Free healthcare and June Cleaver

[Abremalist]

For once she got it right.

http://www.sexdrugsandjunecleaver.co...privatization/

[Hubbell]

Originally Posted by Abremalist

For once she got it right.

http://www.sexdrugsandjunecleaver.co...privatization/

You're a fucking retard. There's a difference between LOCAL government providing things such as law enforcement & fire rescue services, and the FEDERAL government fucking around where it isn't constitutionally allowed to go.

[88Chaz88]

Originally Posted by Hubbell

You're a fucking retard. There's a difference between LOCAL government providing things such as law enforcement & fire rescue services, and the FEDERAL government fucking around where it isn't constitutionally allowed to go.

So you're smart enough to figure out the difference between local and federal run services, yet not smart enough to realise IT'S A FUCKING CARTOON!

[Arkh]

Originally Posted by Abremalist

For once she got it right.

http://www.sexdrugsandjunecleaver.co...privatization/

No. She got it wrong, but it feels so good to live large thanks to our grandchildren future paycheck.

[Abremalist]

I am kind'a amazed at the fact that you are prepared to put your children in debt for generations in order to keep the most expensive army on the planet, but not to make sure that people get decent healthcare.

But yeah, its a comic. And it quite beautifully shows what happens when you allow private actors to deal with certain areas that are of 'common intrest'. Like education, healthcare and infrastructure.

I'm not really in the loop on local/federal goverment divider in the USA.

It was mostly a joke but I'm always ready to discuss the benefits of socialism.

[Arkh]

Originally Posted by Abremalist

I am kind'a amazed at the fact that you are prepared to put your children in debt for generations in order to keep the most expensive army on the planet, but not to make sure that people get decent healthcare.

But yeah, its a comic. And it quite beautifully shows what happens when you allow private actors to deal with certain areas that are of 'common intrest'. Like education, healthcare and infrastructure.

I'm not really in the loop on local/federal goverment divider in the USA.

It was mostly a joke but I'm always ready to discuss the benefits of socialism.

Yeah, me too. Living in a country where I'm already taxed for more than 60% of the money I earned, with 80% GDP debt and more than 50% of GDP state spending I love socialism.
Love the laws preventing new workers to find job.
Love the fact that you can't chose your health insurer.
Love the fact that some "elite" has access to better healthcare than people who are ready to pay for it but are prevented to do.
Love the level of education going down every year, and the fact you almost can't chose where your children can study.
Love the fact that it's illegal to defend yourself : the police is here for that. Well, not in some lawless area but don't say it too loud.
Love how you can't build what you want on your land if some elected fucker don't want to. But you can get expropriated from it at low price if they want to build some road or railway.
Love "free healthcare" which is better for some people (state servants mostly) and is more than 90 billion € in debt : so our healthcare will be paid by our grandchildren.
Love the creative fiscality of state company which would put private entrepreneurs in jail.
Love state fund censorship.

[Silverhandorder]

Originally Posted by Abremalist

For once she got it right.

http://www.sexdrugsandjunecleaver.co...privatization/

That is actually the weakest argument against privatized social services. It was debunked on countless occasions. Private services are always more accommodating to their customers then their government equivalents. You just have to look at current fire department response time. If they are not giving you this trouble now, the private sector won't either.

Lastly yes that means that house owners who did not sign up with a fire department will have to pay for their rescue. Them calling for help can be constituted as a contractual agreement. Lastly anyone who owns a house can afford to sign up with a fire department.

All this does not even matter because you are a moron who does not know the difference between federal and local governments.

[Abremalist]

Well, I am sure I can't convince you. So I won't try to. But I hope at least to in some way wedge a piece of doubt there.

I play with you often, so I ain't looking to get you worked up.

Originally Posted by Arkh

Love the laws preventing new workers to find job.

Laws to create some basic work security and some basic, decent rights for you as an employee isn't detrimental to finding jobs. Yes, it must be done with moderation and some concern must be shown to the dialog between the intrests of the worker and the intrests of the employer. It can be a problem when people without working knowledge of how the world of buisness and finance works have more good intentions then actual sense. But that is not an actual problem inherent with Socialism.

Originally Posted by Arkh

Love the fact that you can't chose your health insurer.

Whats the point with that, its just paper. Whats important is that you can choose where to go, and what doctor you want. Choice is not removed because of Socialism.

Originally Posted by Arkh

Love the fact that some "elite" has access to better healthcare than people who are ready to pay for it but are prevented to do.

This is a little blurry for me. You mean similar to the 'elite' that have tons of cash? It will always be this way, more or less. And its not inherent to Socialism.

Originally Posted by Arkh

Love the level of education going down every year, and the fact you almost can't chose where your children can study.

