|
| Thread: Healthcare discussions |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · NEXT» |
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
posted December 15, 2019 10:13 AM |
|
|
Healthcare discussions
JJ and Sal invited. 
Of course, it's open for anyone. 
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted December 15, 2019 11:04 AM |
|
|
|
Rule of thumb, don't let your failures become a burden for the others. Assume.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 15, 2019 11:52 AM |
|
|
Nonsense.
In every society every decision made by anyone affecting more people than the decider and being a "failure", will be a burden for all affected or even more people.
Example: A corp goes bankrupt, because of decisions made by the execs a couple of years ago. People lose their work. Now THEY are burdened - or alternatively, all of society is burdened with paying for them during unemployment. Who isn't burdened are the execs making the wrong decisions.
So - if you allow a few people to make decisions affecting a lot, which of course means that THEIR failure will automatically be a burden not for them (because it's too big a burden to shoulder), why would you say that someone being so decent to just make a wrong decision affecting themselves should piss off and not be a burden for society? Surely, no one WANTS desperately to screw up.
Another example. Sure, pointing out that someone brought everything onto themselves by smoking, eating too much, taking drugs and so on, seems to make sense - knowing that this would have quite probably a very bad effect on their health. But what about the corp dumping waste somewhere, polluting ground water, affecting the health of who knows how many? What about that failure, when it's found out 20 years later, the culprits being long gone? Or what if they are NOT long gone? Closing the corp? What about the workers, then? And what about the damage done to the competition that got screwed because that corp just dumped their crap? It's a MASSIVE failure, obviously, but how are the execs are supposed to bear the burden?
So that is all a load of nonsense in the face of reality. It's just trying to put blame on someone, and the smaller the failure and the number of affected the easier it gets, but the smaller the failure and the affected the less relevant it also becomes with regard to the big picture.
I mean, not even criminals shoulder the burden of their failures - they go into jail, costing society money, plus society will also take care of the victims in some way or another (even if only covering costs).
In short: society doesn't work that way. I mean, not even partnership works that way.
|
|
Blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted December 15, 2019 12:37 PM |
|
|
Correct, but there aren't any instances where your actions don't indirectly affect other people. Deciding what to do on a Friday night is going to affect other people and the sum of the entire world. The impact might seem insignificant but the cumulative actions of each individual results in the world we live in.
For the question of private versus public/government, it can often boil down to utility, i.e. what works better in this particular circumstances. Private entities are strong in that they have a productivity and competitiveness and motivation for self-improvement that governments never match. Governments are strong in that they can far better arbitrate and distribute goods or services.
Most of the time, a combination of both works best.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted December 15, 2019 12:58 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
Nonsense.
Example: A corp goes bankrupt, because of decisions made by the execs a couple of years ago. People lose their work.
What is nonsense is giving an example which is extremely rare then compare with the widespread situation I pointed to. Large scale poverty doesn't come from big companies failures, sure such failures can create local drops in income but that is still extremely minimal; on 50 millions poor people USA has, how many are poor because big corps screwed and how many are poor because they took bad decisions during their life? Let's be serious.
This socialist thing always pointing in the wrong direction should come to en end. To incentivize people you have to remind them they are the ones who have control over their life and decisions, not constantly label them as victims of some big guys.
Where do we hear about early marriages, dropping too early out from schools, too early maternity, to soon divorces, single motherhood and such large scale failure triggers? Nowhere. We lack a culture of meritocracy and common sense. Redistribution of wealth without any guaranties in return is a wasting gulf, it creates more poverty in the long run because people benefiting from it become apathetic.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 15, 2019 02:31 PM |
|
|
Salamandre said:
Large scale poverty doesn't come from big companies failures, sure such failures can create local drops in income but that is still extremely minimal; on 50 millions poor people USA has, how many are poor because big corps screwed and how many are poor because they took bad decisions during their life? Let's be serious.
Yes, let's be serious. Is being born and raised poor and in a really bad neighborhood a bad decision?
You can be poor because of a personal bad decision only, when you are not poor and then lose everything, and I'd say that's true for a bare minimum.
Being poor and staying poor, though, isn't the result of a bad decision, but the natural course of things. Being poor and somehow luck out in getting a not too poor education (both for knowledge and character, in school and at home) and then making a couple of GOOD decisions and luck out again in things working out, resulting in raise in status from poor to becoming part of the "middle class" (and leaving whatever ghetto you live in) is not the same as "not taking a bad decision", and the REAL fairy tale.
Clearly, you overrate the ability of the individual to somehow elevate themselves from nothing and underrate the effect of the social and economic situation children are born into.
People are poor because they are born that way and poverty has its own laws of gravity, decisions or not.
What is even more interesting: strangely enough, all of the people taking good and smart decisions and try to leave their poor home country and go into one of the rich countries - Canada, US, Western Europe - are frowned upon by the likes of you and unwished for. Living as a poor person in a rich land is a lot better than living as a poor person in a poor land.
