hope to offer (if not, abandon the product - if so, focus on that)?

I suppose that's what's behind the whole "some jobs arent coming back" mindset.