Again. Choice is not removed because of Socialism. Possibly your results as a student and your ability to present yourself will limit your choices instaed of the size of your parents wallet.

Originally Posted by Arkh

Love the fact that it's illegal to defend yourself : the police is here for that. Well, not in some lawless area but don't say it too loud.

Basically. This is not a basic piece of Socialism. I want to defend it nevertheless. Less guns equals less innocent dead people. Its evident that the people that get shot when 'normal people' have guns, are 'normal people'. With strict gun laws, there are less killings and the absolute majority of those killed are criminals.

Originally Posted by Arkh

Love how you can't build what you want on your land if some elected fucker don't want to. But you can get expropriated from it at low price if they want to build some road or railway.

Sorry to say, but non-socialists are just as good at expropriate land from people as any socialists. But there is a basic part of Socialism that the individual takes some responsibility for the common good, as well as that the state takes responsibility for the individual.

Do you really imagine that non-socialists would throw away 'city-plans' and allow you to build anything/anywhere? This is not inherent in Socialism.

Originally Posted by Arkh

Love "free healthcare" which is better for some people (state servants mostly) and is more than 90 billion € in debt : so our healthcare will be paid by our grandchildren.

A lot of the time, free healtcare is pre-emptive healthcare. And costs 1/100th of what late-stage healthcare costs. Again this is a strange argument. It costs more to not treat sick people, its just the american health-system that due to its construction have allowed the costs of basic healthcare to cost insane amounts of money.

Originally Posted by Arkh

Love the creative fiscality of state company which would put private entrepreneurs in jail.

Ehm. You just gotta explain that further.

Originally Posted by Arkh

Love state fund censorship.

You seriously think that Socialists censor more then non-socialists? This have to do with freedom of speech, transparancy in goverment decisions etc. And its a real and constant fight everyday, everywhere. Socialist or not.

I am a Democratic Socialist. Fundamental to Democracy is freedom. But freedom doesn't mean 'no responsibility'.

[Abremalist]

Originally Posted by Silverhandorder

That is actually the weakest argument against privatized social services. It was debunked on countless occasions. Private services are always more accommodating to their customers then their government equivalents. You just have to look at current fire department response time. If they are not giving you this trouble now, the private sector won't either.

Lastly yes that means that house owners who did not sign up with a fire department will have to pay for their rescue. Them calling for help can be constituted as a contractual agreement. Lastly anyone who owns a house can afford to sign up with a fire department.

All this does not even matter because you are a moron who does not know the difference between federal and local governments.

Yes. Absolutly. Some private services are very good at pleasing their customers. In Sweden we have a real problem with private schools that give their students amazing grades, and which have had to close down because of it.

Moron? Yes, I notice the amazing heights you take this debate. Truly a sign of intelligence, breeding and education.

[Silverhandorder]

Originally Posted by Abremalist

Yes. Absolutly. Some private services are very good at pleasing their customers. In Sweden we have a real problem with private schools that give their students amazing grades, and which have had to close down because of it.

Did I say pleasing? I said accommodating.

I could care less of how it is done in Sweden. US public schools can't compare to US private schools. Colleges have to re-teach the high school curriculum because our public schools fail so bad.

Moron? Yes, I notice the amazing heights you take this debate. Truly a sign of intelligence, breeding and education.

Moron? Moron! This is forumfall bitch!

[Abremalist]

Originally Posted by Silverhandorder

I could care less of how it is done in Sweden. US public schools can't compare to US private schools. Colleges have to re-teach the high school curriculum because our public schools fail so bad.

Don't you think that is because all the recourses are allocated to the private schools?

If private schools have to live on the same money as public schools do /per student. You'd see few differences in quality.

Again.

Socialism 'All children should be given a good education' not 'The rich children should be given an elite education, and all the others what we can afford'.

We can afford good schools for everyone, that is why we have taxes.

[Silverhandorder]

Originally Posted by Abremalist

Laws to create some basic work security and some basic, decent rights for you as an employee isn't detrimental to finding jobs. Yes, it must be done with moderation and some concern must be shown to the dialog between the intrests of the worker and the intrests of the employer. It can be a problem when people without working knowledge of how the world of buisness and finance works have more good intentions then actual sense. But that is not an actual problem inherent with Socialism.

In America instead of dealing with hiring gays and women employers simply don't. They represent a higher risk because law gives them special privileges. Women get to go on maternity leave and gays are more likely to sue you.

Whats the point with that, its just paper. Whats important is that you can choose where to go, and what doctor you want. Choice is not removed because of Socialism.

6 month wait for an MRI is unacceptable. 17 weeks of wait for general visit is also unacceptable.

This is a little blurry for me. You mean similar to the 'elite' that have tons of cash? It will always be this way, more or less. And its not inherent to Socialism.

