Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on September 18, 2006, 03:38:02 PM
-
http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=4937&date=20060917&PHPSESSID=a80c9ecb4d8dc6e9afa1d81291ab150c
:eek:
-
what a sad day for sweden, a country who in 2006 still is
in the top ten of 2006 Quality of Life Index (http://www.il-ireland.com/il/qofl06/index.php), from now on it can only decrease.
-
We have seen it before, the Socialdemocrats gets the country going good. Then the "Moderats" gets elected, run the country thru the gutter, The Socialdemocrats gets elected again, gets the country going good again.
Rinse and repeat.
What they fail to tell you is that the "Alliance" as they call themselfs is so far left that they are socialists themselfs. Actually the Socialist party and the Moderat party could have formed the goverment themselfs, if they could have swallowed their pride to do so.
Im not complaining, i get an whoping 1% less tax! and finally Göran Persson is out of office. Its gonna get harder for alot of people tough, but im in the clear as i have an good job etc.
We shall see what it leads too. But its not the first time in history this happens as some seem to think.
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
what a sad day for sweden, a country who in 2006 still is
in the top ten of 2006 Quality of Life Index (http://www.il-ireland.com/il/qofl06/index.php), from now on it can only decrease.
Why do you say that? the U.S. is rated higher, maybe Sweden will become a Republic and then get all this cheap oil like we have after having invaded Iraq. :lol
-
what kind of crap is that quality of life index?
-
Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
what kind of crap is that quality of life index?
Its an author's point of view from a travel website. Don't take it too seriously. ;)
-
Never seen that list before. What do they base their scores on?
il-ireland.com?
-
Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
what kind of crap is that quality of life index?
That's were the poor get free band aids and a waiting list for any thing more complex, and the rich pay for their own health system becuase the free one sucks. But then tell us that it's better becuase it's free. :huh
hurray for socialized medicine?
Hell no..
:lol
-
Originally posted by Maniac
We have seen it before, the Socialdemocrats gets the country going good. Then the "Moderats" gets elected, run the country thru the gutter, The Socialdemocrats gets elected again, gets the country going good again.
Rinse and repeat.
What they fail to tell you is that the "Alliance" as they call themselfs is so far left that they are socialists themselfs. Actually the Socialist party and the Moderat party could have formed the goverment themselfs, if they could have swallowed their pride to do so.
Im not complaining, i get an whoping 1% less tax! and finally Göran Persson is out of office. Its gonna get harder for alot of people tough, but im in the clear as i have an good job etc.
We shall see what it leads too. But its not the first time in history this happens as some seem to think.
Same thing here Maniac. The Labour party buildt the country during most of the post-war times, and then the conservatives came in to take the glory for it... they are gone again now (for good and bad).
It may turn out to be a good thing tho maniac. Maybe Sweden cuold use a new direction, and if it doesnt they wont stay in power for long.
Very exciting election it was.. Hard to see the future is (Master Yoda)
-
Originally posted by soda72
That's were the poor get free band aids and a waiting list for any thing more complex, and the rich pay for their own health system becuase the free one sucks. But then tell us that it's better becuase it's free. :huh
hurray for socialized medicine?
Hell no..
:lol
Based on?
Spitting out poor bate ;)
-
Nilsen, some Americans think that the rest of the world has "socialised" medicine, and they don't. They seem to be unaware America has its own "socialised" system, through medicare, medicaid etc, and that it costs them as much or more per capita as European "socialised" healthcare.
The reason they are probably unaware is that unlike Europeans, who are happy with their "socialised" systems, Americans also pay again for a second private system:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/878_1158622954_healthspending.jpg)
-
Nashwan, regarding quality, you get what you pay for ;)
-
The opposition says changes to Sweden's rigid labour market and high cost welfare system are long overdue, and promises to cut both employer taxes and unemployment benefits.
It also wants to cut the large social sector, which currently employs 30% of the Swedish job force.
Mr Reinfeldt has accused the government of disregarding the high unemployment rate, and for not making sure the country can continue to compete in a global market.
The government maintains the unemployment rate is a low 6%, while the opposition says it is around 10%, taking into account the many people on sick leave and in job training schemes.
Mr Persson has accused the opposition of wanting to destroy job security and make dangerous cuts to the welfare state.
