{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
publicado originalmente en:Secular Sevens
10/1/2013 11:06:13 PM
101
why we don't just implement universal healthcare, I do not know
English
-
Because Capitalism
-
Capitalism doesn't exist in the medical market, as there is no choice.
-
That would only make things a lot worse.
-
Editado por dr0cx: 10/17/2013 3:36:20 PMWorse? Here's how bad things are: The average annual expenditures is $63,563 per household. ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/ce/standard/2008/age.txt (Bureau of Labor and Statistics) Compare that number [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/15/income-distribution-visualizing-economics_n_3044892.html]to this beautiful visualization[/url], and see how many people aren't able to meet that. Let's get our people healthcare and a liveable wage. That way we can remove so much of our population from the desperation of "survival mode", and convert "sustaining life" to "living life". Sound good?
-
And this would still only make things worse. The solution is not more government, it's getting government OUT! Government has been the problem.
-
Would make things worse for whom? [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM]The top 1%[/url]?
-
Editado por BACE: 10/18/2013 1:31:09 AM>.> <.< [spoiler]while I must admit and fully agree that there are major problems with wealth and income distribution, the guy above does bring up some good points. EDIT: I also must state that I don't agree with everything this guys has to say[/spoiler]
-
For everyone. It would halt any advancements in healthcare and cripple this country even further.
-
Editado por dr0cx: 10/17/2013 7:57:09 PMI've demonstrated that too many are earning less than they need and still be able to afford healthcare, and that there is more than enough money to go around. Could you demonstrate how it would halt advancements in healthcare and cripple the country?
-
And why is that? Because the government are forcing people to lose jobs and work part time, while making things so march harder for business owners they have to pay people less. These are the same people that can't run the mail or trains and you want MORE of them involved with healthcare? After they destroyed schools no less? There is money to go around, which is what charity is for. Government only consumes wealth. It's common sense that it only makes things worse, it steals from people. Period. The government has no such authority as it infringes on our rights.
-
Remove this groups ability to control government, and then they will stop consuming wealth through the government.
-
Doesn't matter, government will always be perverted to tyranny.
-
So you don't like helping people, you'd rather they just die because they're poor, hey?
-
Why do you assume that? I've helped many people and want no one to die, I simply have principle for freedoms and natural rights. Why do you assume people want others to die? Why do you assume the poor can't have healthcare unless with a corrupt entity threatening people with violence and force? That is called theft, by the way.
-
Because healthcare is a right, and it should be provided for free by the government for all. People should not be subject to the whims of evil private healthcare companies.
-
No, it's not a right at all. No one OWES you anything. It can be free without the government, and if the government is involved it's not free at all, it becomes a ruined waste. You are infringing on rights by demanding the government steals from others.
-
If you're implying there should be no taxes, then you're implying the government should collapse, bringing all of society into lawless ruin. A government cannot function without taxes.
-
[quote]If you're implying there should be no taxes, then you're implying the government should collapse[/quote] Please! There would still be laws without government and we'd benefit greatly without their corruption. They functioned perfectly fine without taxes before 1913. A society can not function WITH income tax.
-
The government would have literally no money, there would be no law enforcement, no infrastructure. It would be anarchy, murders and -blam!- everywhere. You're mad. A society cannot exist without at least some form of government, and on the scale of our population in North America, a large formalized government is 100% necessary. Granted, we need a better one then we have at present, especially in the US.
-
They could absolutely have money, as they did before 1913. There would be law enforcement, the free people. There would be better maintained infrastructure. It would be voluntaryism. Murders would decline without government tyranny and unjust laws which promote violence. You're mad. A society can not exist to it's potential with a corrupt government robbing from them. By admitting YOU need a government is admitting you're incapable of taking care of yourself and you need to be controlled like some animal. A government was necessary at one time, now they are incompetent and dangerous, constantly infringing on us and terrorizing the world.
-
I can admire your optimism, but dude, you see too much good in people. People aren't going to just volunteer to fix things and maintain the law on their own, people are a bunch of lazy -blam!-s. The roads in my city are horrid, and I don't see anybody volunteering to do anything about it other then whine.
-
I don't see too much good in people, I just see the negative aspects of a government with too much power. Plenty of people with principle will volunteer. People don't do anything about your roads because with government involved it's impossible to compete. Private enterprise would handle roads much better.
-
Private enterprise will only handle the roads when it's profitable, they'll give the shaft to small isolated communities.
-
Not once it becomes cheap and easy to profit off of, which promotes fairness to consumers.
-
[quote]natural rights[/quote] haaaaaaaahahahahahahaha
