Gun Control: Say What you Mean.

[DeistPaladin]

If you express our military as a percentage of the GDP, it's not as outrageous as people think.

Regardless, my point is that we can cut our defense budget in half and still outspend China and Russia combined by a comfortable margin, regardless of relative GDP.

Also it's a bit of a logical fallacy yourself to say that as long as there is military waste, other waste is okay.

Not quite. I'm in favor of cutting waste wherever you find it. I'm just disgusted that "cutting spending" to Republicans only means "cutting progressive programs, never their favorite budget items like defense or the war on drugs".

[TaraJo]

I totally agree with your first point. The military is the most wasteful thing in the government, and the most useless at the same time. However the post I was replying actually specifically said that no cuts should be made to school budgets or the (always very general) 'social safety net' because we have a bloated military budget.

That statement is a red herring. It's nonsensical, imagine if our school budgets were ten times what they are, does the statement still stand? The military's budget has nothing at all to do with the validity of school budgets or medicare or anything.

I can understand the sentiment behind that statement, though. When it comes time to cut spending, we always look at the social safety net and education and other programs like that. They've been getting cut for years and nobody has seriously thought of cutting military. Why should all those programs continue to feel the sting of spending cuts but the military remains unscathed?

I'll use a metaphor here: Say you have two kids and you're planning on spending $200 each on Christmas presents. Then you have an unexpected bill that comes up and eats into the Christmas present budget. Are you going to take the entirity of the bill out of just one kid's Christmas budget? And if you do take the entire budget cut from one kid's Christmas, how do you think that kid is going to feel about it?

[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?

[Autumnlicious]

Yes, yes. It all makes sense -- better health for your citizens through allowing everyone to minimal access to medical care isn't free.

I've heard water is wet.

Also, how terrible for you that wait times have increased by adding everyone into the pool of getting medical care, as opposed to members of an income range.

Did you also know that adding more objects to a pool... gasp... increases the total object count in the pool! As I said -- it must be terrible covering for your sick fellows and paying for it.

If you never drove, would you be upset about your money going to maintain roads?

I wonder...

[Ryantology]

Yes, yes. It all makes sense -- better health for your citizens through allowing everyone to minimal access to medical care isn't free.

I've heard water is wet.

Also, how terrible for you that wait times have increased by adding everyone into the pool of getting medical care, as opposed to members of an income range.

Did you also know that adding more objects to a pool... gasp... increases the total object count in the pool! As I said -- it must be terrible covering for your sick fellows and paying for it.

If you never drove, would you be upset about your money going to maintain roads?

I wonder...

I have mine, so fuck you!

[Surtr]

Yes, yes. It all makes sense -- better access to affordable healthcare with less waiting times and more access to life-saving drugs for your citizens.

as opposed to members of an income range.

Care to elaborate?

it must be terrible covering for your sick fellows and paying for it.

Are you trying to say that Libertarians have no compassion? If a sick or injured homeless man walks into a hospital, do you seriously think he would be turned away?

If you never drove, would you be upset about your money going to maintain roads?

How do taxes taken from me and used by the city/state to maintain roads equate to taxes added on to pay for the healthcare of others?

[BGChuckLee]

Almost all of your taxes go to paying off the debt people. Forget roads and front-line services.

[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.

[Surtr]

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????

Never said anything like that.

One cannot solve a dept problem by lowering the taxes, that is like extinguishing a fire with a flamethrower.

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.

It is merely confronted with the babyboom generation

Will people stop getting older?

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

I was talking about you bailing out your own economy.

nope but the birthpyramid will reach a stabil point once again

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

Germany pumps billions of euros into efforts to increase the number of babies born in the country each year. A new report, however, says this has done little to ease the difficulty many Germans have in reconciling career and family. Plus, many no longer consider children a central part of life.

Each year, the German government spends billions of euros in an effort to stop the country's ticking demographic time bomb. By 2050, it is estimated that only 70 million people will be living in the country, down from today's roughly 82 million. Without a major change in the birthrate or a mass influx of up to 24 million new immigrants, the population could soon begin shrinking, according to United Nations forecasts.

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

(hehehehe)
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.

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

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

Show me the specifics and where it is implemented.

Why can't you do that yourself?

It is closesed to your ideal.

and it`s shit.

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

And now you are disingeniously putting words in my mouth.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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".

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.

awsome charety.

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?

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!!!

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

Once again: Please research Libertarian healthcare.

So why do people in the US always constantly point to that 200 year old piece of paper when trying to fix modern problems?

You're assuming it can't be changed.

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.

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.

Privatised healthcare in the US, is shit.

I agree!

here is a suporter of the right to health:

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

yes your representatives signed that.

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

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

Good on you then.

rich person might be noble enought to help

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.

I would like to see the source of this text.

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

ianrand

Ayn Rand?

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

Just informing you where that system came from.

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

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.

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.

trouble which confront german privat insurance companies do not suprise him

What trouble? Rich people are going

dentists son.

Who?

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

You will never change your opinion.

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

You see, I am a pragmatists, I have voted for various parties, and I do not have one fixated political affiliation.

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.

the thing that sounds nice, but the thing that works.

Providing healthcare to everyone sounds nice, but does not work. It's not a magic fix-it-all to all healthcare problems. Increased government involvement means increased prices. And providing the healthcare for free does not make costs dissipate. 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.

[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!"