He said this would undermine Sweden's unique social model - a cradle to grave welfare system and strong economic growth.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5353092.stm
some things require no comment
-
Originally posted by soda72
That's were the poor get free band aids and a waiting list for any thing more complex, and the rich pay for their own health system becuase the free one sucks. But then tell us that it's better becuase it's free. :huh
hurray for socialized medicine?
Hell no..
:lol
Emergency treatment: No charge
Out-Patient treatment: No charge
Surgery: No charge
Hospitilisation: No charge
Requirement to satisfy: Citizenship
Yeah, I can see why you'd hate that.
-
Originally posted by AKH
Emergency treatment: No charge
Out-Patient treatment: No charge
Surgery: No charge
Hospitilisation: No charge
Requirement to satisfy: Citizenship
Yeah, I can see why you'd hate that.
When people say 'the government pays for it"...WHO do you think that is?
-
Those damn moderates. I'm sure Bush is somehow to blame.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
When people say 'the government pays for it"...WHO do you think that is?
By the people, for the people.
-
By the poor, for the poor.
Socialism is geared to keep the poor people poor, and enough money flowing to the poor people to keep them happy enough to vote socialist. It's a huge joke.
But like margeret Thatcher said, "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."
But like I say to the socialists, "Steal anymore and you'll meet me at the tip of my bullet."
-
Originally posted by soda72
That's were the poor get free band aids and a waiting list for any thing more complex, and the rich pay for their own health system becuase the free one sucks. But then tell us that it's better becuase it's free. :huh
hurray for socialized medicine?
Hell no..
:lol
Interesting, do you know what you're talking about at all?
5 weeks ago my wife found a small lump in her breast. We went to see our GP. The GP referred us for a scan a few days later. 1 week later we revisited the GP for the results, she didn't think it was cancer but if my wife was concerned we could see a specialist to be 100% sure. 2 weeks ago we saw the specialist, they took a sample for analysis. Last week we got the results (all good :) ). Total cost to us, NZ$10 (~US$6) for parking on the two visits to the specialist.
Also a point to note. That cost spend by country per capita is probably heavily skewed by the costs of medicines and health services in the US. I've seen some of the prices they charge and its incredibly insane. I suspect this is driven up by the reliance on the private health sector and insurance setup you guys have. IE, the USA spend per capita is exagerated due to price gouging by your medical industry.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
By the poor, for the poor.
Socialism is geared to keep the poor people poor, and enough money flowing to the poor people to keep them happy enough to vote socialist. It's a huge joke.
But like margeret Thatcher said, "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."
But like I say to the socialists, "Steal anymore and you'll meet me at the tip of my bullet."
Who paid for your education?
-
Who paid for your education?
My parents did. They paid somewhere between 6-10 grand a year (depending on whether or not the socialists were in power) on my education from grade 1-12. They paid around 8 grand a year for pre-K and my Kindergarten education.
Now I'm paying for my college education. Me. Not anyone else.
5 weeks ago my wife found a small lump in her breast. We went to see our GP. The GP referred us for a scan a few days later. 1 week later we revisited the GP for the results, she didn't think it was cancer but if my wife was concerned we could see a specialist to be 100% sure. 2 weeks ago we saw the specialist, they took a sample for analysis. Last week we got the results (all good ). Total cost to us, NZ$10 (~US$6) for parking on the two visits to the specialist.
AKH makes a great point, even when he is not quick enough to realize he has.
All those things you went through are really expensive. But the real question is not "How much did you pay?" But, "Who paid for your medical treatment?" It seems free to you, and great. But somewhere in your country is an honest hard-working man (or woman) who has had their money STOLEN from them in order to pay for your luxuries.
-
Originally posted by AKH
Emergency treatment: No charge
Out-Patient treatment: No charge
Surgery: No charge
Hospitilisation: No charge
Requirement to satisfy: Citizenship
Yeah, I can see why you'd hate that.
I personally like the healthcare system I am in in the US.
I recently (last Wednesday) had an operation on my sinus's to remove some infected tissue and bone (chronic infection in bone) and my total expenditures too date will be roughly $500.00 for the year, with a $15.00 copay for the Dr visits. The Doc suspected the problem, scheduled surgery, had me get two different CT scans, then after they were developed, I had surgery two days later. Works pretty well in my humble opinion. Oh, and I pay $ 0.00 out of pocket towards my medical benefits (employer covers all), other than my Medicare on my pay check.