Which also means, that your idea of what is a good and what is a bad decision is probably flawed.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted December 15, 2019 04:10 PM |
|
|
First, we talk about western here, not about sh!itholes places where there is no way of moving out from poverty, precisely because they are sh!itholes. So the definition of a poor neighborhood is very vague within the western culture, I can link you thousands of articles and studies showing that no matter how much money your pour into such ghettos, they will always remain poor and miserable, because such is their culture. You have to fix the humans living there, not the system trying to help them, it already DID its part.
JollyJoker said:
Being poor and staying poor, though, isn't the result of a bad decision, but the natural course of things.
No, because then all the asian immigrants, which clearly come from VERY poor areas, would also remain poor if that was the "natural state of things". Yet, you won't find asian ghettos, so ask yourself what you are missing there.
JollyJoker said:
Clearly, you overrate the ability of the individual to somehow elevate themselves from nothing and underrate the effect of the social and economic situation children are born into.
No, you misunderstand me. I don't over-evaluate, I claim it is the ONLY solution.
JollyJoker said:
People are poor because they are born that way and poverty has its own laws of gravity, decisions or not.
This is where you are utterly wrong: is THIS kind of logic which keeps people helpless and poor, because basically you tell them there is no way to get out. While we have millions of examples that it works. Birds don't care about gravity, lazy pandas do.
JollyJoker said:
What is even more interesting: strangely enough, all of the people taking good and smart decisions and try to leave their poor home country and go into one of the rich countries - Canada, US, Western Europe - are frowned upon by the likes of you and unwished for.
Unwished by me? I am sorry but you ignore all of my thinking then. I am welcoming anyone who genuinely comes for a better life and does everything to accommodate the new environment. I do not welcome lazy and opportunistic people, from any ground, which once installed in the west, listen to your kind of discourse then claim fictional rights upon everything, while blaming the hand feeding them of racism.
Anyway. We have a strong redistributive wealth system in the West which worked at full rate for some decades until now. Did it diminish the poverty? Clearly not, it is worse. So open your mind and listen to other proposition, because your solutions already showed their limits.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 15, 2019 05:08 PM |
|
|
You are completely wrong.
There is a simple connection between ghettoization and the inability to escape from it. The bigger a ghetto, the less can be done to "dissipate" it, and once a ghetto has reached the critical mass, things are basically cemented.
In the US there the biggest ghettos in the Western World, which has more than one reason, but amount and size of them make things really difficult, no matter what any state or the federal government does. Traditionally, the US are a each-their-won country - and that's the result.
Western Europe has enjoyed a time of relative quiet, with a better situation. They have been doing more than the US, but not nearly enough. With the influx of refugees from sh!tholes of the world the general situation is simply demanding more attention and, of course, a lot more money. It is, as it has always been, but we live now in a globalized world, and in the end that means that we are forced to care for everyone, not just for a chosen few. We can all work together to overcome poverty, hunger and suffering on a worldwide level OR we can do nothing and watch how the havenots will destroy everything, either by simply swarming the have-alls or by growing the world to death for everyone OR we can fight against the havenots and either enslave or kill them (directly or indirectly).
Now - what has all this to do with Health Care?
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted December 15, 2019 06:49 PM |
|
|
What is a ghetto? A place where people from same cultures prefer to live in. Don't tell me there is some hidden law or untold rules which force immigrants to go live in some ghetto, there is no such. They go because, from the moment of their own arrival, they are unable to live elsewhere without state assistance. Translate: working class paying for them.
Which brings the question, why are we taking these particular people? Immigration is about what you need, not what immigrants need, that's the core of a secular process which you can't and don't want to understand. As for USA ghettos in which Afro-americans predominantly live, there are many conservative intellectuals pointing to the root of the problem: single motherhood --> too many fathers in prison, then a constant victimization by the left to keep a serious number of voters under control.
JollyJoker said:
we live now in a globalized world, and in the end that means that we are forced to care for everyone, not just for a chosen few. We can all work together to overcome poverty, hunger and suffering on a worldwide level
First, not everyone agrees to live in this "globalized" world of yours, is not a fate. There are many industrial developed countries not following your rules and they are doing very well. Secondly, we don't have to care for everyone, whats this nonsense and surrealistic wish? We have to care for our families first, then our communities, AND, if there are resources left, help others. However, do not force people by state policies, let them do from by their own.
Have you seen the national debts? feeling like we have resources left to spare right and left? A third of our people, from our communities, can't eat or get medical aid properly and you want to help overseas? Craziness.
And of course, redistribution of wealth IS healthcare too, all this is heavily connected.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 15, 2019 08:52 PM |
|
|
I think you are extremely naive. You - and your sources - are making a point to switch cause and effect. The problem - as you conveniently talk around - isn't what the grown-ups do; the problem is what the KIDS face. The SECOND generation and every one after them.
The first is no problem. It just needs more money invested. Teach "immigrants" the language; check their education and abilities; educate them. Germany needs a lot of simple jobbers. All crafts are desperately looking for workers. You wait ages for craftspeople. We also need 80.000 in the business of foster and care of old people. Conservatively judged. Don't let them on their own - they will naturally try to be in a neigborhood where people with a common language are and are easy victims for people longer in the country who will take advantage of them.
