1 2
Posted: 9/18/2011 11:09 AM
Quote
Warp
Banned User, Former player
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Warp wrote:
Seems like we have a fanboy.
If I lived in the US, I would not vote for Ron Paul. Why not? Because of things like this (which is actually quite scary): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irx_QXsJiao
Posted: 9/18/2011 12:02 PM
Quote
moozooh
Senior Moderator
Joined: 8/4/2005
Posts: 5770
Location: Away
Warp wrote:
If I lived in the US, I would not vote for Ron Paul. Why not? Because of things like this (which is actually quite scary): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irx_QXsJiao
Meh, cutting off statements when it suits the opposite stance is bullshit. What Paul is trying to say there is that, if you want to feel safe, pay a fixed fee in advance. If you don't want to, in case of an accident, your options won't be as desirable, but it doesn't mean there won't be any. In an ideal world you don't pay anything and the government takes care of you no matter what, but here we have to make some kind of choices.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Posted: 9/18/2011 12:32 PM
Quote
Warp
Banned User, Former player
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
What scares me is the audience. Listen to their response to the questions. Anyways, I still wouldn't vote for someone who advocates uninsured people to be treated like second-class citizens, the sole reason being the braindead idea that universal healthcare = socialism. (If that were true, then the entirety of western Europe would be socialist.) People are dying in the US because of the "Red Scare". People who wouldn't have to.
Posted: 9/18/2011 12:58 PM
(Edited: 9/19/2011 11:05 PM)
Quote
Kuwaga
Joined: 10/20/2006
Posts: 1248
I wouldn't compare Operation Himmler so much to 9/11, but rather to Operation Northwoods (which never got carried out in the end). A mildly interesting read on the issue of tyranny disguised as democracy is Muammar Al Qaddafi's The Green Book, regardless on whether he followed the ideals presented in it himself. On contemporary issues in the US, I can strongly recommend [URL=http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=noam+chomsky+lecture]Noam Chomsky's lectures[/URL] if you have the time. I don't think 9/11 was staged by the government, but it certainly helped them to start a war they wanted to start anyway. I believe it's more likely that really a misguided Islamist extremist sub-group was behind the attack or if it was a conspiracy, that the government was not directly involved. I believe the culprits in the case of a conspiracy to most likely be people in the weapon industry / powerful warlords / drug lords (either US or Iraq/Afghanistan based, both or wherever), who of course would make huge profits from any war at all. One or two people inside the government might have been involved, but I find the idea for it to principally have been a government conspiracy rather unlikely to be true. That being said, I don't think the US government is on the right track, but I believe that the average US citizen is to blame for that. They don't care too much about political issues, especially if it's about countries outside the US. The wealthy, on the other hand, do care a lot. And that's the whole reason why the government acts on their behalf. The general public can be sold the idea that what's good for the rich is also good for them only because they don't really care themselves, they'd rather put their trust in somebody else than educate themselves about these issues and form their own opinions. As long as the general public doesn't care, a democracy cannot work properly. Many First World countries besides the US have the same problem, but with the US being so militarily powerful the issue is much more serious there. Of course (imo) the proper way to fight terrorism is to educate the people and help a country fighting against their terrorist groups themselves, instead of invading it. What has been carried out is a war that's mostly in private interest of the US, is pretty ineffective in fighting terrorism, but it helps sell the idea that these wars are good and just to the general public.
Posted: 9/19/2011 7:09 AM
Quote
Warp
Banned User, Former player
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
The problem with that solution is that some islamic governments endorse the terrorist groups. Of course publicly they state the contrary, for obvious PR reasons, but often they don't even bother hiding it too much. It's basically a public secret. In other words, what should be done when it's the same people who run the terrorist groups and also the country? Europe's (and the UN's) solution to this dilemma is to just sit on its ass and hope the problem goes away on its own. US's solution is to consider it an open war and act accordingly. Is one of these solutions better than the other? Most people have a strong opinion on this, but it's far, far from a trivial question. The subject is very complicated.
Posted: 9/19/2011 12:32 PM
Quote
Kyrsimys
Former player
Joined: 4/16/2004
Posts: 1286
Location: Finland
Warp wrote:
Warp wrote:
Seems like we have a fanboy.
If I lived in the US, I would not vote for Ron Paul. Why not? Because of things like this (which is actually quite scary): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irx_QXsJiao
So do you think that an adult who knows the risks and voluntarily decides to not get insurance because he doesn't want to pay the fees should then be treated on someone else's dime? That just doesn't make sense to me at all. He could've chosen differently, but he decided to take a risk. He should, therefore, be the one who faces the consequences if that risk doesn't pay off.
Posted: 9/19/2011 1:31 PM
Quote
Warp
Banned User, Former player
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Kyrsimys wrote:
So do you think that an adult who knows the risks and voluntarily decides to not get insurance because he doesn't want to pay the fees should then be treated on someone else's dime? That just doesn't make sense to me at all. He could've chosen differently, but he decided to take a risk. He should, therefore, be the one who faces the consequences if that risk doesn't pay off.