Pretty nice system here too, and you do not have too wait or goto a teaching hospital if you are sick.... :)
-
My parents did. They paid somewhere between 6-10 grand a year (depending on whether or not the socialists were in power) on my education from grade 1-12. They paid around 8 grand a year for pre-K and my Kindergarten education.
Now I'm paying for my college education. Me. Not anyone else.
You get what you pay for. Now please explain how taxation equates to theft.
AKH makes a great point, even when he is not quick enough to realize he has.
Cute. Any more ad hominems you'd like to throw in?
All those things you went through are really expensive. But the real question is not "How much did you pay?" But, "Who paid for your medical treatment?" It seems free to you, and great. But somewhere in your country is an honest hard-working man (or woman) who has had their money STOLEN from them in order to pay for your luxuries.
The patient pays via National Insurance contributions.
-
Originally posted by AKH
Emergency treatment: No charge
Out-Patient treatment: No charge
Surgery: No charge
Hospitilisation: No charge
Requirement to satisfy: Citizenship
Yeah, I can see why you'd hate that.
And do you know how many closed Emergency Rooms have had to shut down in the Southern US/Mexico border area? Because they cant turn anyone away...and the illegals do anything they can to get in and get free healthcare, steal SSNs, etc. These same theives have the nerve to march and protest, insisting we do nothing about illegal immigration.
:confused:
-
You get what you pay for. Now please explain how taxation equates to theft.
It's very simple. And I know you are going to argue it.
Theft is really simple. The definition of theft is someone taking something from a person who does not wish to give it.
95% of people in the world do not wish to pay taxes. Yet just like the robber holding you up in the alley, your government threatens repurcussions if you do not pay taxes.
That is theft.
And just because the government takes from everyone (and not equally from everyone at that) doesn't make it right. Nor does it make the theft any more of a moral action.
-
Are you an anarchist? You certainly sound like one.
-
Heh the point most of you complainers totally miss is that even the countries with socialized healthcare still have a private sector that you can use at will. Only difference is, you get 50% rebate for using those services from medicare if you choose to do so.
If socialized medicare is so God awful, why do you think Finnish NHL sports superstars who live in Canada/US choose to fly across the atlantic for surgery here? I mean, they have literally millions of dollars of money but still seem to choose the cheap, inferior medicare for their body which is their tool for earning millions.
Weird innit? To me, only conclusion is that either we have a superior quality of surgeons here - or even the NHL millionaires can't really afford to pay for your healthcare system.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
And do you know how many closed Emergency Rooms have had to shut down in the Southern US/Mexico border area? Because they cant turn anyone away...and the illegals do anything they can to get in and get free healthcare, steal SSNs, etc. These same theives have the nerve to march and protest, insisting we do nothing about illegal immigration.
:confused:
"There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation." - Margaret Thatcher
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
But somewhere in your country is an honest hard-working man (or woman) who has had their money STOLEN from them in order to pay for your luxuries.
All those hard working people in your country must be downright pissed about the billions stolen from them to maintain and pay the US military then huh?
After all, that money is gained in exactly the same way, from exactly the same source(tax:citizens), it therefore must be theft too.
Health care/medical aid may be a luxury in the US, but here and in other countries with a 'socialist' health care system, it is a gaurunteed right of every man women and child, each one of whom IS that hard working person who pays for it, or if you prefer, has the funding which allows that system to function stolen from them through tax.
Do you honestly believe it is right to refuse medical aid or care to a human being, care that otherwise would be readily available, just because they dont have enough cash?
Doesnt the Hypocratical Oath taken by all doctors pretty much state the opposite?
-
Nashwan, regarding quality, you get what you pay for
I suspect you too get what you pay for, an awful lot of very rich doctors and very rich lawyers, and a fair few rich advertising executives.
Look at that graph. Then consider that anyone unsatisfied by their treatment in the UK can pay for private care, either through insurance or "out of pocket". And yet very few do (most of the private spending on that graph is for over the counter medicines)
I recently (last Wednesday) had an operation on my sinus's to remove some infected tissue and bone (chronic infection in bone) and my total expenditures too date will be roughly $500.00 for the year, with a $15.00 copay for the Dr visits. The Doc suspected the problem, scheduled surgery, had me get two different CT scans, then after they were developed, I had surgery two days later. Works pretty well in my humble opinion. Oh, and I pay $ 0.00 out of pocket towards my medical benefits (employer covers all), other than my Medicare on my pay check.