So screw the middle class so 2% of the poor get a tiny bit more coverage? No thanks.

Again. Choice is not removed because of Socialism. Possibly your results as a student and your ability to present yourself will limit your choices instaed of the size of your parents wallet.

Can you send your children to any public school you wish? The answer is no.

Basically. This is not a basic piece of Socialism. I want to defend it nevertheless. Less guns equals less innocent dead people. Its evident that the people that get shot when 'normal people' have guns, are 'normal people'. With strict gun laws, there are less killings and the absolute majority of those killed are criminals.

2 million defensive gun uses in America would like to tell you to fuck off. Plus Europe has higher violent crime rates aka they use knives now.

Sorry to say, but non-socialists are just as good at expropriate land from people as any socialists. But there is a basic part of Socialism that the individual takes some responsibility for the common good, as well as that the state takes responsibility for the individual.

Yeah collectivist bs. I rather protect the individual.

Do you really imagine that non-socialists would throw away 'city-plans' and allow you to build anything/anywhere? This is not inherent in Socialism.

You have no idea wtf you are talking about. One system uses voluntary associations to get things done the other uses state thugs.

A lot of the time, free healtcare is pre-emptive healthcare. And costs 1/100th of what late-stage healthcare costs. Again this is a strange argument. It costs more to not treat sick people, its just the american health-system that due to its construction have allowed the costs of basic healthcare to cost insane amounts of money.

15$ a year it used to cost in America pre government sponsored monopoly. Beat that bitch.

Ehm. You just gotta explain that further.

If you provide a private medical service in POS country of yours you will be arrested because you are competing with the state monopoly.

You seriously think that Socialists censor more then non-socialists? This have to do with freedom of speech, transparancy in goverment decisions etc. And its a real and constant fight everyday, everywhere. Socialist or not.

I am a Democratic Socialist. Fundamental to Democracy is freedom. But freedom doesn't mean 'no responsibility'.

You don't even know the fucking system you are attacking and you saying your brain is not filled with socialist propaganda? GG.

[Silverhandorder]

Originally Posted by Abremalist

Don't you think that is because all the recourses are allocated to the private schools?

If private schools have to live on the same money as public schools do /per student. You'd see few differences in quality.

You don't know what you are talking about. Public schools are subsidised by the taxes. US spends 17k per student in public school Any way you cut it the private schools are much less. Plus even tho you send your kid to a private school you still pay the portion of the tax for pos public school.

Socialism 'All children should be given a good education' not 'The rich children should be given an elite education, and all the others what we can afford'.

Hardly all children need education. We have many jobs in the economy that require no education. Yes they do not pay as much but if you take out all the bs regulation that raises prices you will get a more sane wage rate. You are not even familiar with the concept of deflation are you?

edit: US college used to cost one summer of working as a waiter. All 4 years. Government distorted the market with student loans. Again read some austrian books before you come to argue on forumfall.

We can afford good schools for everyone, that is why we have taxes.

Pay for your own shit.

[Abremalist]

Originally Posted by Silverhandorder

In America instead of dealing with hiring gays and women employers simply don't. They represent a higher risk because law gives them special privileges. Women get to go on maternity leave and gays are more likely to sue you.

This is why in Sweden men and women have equal rights to maternity leave. About three months each.

Originally Posted by Silverhandorder

6 month wait for an MRI is unacceptable. 17 weeks of wait for general visit is also unacceptable.

So screw the middle class so 2% of the poor get a tiny bit more coverage? No thanks.

This is a question or recourses and the decisions of people you choose for public office. Not inherent Socialism. Its like saying that you must be fat if you are from America.

I'd say that everyone pays an reasonable amount of taxes so that everyone can have basic and decent healthcare. We leave no-one behind.

Originally Posted by Silverhandorder

Can you send your children to any public school you wish? The answer is no.

More or less. We decide, based on whats reasonable where we live. You can get them sent to a school far away, but then you have to pay for the travels.

Originally Posted by Silverhandorder

2 million defensive gun uses in America would like to tell you to fuck off. Plus Europe has higher violent crime rates aka they use knives now.

I hope they don't since they do have guns. And that sort of statistic is very doubtful. Yes, for example Sweden have a decently high amount of people that get drunk and hit each-other in the face with a fist.

Originally Posted by Silverhandorder

Yeah collectivist bs. I rather protect the individual.

The essense of Socialism is to protect the rights of the individual against the rights of financial intrests. This have to be done through collective effort.

Originally Posted by Silverhandorder

You have no idea wtf you are talking about. One system uses voluntary associations to get things done the other uses state thugs.

State thugs. LOL. What system now?

