What do you believe is socially wrong with these Nations? [Merged]

Started by Devil King11 pages
Originally posted by Starhawk
Yes changes need to be made.

And I'm asking you what those changes are, and how you intend to get around the lobby.

Originally posted by Strangelove
I still don't think it's you place to criticize, pardon my French

The thread creator didn't give any restrictions on who could comment, so I guess it is my place to.

Originally posted by Strangelove
I still don't think it's you place to criticize, pardon my French

But it factually is. Now that is settled we can move on.

Originally posted by Devil King
And I'm asking you what those changes are, and how you intend to get around the lobby.

By politic-ans growing a spine and standing up to them.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Charity is something you give willingly. Taxes are different. It should be run on taxes and not charity.

Not all of them CAN provide back, disabled people and mentally impaired are a prime example, it doesn't mean they deserve less of a quality of health care or a right to live.

In certain Tax forms you're asked to provide any information if you help a certain charity.

Disable people are exactly that...disable and there is NO law agaisn't that. Pretty understandable reasons....however, the jobless junkie down the street gets sick from an overdose and goes to the hospital and gets treatment and later when he gets better gets high again. It's not contributing to the commonwealth in any way. Rather than helping he is hurting it. Every citizen capable of contributing to the commonwealth should get health care. Those that don't...end up hurting the state. Is that fair for you?

Originally posted by Starhawk
By politic-ans growing a spine and standing up to them.

You know I'm fond of saying it, but it has never been more appropriate.

You can wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up first.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
In certain Tax forms you're asked to provide any information if you help a certain charity.

Disable people are exactly that...disable and there is NO law agaisn't that. Pretty understandable reasons....however, the jobless junkie down the street gets sick from an overdose and goes to the hospital and gets treatment and later when he gets better gets high again. It's not contributing to the commonwealth in any way. Rather than helping he is hurting it. Every citizen capable of contributing to the commonwealth should get health care. Those that don't...end up hurting the state. Is that fair for you?

They still have a basic human right to live and not suffer. And unfortunately we can't pick and choose. I would rather have everyone including the junkies get the same health care then a two tiered system where the rich get better care. No solution is perfect but mine is better then the alternative.

And yes I think people should get the same health care whether or not they contribute to the economy.

Originally posted by Starhawk
They still have a basic human right to live and not suffer. And unfortunately we can't pick and choose. I would rather have everyone including the junkies get the same health care then a two tiered system where the rich get better care. No solution is perfect but mine is better then the alternative.

And yes I think people should get the same health care whether or not they contribute to the economy.

They also have the basic human right to work. But they don't choose to work and be productive members of the state...why should they then receive the same health care as a member who does provide for the commonwealth?

I completely understand your notion of everyone's equality. But that same responsiblity of equality comes with the duty to provide back. Charity is there for them...if they want health care then work and provide back to the state.

Can't get more socialist than that.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
They also have the basic human right to work. But they don't choose to work and be productive members of the state...why should they then receive the same health care as a member who does provide for the commonwealth?

I completely understand your notion of everyone's equality. But that same responsiblity of equality comes with the duty to provide back. Charity is there for them...if they want health care then work and provide back to the state.

Can't get more socialist than that.

I'm not 100% percent sure about the states, but in Canada the problem is not people not wanting to work. And yes even the lazy deadbeats still have a right to live and not suffer. We don't get to play executioner just because was disagree with their lifestyle.

Let me make it clear that my argument is restricted only to health matters. I have no problem with the fact that rich people have bigger houses or faster cars or other perks, that is acceptable. But health care is, or at least should a right of all people regardless of station in life. And disabled people should not have to live off of charity they deserve health care just as much.

Originally posted by Starhawk
I'm not 100% percent sure about the states, but in Canada the problem is not people not wanting to work. And yes even the lazy deadbeats still have a right to live and not suffer. We don't get to play executioner just because was disagree with their lifestyle.

Let me make it clear that my argument is restricted only to health matters. I have no problem with the fact that rich people have bigger houses or faster cars or other perks, that is acceptable. But health care is, or at least should a right of all people regardless of station in life. And disabled people should not have to live off of charity they deserve health care just as much.

now, if the state provides this care to people, why does it also have the right to restrict private entrepraneuers who wish to practice medical procedures and the like not offered or not convenient enough in the public system?

Originally posted by inimalist
now, if the state provides this care to people, why does it also have the right to restrict private entrepraneuers who wish to practice medical procedures and the like not offered or not convenient enough in the public system?

Because of the fact that it leads to a two tier system where the rich end up getting better health care.

so your ideal government has the right to restrict the private sector because it performs too well?

I wont even begin to get into how this ideal will do nothing but sink research...

There is nothing wrong with public sector research. And it isn't restricting it for preforming too well. It's resrticitng it because a large portion of people can't access it.

Sure they can, all they need is money. Cost is not the same as discrimination.

Not all people will be able to afford world class care, but why not offer it to those who can provided there is no loss of efficacy in the public sector?

Originally posted by Starhawk
There is nothing wrong with public sector research. And it isn't restricting it for preforming too well. It's resrticitng it because a large portion of people can't access it.
And what is your rationale for saying regular Joes can't access private research?

Originally posted by Strangelove
And what is your rationale for saying regular Joes can't access private research?
Can ignorance be considered a rationale.

Originally posted by Starhawk
There is nothing wrong with public sector research.

Outside of the fact that it has never been even remotely capable of competing with private research, not much.

Fixing the health care systems does not have to mean sacrificing the private sector. And the rich will always have a greater access to better health care. That won't change unless we socialize our entire government. But these days, in America, there is a huge disparity between the healthcare people can afford. When you go to a public healthcare facility, the treatment you recieve severly lacks in quality. However, when you check into an exclusive hospital you recive far superior treatment. While the law states that you can't be denied healthcare due to your inability to pay, you're 1) not getting equivalent healthcare, and 2) you're going to spend the rest of your professionally poor career having that bill hanging over your head. And what good does that do for the poor individual who's "working hard to acheive the American dream"? A working-class mother doesn't need that kind of crap to deal with while she's trying to better herself and raise her children.

I wouldn't claim the U.S. healthcare system is perfect by any measure. But I'm also of the opinion that self-serving bias doesn't serve anyone but oneself. Funny that.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
But I'm also of the opinion that self-serving bias doesn't serve anyone but oneself. Funny that.

And that's exactly what is going on with the US healthcare system.