The problem with your system is you've paid for it twice. Once for the public system through your taxes, a second time through your medical insurance.
All those things you went through are really expensive. But the real question is not "How much did you pay?" But, "Who paid for your medical treatment?" It seems free to you, and great. But somewhere in your country is an honest hard-working man (or woman) who has had their money STOLEN from them in order to pay for your luxuries.
Somewhere in yours, too. In fact, Americans have more money "stolen" from them to support the American public health system than New Zealanders do for their health system. Look at the graph. New Zealanders spend about $1800 per person per year for their public health system, and another $280 odd a year privately.
The US spends about $2800 per person per year on the PUBLIC health system (ie funded by taxes), and approx another $3300 each personally.
Americans are paying more in tax for their "socialised" health system than almost any other country in the world.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Nashwan, regarding quality, you get what you pay for ;)
Yes, only Luxembourg, Norway and Iceland "steal" more from their citizens to public healthcare.
-
Originally posted by mora
Yes, only Luxembourg, Norway and Iceland steal more from their citizens to public healthcare.
theft? rofl
works fine.. not perfect, but no system is flawless.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
theft? rofl
I guess you missed my point. I wasn't the one who bought up that term.
Anyway I guess someone could call it a theft, as you don't have the option of not paying for it and not using it. Even the Americans don't have that option. Personally I've received more than I paid for, so I don't have any complaints. Yesterday I had to wait for 4 hours to see a doc for 5 minutes, but I got 3 days of sick leave, so no complaints about that either.
-
Originally posted by mora
I guess you missed my point. I wasn't the one who bought up that term.
aha irony.. i see.
abit early in the morning for me today
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Nashwan, regarding quality, you get what you pay for ;)
Not true in our case. I live in Luxembourg (see the chart) and I get excellent healthcare payed for by the state (this is new to me as I have been a freelance/contractor most of my working life). This is not like the NHS in UK (I have terrible memories of those bastards).
I got to pick my own clinic (private) and when i had plastic surgery last year to rebuild my jawbone, it was done perfectly and it cost me 12% of the total medical costs.
Also Rip, one thing you 'murkans fail to understand properly is the term "socialist" when it comes to modern political parties ... what you call socialist are in fact (dying) communist parties in Yurop, the "socialists" would be more close to your democratic party. The ones f***ing up all of us are the unions... I guess it's the same everywhere as far as those ***ers are concerned.
-
Originally posted by AKH
Are you an anarchist? You certainly sound like one.
Radical anarchist, but in the true form of the word anarchist. Anarchists believe in absolutely no government, not that "Let's go crazy" form of anarchy. But the closest to any political ideology you can put me is radical objectivist.
But you have not addressed whether or not the government is stealing the money from you.
All those hard working people in your country must be downright pissed about the billions stolen from them to maintain and pay the US military then huh?
Actually, they are not. Imagine a robber in an alley stealing a huge chunk of your income every year. Soon you get so used to it that it doesn't bother you. You even feel better when the robber tells you he's going to use it for "noble" purposes.
Now replace the words "Robber" and "steal" with "Government" and "Tax" and you'll realize that you're taking it up the bellybutton anyway.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Based on?
Spitting out poor bate ;)
was not...
:p
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Actually, they are not. Imagine a robber in an alley stealing a huge chunk of your income every year. Soon you get so used to it that it doesn't bother you. You even feel better when the robber tells you he's going to use it for "noble" purposes.
Now replace the words "Robber" and "steal" with "Government" and "Tax" and you'll realize that you're taking it up the bellybutton anyway.
Robin In Da Hood!
-
Whe does this always revolve around health care? As the U.S. becomes more controlled by HMOs then the system more resembles statist care. The only difference is who collects the premiums. It hurts a lot more to actually see what it costs, rather than have the cost buried in "withholding taxes". The down side to this model of health care is that costs are controlled by some form of rationing and wage controls. Rationing only hurts thaose who need a rarioned-expensive- service and wage controls just translate into health care workers becoming "40 hour (in France 36 hour) a week workers" As an American physician who formerly worked 60-100 hours a week providing both regular and emergency care, my services are now much reduced-as they are in those countries where socialist care prevails. I have some knowledge of the system, as 2 of my partners are Canadian, 1 is English and 1 is Swiss.