Well, that's how it works here (and in the majority of Europe, really). It's probable that you, living also here, have taken advantage of this (especially in your childhood). This is one rather good use of tax money. I don't have any problem with it. Moreover, studies have shown time and again that the healthcare system used in the US is significantly less cost-effective than the one used in most western European countries. In other words, not only are more people saved by universal healthcare, it's also cheaper overall. You can't even argue that it's unfair that rich people are getting the same "free" treatment and poor people. No they aren't: They pay more taxes.
Posted: 9/19/2011 1:41 PM
Quote
Kuwaga
Joined: 10/20/2006
Posts: 1248
Warp wrote:
The problem with that solution is that some islamic governments endorse the terrorist groups. Of course publicly they state the contrary, for obvious PR reasons, but often they don't even bother hiding it too much. It's basically a public secret. In other words, what should be done when it's the same people who run the terrorist groups and also the country? Europe's (and the UN's) solution to this dilemma is to just sit on its ass and hope the problem goes away on its own. US's solution is to consider it an open war and act accordingly. Is one of these solutions better than the other? Most people have a strong opinion on this, but it's far, far from a trivial question. The subject is very complicated.
The US is probably the biggest funder of international terrorism right now, only we don't call it that way (supporting dictators, destabilizing countries, invading countries because they don't like what they are doing, torture etc), so first of all that's pretty hypocritical. One of the terms we use for that is global intervention, I believe. It's just an euphorism for the same thing on a much larger scale. As per Wikileaks, Saudi Arabia is the biggest funder of groups that are currently officially labeled to be international terrorist organizations, and it's also where much of the Jihad-fanatism stems from. Why doesn't the US go after them? The answer is pretty clear. There's no strategic need to. With just a fragment of the money that has been spent on the wars, the US could have invested in public education in Iraq/Afghanistan to basically counter-brainwash the population. Improve foreign relationships, make a great contract. The US builds schools and infrastructure, the country fights against terrorism and gives the US resources in return. Of course that would have been infinitely more efficient in fighting terror. The single problem with that is that it just isn't as profitable. Real democracies that aren't too corrupt tend to keep much of their resources to themselves and engage in trade with their closest neighbors (Iran? Pakistan? India? Russia? China?), so of course the US doesn't really want that from a strategical point of view. To maximize profits they'd want to keep those regions poor while extracting as much of their resources as possible. Ideally, they'd prefer a pro-US dictator (Hussein, Mubarak, Qaddafi) for that reason, plus if it's a military dictatorship they can make even more money by selling them weapons. Another big problem is that the general population of those countries seems to think they're better off under the rule of whatever terrorist organization than under the rule of the US. I can't blame them for that. From their perspective, the US has killed a much higher number of people there and seeded far more terror throughout their home countries. If the US really held democratic values that highly, they should leave just because of that. You can't invade countries against the will of the population to bring them democracy. On health care: I think universal health care is absolutely necessary if you don't want the poor to get poorer because they can't afford proper treatment. Sadly, the US is currently not in a position to implement such a system.
Posted: 9/19/2011 7:00 PM
Quote
Kyrsimys
Former player
Joined: 4/16/2004
Posts: 1286
Location: Finland
Warp wrote:
Kyrsimys wrote:
So do you think that an adult who knows the risks and voluntarily decides to not get insurance because he doesn't want to pay the fees should then be treated on someone else's dime? That just doesn't make sense to me at all. He could've chosen differently, but he decided to take a risk. He should, therefore, be the one who faces the consequences if that risk doesn't pay off.
Well, that's how it works here (and in the majority of Europe, really). It's probable that you, living also here, have taken advantage of this (especially in your childhood).
I don't think you quite understood my point. The situation I described and the situation in e.g. Finland are not similar in principle. Taxes are not voluntary. Even if you live only on benefits you still pay taxes. You cannot simply choose not to pay taxes. Children, of course, don't pay taxes but that's beside the point. The point is, what if taxes were voluntary? Would a system where paying taxes is optional but everyone is still entitled to the same benefits work? This is basically the kind of system described in the interview. I have a very hard time believing such a system would work anywhere for very long.