But once you are born in a ghetto, you basically grow up outside of society and learn a completely different skill set. Single motherhood? Just an economic problem - born in a different situation family would pay for an abortion and that was that, but the main thing is that with more education and more PERSPECTIVE young people wouldn't just take every opportunity to have fun, no matter what.
I'd give you the advice to simply enjoy the fact that you live
a) now
b) not in a sh!thole
c) are not poor
and be happy.
Don't judge the poor.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted December 16, 2019 10:52 AM |
|
|
What is naive is to think you can just move populations around, no matter from where, invest a bit (I wonder what they think about your "educate them", most probably they will raise the middle finger) then they become of your own, embracing habits, culture and values. This kind of flawless thinking is what is ruining the western societies, imo.
For the last part of your post, is a bit of pretentious attitude. Like I owe you and your kind something. I remind that I never benefited from any social aid, I contributed, I adapted and I respected the new background from the very first day. But you surely prefer the other way around, so you can brag about your tolerance and your will to "help and educate". Sure that people like me do not need that exhibit of patronizing, must be hard for you to deal with responsible migrants.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 16, 2019 12:42 PM |
|
|
|
This doesn't look like you were interested in discussing healthcare, it looks more like another immigration rant. As such it's yet again off-topic. If you want to discuss immigration, create a thread, although I can't see anything forthcoming other than the usual venom.
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted December 16, 2019 12:56 PM |
|
|
I think neither of you are going to find something to agree on in this debate. Which is why I think online debates in particular are completely pointless.
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
Blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted December 16, 2019 03:01 PM |
|
|
@Sal
It's good for people to be self-motivated but you don't need a motivation for healthcare because health is its own motivation. Health is the ultimate form of wealth. It's true that people can and often do make bad decisions regarding their health because things like alcohol or sugar or salt are addictive but there is still the intrinsic motivation to have a healthy lifestyle.
The USA is actually a good example of this. Many people incur expenses when they get sick but that doesn't make everybody in the country become health conscious and practice preventative medicine. On the same token, France is healthier on average even though people have automatic coverage.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted December 17, 2019 01:08 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
This doesn't look like you were interested in discussing healthcare, it looks more like another immigration rant
Choking in your own bad faith already? Who brought it first about ghettos and immigration, me or you? Scroll above to your own posts:
JollyJoker said:
all of the people taking good and smart decisions and try to leave their poor home country and go into one of the rich countries - Canada, US, Western Europe - are frowned upon by the likes of you and unwished for
JollyJoker said:
With the influx of refugees from sh!tholes of the world the general situation is simply demanding more attention and, of course, a lot more money
There was not a single word from me about immigration before you open the subject.
I already stated that wealth redistribution is not compatible with open borders, is like saying every individual salary can support infinite family members. If you want to design a proper redistribution system, first you have to specify the numbers of actors, that can't be neither vague, infinite or depending on some wars on the other side of the planet. Focusing on this aspect is NOT ranting against immigration, like leftists like to caricature it, but common sense. It doesn't say neither that immigration IS the source of problems, but that it aggravates them. As for now, the problem with not working healthcare system is that the number of people financing it is too tiny (and gets tinier each year) compared to the number of people using it. An income issue. Now connect the dots.
You advocate a very unfair principle, tax a category of people more than others. That is theft.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 17, 2019 08:31 PM |
|
|
You started with with this nonsensical "rule of thumb", which could be right out of a fascist bible.
And now you are rambling against immigration AGAIN, using healthcare as an interchangable angle for yet another rant. Immigration is a separate issue that has nothing to do with healthcare at all. Your point is basically, you can't let anyone into the country (even if someone has an ability, in the end he will tale the job of someone else).
And I don't think you have a grasp on economy. You know the US have a national collecticve debt of 21.000.000.000.000 $, right? Doesn't seem to matter, really - a lot wa sspent for warring. Wouldn't make a difference, if the lot would be spent for health care. Effect? Same. More jobs.
|
|
Blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted December 19, 2019 01:04 PM |
|
|
News outlets are adorable. Making such a fuss about Trump being impeached when there is a 0% chance of it going through in the Senate.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Wyrmlord
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted December 19, 2019 02:55 PM |
|
Edited by Wyrmlord at 14:58, 19 Dec 2019.
|
Blizzardboy said:
News outlets are adorable. Making such a fuss about Trump being impeached when there is a 0% chance of it going through in the Senate.
True. But the fact that he's the third U.S. president to ever be impeached is an embarassement he'll never overcome. When people think of Trump, they'll think, "oh, yeah, he's that developer-turned-president who was impeached during his first term." History won't be kind to him.
Trump could care less about the Senate trial because he'll have the support, but he'll be raging for the rest of his life about the impeachment.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted December 19, 2019 03:04 PM |
|
|
|
yeah, we see how Bill Clinton looks devastated.
|
|
Wyrmlord
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted December 19, 2019 03:12 PM |
|
|
It's all smiles and waves in public. But he, too, must deal with the embarrassment.
And don't forget about Andrew Johnson, who was also impeached, and Richard Nixon, who resigned before he could be impeached.
|
| |
|
|