-MI-
-
I would not want to be treated by a physician who constantly works 60-100 hours a week. Their hours should be restricted the same way as is the case with commercial pilots.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Radical anarchist, but in the true form of the word anarchist. Anarchists believe in absolutely no government, not that "Let's go crazy" form of anarchy. But the closest to any political ideology you can put me is radical objectivist.
But you have not addressed whether or not the government is stealing the money from you.
"The way to deal with kids whose first real read was Ayn Rand is to ignore them, let them feel superior, and let them learn for themselves that other people provide the only framework in which that kid can succeed."
Sound advice, I think.
-
a few years back I had a 250,000 dollar operation by the best specialists in the world and it didn't cost me a cent... my insurance paid for it.
I did not have to steal a penny from my fellow citizens to pay for it. Does that make me an anarchist?
When I go on medicare I will have paid into the "insurance" plan of medicare for many years...
Do you socialists think that someone else should pay for your car insurance or life insurance too?
We are talking insurance here.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
We are talking insurance here.
lazs
We are also talking about insurance - the term "National Insurance contributions" sort of implies that, don't you think? The major difference seems to be that we only have to pay once, whereas you are essentially obliged to pay twice. Plus the fact that our policy terms are much less restrictive since we are the shareholders.
-
Fact is that we already have socialized medicine in US to a large degree. Those that can't or won't afford insurance, including the millions of illegal aliens, still get healthcare with the costs passed on to those who can pay or have insurance. There already is a huge beauracy involved and I'm not sure the government could handle it any worse. In this respect we may as well fully embrace the dark side. We are already ravaged by it, perhaps there is some benefit to be derived.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
a few years back I had a 250,000 dollar operation by the best specialists in the world and it didn't cost me a cent... my insurance paid for it.
I did not have to steal a penny from my fellow citizens to pay for it. Does that make me an anarchist?
When I go on medicare I will have paid into the "insurance" plan of medicare for many years...
Do you socialists think that someone else should pay for your car insurance or life insurance too?
We are talking insurance here.
lazs
You did perhaps not "steal" from your fellow citizens, but you did "steal" from everyone else that pays insurance, unless you have payed over 250.000 USD to the insurance company already. Cant compare car insurance to this in any way at all.
The best possible healthcare is a basic human right and not something that should be awarded to those who can afford it, while those who cant afford have to settle for less.
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Robin In Da Hood!
Robin Hood is one of the worst fables out there. Think about it. Robin Hood steals from evil rich men to give to the poor people who they oppressed. But the story gets warped and warped until it becomes Robin stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. No mention of evilness or morality. So most people now think it is OK to steal money from the Rich to give to the poor.
The way to deal with kids whose first real read was Ayn Rand is to ignore them, let them feel superior, and let them learn for themselves that other people provide the only framework in which that kid can succeed.
I went into reading Atlas Shrugged as a Radical Libertarian. I came out realizing that Radical Objectivist described me better.
But go ahead and feel that you do not need to address what I have said. If it makes you feel better at night, even though I am right in every single thing I have said so far.
You did perhaps not "steal" from your fellow citizens, but you did "steal" from everyone else that pays insurance, unless you have payed over 250.000 USD to the insurance company already. Cant compare car insurance to this in any way at all.
Insurance has nothing to do with stealing. Insurance is solely about gambling.
For example, lets say you pay 1 grand a year. Most any real operation would cost a lot more. I am willing to gamble 1 thousand dollars a year that eventually I'm going to get really sick and the insurance company would have to pay a lot of money to make me better.
The insurance company is gambling that you do not get sick. And when you analyze the amount of people who do not actually get sick but pay anyway, you realize this is a good bet. For example, let's say that 1,000 people are paying 1,000 dollars a year. 25 people will get sick or seriously injured, and cost the insurance company roughly 500,000 (total all together). The insurance company has just pocketed 500,000 dollars. It's a crude example, but it shows how it works.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Insurance has nothing to do with stealing. Insurance is solely about gambling.