Posted: 9/20/2011 7:27 AM
Quote
Warp
Banned User, Former player
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
The whole healthcare system in the US, and especially the attitudes most people have there about it, is just stupid. The US is basically the only western country (and perhaps even the only country in the world) that has this system. Not only do people suffer and die unnecessarily because of it, but it's also less cost-effective than an efficient universal healthcare system. The reason why people in the US have such a strong aversion towards universal healthcare is not because of any rational reasons, but purely because of propaganda, and this is a well-documented fact. The origins can be found in the so-called Second Red Scare and the McCarthyism era. This was a time where a large-scale governmental propaganda campaign against communism and socialism was enacted by the US government. This is the origin of such notions as communism being strongly associated with atheism, the US being a strongly Christian nation (as a contrast to the atheist communists), the inclusion of the word "God" in the pledge of allegiance and the money, and an overall demonization of the whole concept of socialism (even though the vast majority of US citizens don't even know what the basic tenets of socialism are). One of the victims of this propaganda was the healthcare system: For some reason the government decided that universal healthcare is strongly associated with socialism, and hence must be avoided at all costs. It didn't help that many presidents, especially Reagan, publicly and strongly vilified universal healthcare and associated it with the scary socialism. So even today, in 2011, most people in the US strongly associate universal healthcare with socialism, even though it has absolutely nothing to do with it. So this is really a double stupidity: The irrational fear of socialism (even though most US citizens don't even know what it is all about), and the strong association of universal healthcare with it (even though it has nothing to do with it). A triple stupidity, in fact, because most western European countries have universal healthcare and are not generally considered "socialist" countries (although I'm sure many Americans would classify them as such on that basis only).
Posted: 9/21/2011 5:10 AM
Quote
Kyrsimys
Former player
Joined: 4/16/2004
Posts: 1286
Location: Finland
That's all beside my point. I'm not trying to argue over which system is the better one. All I'm saying is I don't see what's so wrong (or scary as you put it) with Paul's answer (or the reaction of the crowd) in the video clip. I mean let's say I don't get insurance for my car and then I crash it. Since I didn't get insurance, I need to pay for a new car myself, right? So why shouldn't the same logic apply to health insurance?
Posted: 9/21/2011 7:09 AM
Quote
Warp
Banned User, Former player
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Kyrsimys wrote:
I mean let's say I don't get insurance for my car and then I crash it. Since I didn't get insurance, I need to pay for a new car myself, right? So why shouldn't the same logic apply to health insurance?
Because human life is significantly more important than a car. It's the duty of the entire community to take care of each individual. This basic right should not be tied to how much money you own.
Posted: 9/21/2011 7:17 AM
Quote
Vykan12
Player (98)
Joined: 3/20/2008
Posts: 466
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
I'm all for universal health care (helps when you're from Canada :)) but,
Because human life is significantly more important than a car. It's the duty of the entire community to take care of each individual. This basic right should not be tied to how much money you own.
How do you explain the fact that we need to pay for our water supply? Drinking water is necessary for human life, yet people living in houses/apartments are charged a water bill every month. There's bottled water too. Same logic applies to food, even though the type and quantity of food varies wildly from person to person. You can stretch this argument even further, and say a psychologist should be free for all individuals. By some weird utilitarian logic that would probably increase the overall happiness of the community.
Posted: 9/21/2011 8:41 AM
Quote
Warp
Banned User, Former player
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Vykan12 wrote:
Same logic applies to food, even though the type and quantity of food varies wildly from person to person. You can stretch this argument even further, and say a psychologist should be free for all individuals. By some weird utilitarian logic that would probably increase the overall happiness of the community.
In many countries all those are actually free for people who can't otherwise afford them. Likewise if you are rich, there's nothing stopping you from going to a private doctor rather than using public healthcare (especially if you think that you will get better treatment that way). There's a practical reason why free food is not automatic, though. If it was, the economy of the country would probably collapse, and then nobody would be very happy. You could thus argue that the economy would collapse if everybody had free medical care, but practical examples have shown this to not to be the case. Medical care can be fully tax-funded without the economy collapsing.
Posted: 9/21/2011 9:17 AM
Quote
Kyrsimys
Former player
Joined: 4/16/2004
Posts: 1286
Location: Finland
Warp wrote:
Kyrsimys wrote:
I mean let's say I don't get insurance for my car and then I crash it. Since I didn't get insurance, I need to pay for a new car myself, right? So why shouldn't the same logic apply to health insurance?
Because human life is significantly more important than a car. It's the duty of the entire community to take care of each individual. This basic right should not be tied to how much money you own.
Of course it shouldn't be tied to how much money you own, no one has said anything like that. I'm talking about people who by choice decide not to get insurance just because they don't want to pay. I am strongly of the opinion that every human being is responsible for their own actions. People who decide not to chip in for the common good give up their right to that good. Similarly, I don't feel it's my duty to take care of people who commit crimes against the community. In short, I refuse to accept that it is my duty to take care of people who have not and would not take care of me.
Posted: 9/21/2011 10:54 AM
Quote
Warp
Banned User, Former player
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Kyrsimys wrote:
I'm talking about people who by choice decide not to get insurance just because they don't want to pay.
The point is that your health should not be dependent on some insurance that you have to pay. In other words, the entire situation ("he decided not to pay insurance and now he dies") should be ridiculous. This is certainly not the same thing as "he refused to pay his car insurance, and when he wrecked it, he lost it", even though you make it sound like it is. Human life is not comparable.
1 2