Originally Posted by Silverhandorder

15$ a year it used to cost in America pre government sponsored monopoly. Beat that bitch.

Was that back when you got a new car for 30$?

Originally Posted by Silverhandorder

If you provide a private medical service in POS country of yours you will be arrested because you are competing with the state monopoly.

Ehh? What kind of crap is this? Its anyhow madly incorrect.

[Arkh]

Just so there's not misunderstanding, check my location.

Originally Posted by Abremalist

Laws to create some basic work security and some basic, decent rights for you as an employee isn't detrimental to finding jobs. Yes, it must be done with moderation and some concern must be shown to the dialog between the intrests of the worker and the intrests of the employer. It can be a problem when people without working knowledge of how the world of buisness and finance works have more good intentions then actual sense. But that is not an actual problem inherent with Socialism.

Minimum wage mean you have to be at least productive enough to be employed. You can't accept to work for less for some time to gain experience and be able to sell your work for more after that. That's beneficial to people who already have a job or have connection to get one, but those who don't have it are screwed.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/la...h-unemployment
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/la...r-unemployment

Originally Posted by Abremalist

Whats the point with that, its just paper. Whats important is that you can choose where to go, and what doctor you want. Choice is not removed because of Socialism.

When your glasses or dentist fee are only reimbursed for 10% with the universal care and you can't go subscribe to some swiss or UK ones, you start thinking there's a problem somewhere.
And it's worst when you know that you pay more for this shitty healthcare than for a good one when you have a job.

Originally Posted by Abremalist

This is a little blurry for me. You mean similar to the 'elite' that have tons of cash? It will always be this way, more or less. And its not inherent to Socialism.

No. Elected people get the good hospitals. Even if you are ready to use your money to go there, you can't. That's awesomesauce.

Originally Posted by Abremalist

Again. Choice is not removed because of Socialism. Possibly your results as a student and your ability to present yourself will limit your choices instaed of the size of your parents wallet.

There's some thing in France which is named the "carte scolaire", to put it simply : your children only go to the nearest school from your home. Even if you are poor, living in fucking drug land area : bad school, with awfull environment = forget about any chance to pass some exams for the good schools.

Originally Posted by Abremalist

Basically. This is not a basic piece of Socialism. I want to defend it nevertheless. Less guns equals less innocent dead people. Its evident that the people that get shot when 'normal people' have guns, are 'normal people'. With strict gun laws, there are less killings and the absolute majority of those killed are criminals.

And more children are killed in the US by water drowning than guns. Ban water IMO.

Originally Posted by Abremalist

Sorry to say, but non-socialists are just as good at expropriate land from people as any socialists. But there is a basic part of Socialism that the individual takes some responsibility for the common good, as well as that the state takes responsibility for the individual.

The doctrine of the social contract : fuck that. My good is superior to any "common good". Why ? because I know what's good for me, and I know it's not the same thing for everyone.

Originally Posted by Abremalist

Do you really imagine that non-socialists would throw away 'city-plans' and allow you to build anything/anywhere? This is not inherent in Socialism.

I know that liberals are against city planning. City planning is just another avatar of the "people can be ordered like robots" myth founding socialism.

Originally Posted by Abremalist

A lot of the time, free healtcare is pre-emptive healthcare. And costs 1/100th of what late-stage healthcare costs. Again this is a strange argument. It costs more to not treat sick people, its just the american health-system that due to its construction have allowed the costs of basic healthcare to cost insane amounts of money.

With preemptive healthcare, you have to control people living style : what to eat, how and when to exercise etc.

Originally Posted by Abremalist

Ehm. You just gotta explain that further

Ok, just an example.
In France, you had SNCF which controlled train and railways with a 26 billion € debt. So the state created a new entity, RFF, which inherited the railways, the debt and 500 employees.
500 is not enough to manage the railway so when they have to do something they must hire another company. The only company which has the right to apply is... SNCF.
So, SNCF make it pay more money than what they need to use the rails.
Publicly, SNCF get 1 billion benefits a year. But during this time RFF debts worsen, and the state must use lot of our money to pay the interests.

Originally Posted by Abremalist

You seriously think that Socialists censor more then non-socialists? This have to do with freedom of speech, transparancy in goverment decisions etc. And its a real and constant fight everyday, everywhere. Socialist or not.

But my awesome socialist state thing it's better for me to not watch some violent scene in a show so it has to be cut.

Originally Posted by Abremalist

I am a Democratic Socialist. Fundamental to Democracy is freedom. But freedom doesn't mean 'no responsibility'.

Exact, freedom does mean being responsible. But socialism effect is to make you irresponsible : it's the state job to be generous, to raise your children, to avoid you doing stupid things etc. In case of problem, nanny state comes to the rescue !