For example, lets say you pay 1 grand a year. Most any real operation would cost a lot more. I am willing to gamble 1 thousand dollars a year that eventually I'm going to get really sick and the insurance company would have to pay a lot of money to make me better.
The insurance company is gambling that you do not get sick. And when you analyze the amount of people who do not actually get sick but pay anyway, you realize this is a good bet. For example, let's say that 1,000 people are paying 1,000 dollars a year. 25 people will get sick or seriously injured, and cost the insurance company roughly 500,000 (total all together). The insurance company has just pocketed 500,000 dollars. It's a crude example, but it shows how it works.
Id rather pay the govenment to give me the healtcare i need than some private investors. Whenever private companies are in the mix alot of money goes into someones pocket and not to what its supposed to. Thats just fine for any other business, but not when it comes to a basic human right such as healthcare. I too pay my insurance for everything else and it is a gamble ofcourse... and one i hope i never "win". Here we can choose any public hospital or private clinic we want when we get sick and the government picks up the tab. Its not like you are sent to the place they choose.
-
But it's still a risk the government has to take for the same reason.
You still are gambling against the government that you'll get sick instead of gambling against someone taking a risk that you won't get sick.
The difference is that you do not have to buy health insurance from a private company if you do not want to. While you have to pay your socialized government under threat of penalty for not paying.
Which would you rather do? Choose whether or not you want to gamble against insurance? Or be forced to gamble against insurance by your oppressive government?
-
Personally I'd rather the system that operates in most of Europe. We pay the government, they provide healthcare for everybody.
The system in the US is you pay the government a bit more for healthcare than we do in Europe, but they don't provide you with healthcare, so you pay again to a private insurance company.
Seems to me most of Europe is getting a much better deal, in that the public healthcare system costs less, and provides coverage to everyone, whereas yours costs more, and provides coverage to only a small proportion of the population.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
But it's still a risk the government has to take for the same reason.
You still are gambling against the government that you'll get sick instead of gambling against someone taking a risk that you won't get sick.
The difference is that you do not have to buy health insurance from a private company if you do not want to. While you have to pay your socialized government under threat of penalty for not paying.
Which would you rather do? Choose whether or not you want to gamble against insurance? Or be forced to gamble against insurance by your oppressive government?
Easy choise.. I let the the government do it. They dont get any profit, and everything they get go back to the population in one form or another. Healthcare is not something I want to "gamble" with. It shal be there for those who need it.
Alot of things the government do can go out to the private sector.. no doubt about it. Health care is one of the few things that never must fall in the hands of greedy corporations that are out to get as much $$$$ as possible.
-
If socialized medicare is so God awful, why do you think Finnish NHL sports superstars who live in Canada/US choose to fly across the atlantic for surgery here? I mean, they have literally millions of dollars of money but still seem to choose the cheap, inferior medicare for their body which is their tool for earning millions.
Weird innit? To me, only conclusion is that either we have a superior quality of surgeons here - or even the NHL millionaires can't really afford to pay for your healthcare system.
Another possibility is they choose to go have the surgery done for free instead of having to pay for it?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
a few years back I had a 250,000 dollar operation by the best specialists in the world and it didn't cost me a cent... my insurance paid for it.
I did not have to steal a penny from my fellow citizens to pay for it. Does that make me an anarchist?
When I go on medicare I will have paid into the "insurance" plan of medicare for many years...
Do you socialists think that someone else should pay for your car insurance or life insurance too?
We are talking insurance here.
lazs
Must have been quite an operation for that price. I wonder how much that operation would have cost in non-regulated market economy enviroment.
-
Originally posted by AKH
By the people, for the people.
From the productive people.
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
what a sad day for sweden, a country who in 2006 still is
in the top ten of 2006 Quality of Life Index (http://www.il-ireland.com/il/qofl06/index.php), from now on it can only decrease.
Wow, in the top twenty odd countries only one didn't get a perfect score in the "Freedom" category ... the US. Go big brother!
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
All those things you went through are really expensive. But the real question is not "How much did you pay?" But, "Who paid for your medical treatment?" It seems free to you, and great. But somewhere in your country is an honest hard-working man (or woman) who has had their money STOLEN from them in order to pay for your luxuries.
Well, I'm on the top tier of income tax here. Meaning I pay a significant amount of money each year. I'd love to pay less tax, we all would, and sure there is some silly stuff goes on occasionally with our tax money. But theres some really nice benefits, like knowing that we're looking after people in this country (sure theres some bums, but they make the lifestyle choice). I can honestly not donate money to charities because I feel my tax dollars do enough work and not feel the slightest bit of guilt.
Its also worth noting my company pays for healthcare insurance for me, however I've never needed to use it. I do suffer from mild asthma, but my medicine is provided free by the government health system (they have this bizarre idea that if they help people stay well it keeps medical costs down, and people productivie).
Lasersailor, how do you feel about your socialist government taking YOUR tax dollars to subsidize unprofitable industries in the US such as forestry, farming and steel?
-
The subsidizing of any industry goes against the ideals of a free and capitilistic society. Basically, that sector of the industry, or the way that sector produces it's products is either dying or out dated. By subsidizing it, you are mantaining it just above a failing state.
If you let it fail, a couple of things would happen. First is that existing steel would become expensive, this would drive research. Then someone could design a newer, more efficient way of producing steel, crops, forestry... Or someone could invent or discover a replacement for all of the previous which would match or better the quality at the same or less cost.
Of course, that is all contingent on the free market idea.
Easy choise.. I let the the government do it. They dont get any profit, and everything they get go back to the population in one form or another. Healthcare is not something I want to "gamble" with. It shal be there for those who need it.
Most every single thing that has gone wrong any where in the world in the past 1000 years has been because of governments, yet you still trust yours to do anything?
Anyway, you are gambling on healthcare. Your government is gambling with your money for themselves. Without your choice to do so.
-
Yes I trust my government. What has happened elsewere does not have any influence on my government. You cant get away with everything in such a small transparent nation as ours and whenever they try to go against the majority of the population they get thrown out peacefully by the oposition... it has happened.
The thought of beeing as distrusful of the elected government as many others are is just as alien to me as our trust in the system we have is alien to you.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Most every single thing that has gone wrong any where in the world in the past 1000 years has been because of governments, yet you still trust yours to do anything?
Anyway, you are gambling on healthcare. Your government is gambling with your money for themselves. Without your choice to do so.
I fail to see how my government is gambling with my money (which incidentally, spends significantly less per capita on public healthcare than YOUR government whilst providing a superior free healthcare system).
Just to re-iterate the facts:
- NZ spends less per capita on public healthcare than the US
- NZ's public healthcare system while not perfect is fairly good and 99% of the time does a damn good job (can you say that about the US public healthcare system?)
What do they do to you in those private hospitals over there? Brainwash you while your under drugs?
-
Jesus ****ing christ. It's going to be one of those threads where I have to explain everything at least 4 or 5 times over.
Any insurance / health care system is a gamble both of the patient's parts, and the provider.
Do you honestly believe that the insurance / health care systems would be in place if they weren't making money?
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Jesus ****ing christ. It's going to be one of those threads where I have to explain everything at least 4 or 5 times over.
Any insurance / health care system is a gamble both of the patient's parts, and the provider.
Do you honestly believe that the insurance / health care systems would be in place if they weren't making money?
We don't use an insurance/healthcare system though? As far as I know most other public style healthcare systems are the same (like Norway).
You seem somewhat confused lasersailor over how public health systems work exactly.
-
My tax dollars go to bombs. I don't think any has got stolen from me to go to healthcare. I would rather they go to healthcare.
-
Lasersailor fails to realize that he is actually "taking it ..." more than we are. His ideal system doesn't excist anywhere in the western world. Even without medicare(which is more tax $'s per capita than in most other countries) the US system is overpriced because of the lack of free comptetition etc.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Jesus ****ing christ. It's going to be one of those threads where I have to explain everything at least 4 or 5 times over.
You must learn control.
(http://swg.stratics.com/content/lore/personas/images/yoda.gif)
-
"what kind of crap is that quality of life index?"
Its based on the average measurements of waitresses in any cross section of the countries involved.
Sweden wins. :D
There might have been some GDP and health care thingy too, bah, nobody cares about that anyways. Their chicks have great hooters.
-
Actually laser, it isn't much of a gamble for the insurance company.
You "win" the gamble and get sick, they drop your coverage.