OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by NTJedi:
Personally I view it as not worth the risk for raising my taxes on something which may be better for the USA. This gamble is not worth the risk.

What gamble? The U.S. is the only industrialized nation that doesn't provide universal health care, spends more per capita on health care than any other industrialized nation in the world, and ranks a dismal 37th in the world.

Earlier you were saying the moral thing to do is help everyone... now you're saying only those which are american citizens.

Yes, the moral thing is to help everyone, however, this is irrelevant to a _national_ health care system.

I don't believe our government has the wisdom to provide an effective healthcare system for everyone since it cannot even handle the growing national debt.

What wisdom is required? You simply create a fee schedule for the various services that Dr.'s and the system will provide that is similar to the one currently in place. When someone uses a service, you pay the Dr. or hospital accordingly. The only difference between this and the current system is that the government sets the rates instead of the health insurers.

There are thousands which abuse the generosity from America and other governments. Example= My cousin helped a woman move groceries which used food stamps. The groceries were going into a shiny expensive BMW. Despite your mind reading beliefs... I have no ill thoughts to those less fortunate.

This is an irrelevant example. If the person can afford a BMW, then they should not be on food stamps in the first place. That's an example of fraud. Please explain how someone is supposed to gain monetary benefit from a health care system that they've already paid for through taxes? Health care is no different than policing in that it's a public good, and I don't hear you suggesting that police forces should be privatized.

And thus I ask again... why not have the USA provide a Universal Healthcare for all nations!

This is another strawman. If those nations were willing to pay taxes to the U.S. to gain healthcare services, then they should, of course, gain access to such services.

There is no reason why the U.S. shouldn't fix its own social problems before trying to fix those of the rest of the world anyways.

It's not like the U.S. has doctors and nurses just sitting around bored. Heck it takes me 5 months before I can make my next doctors appointment after each visit... any cancelation means waiting another 5 months. The taxes could be as high as what switzerland is paying or may not be.... but not worth the gamble.

They could also be as low as the U.K's, where once they pay half as much per person once again. You must remember that the U.S. system costs more per person than every single other system in any industrialized nation in the entire world. All of which guarantee health care to everyone.

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by Norfleet:
Untrue. I generally eschew unnecessary treatments. After all, I have to pay for this crap out of my own pocket, and if I feel fine, I don't need healthcare.

This is most likely completely incorrect. There are any number of illnesses that will kill you even though you "feel fine".

The human body is surprisingly resilient and often self-repairing, provided you allow it to do so, rather than crippling its ability to cope by seeking unnecessary treatment.

You are making the fallacious assumption that unnecessary treatment will be given. You are also making the fallacious assumption that such treatment will hurt the body.

You'd be surprised how much free-time you get once you're retired...which is, after all, the entire point of being retired.

Like I said, given your _maturity level_, you can't be much more than 20 at the most. Probably more like 12 - 15, since you've demonstrated the standard teenage "me first" mentality.

Complete lack of empathy, eh? Not so. I simply can't bring myself to feel sorry for miserable slackers who can't be bothered to take responsibility for even themselves.

And the fact that there are people who are not _able_ to take care of themselves is completely lost on you. Like I said, that's a complete lack of empathy.

[Arryn]

I find it amusing that for the first time, I'm on GD's side of an argument, rather than Norfleet's. Such a wonder.

OTOH, if I'm ever on NT's side I may have a stroke.

[vigabrand]

Originally posted by archaeolept:

quote:

---

Please enlighten me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the average western European pays like 50 to 60 percent of his income in taxes, in order to pay for all the socialized services. In America, it's like 20 to 30 percent I think

lol vigabrand

OECD figures for 1999, which measure total tax burden as a percentage of total economic output, have the US at 14.2%. Sweden is the second highest, at 21.7%, but Ireland, Austria, Switzerland, Germany, France, Netherlands, Spain, Greece, Japan... all have lower overall tax burdens

and yet, somehow, they all manage to have universal health care. who'd a thunk it.

http://www.taxpayer.com/Facts/Intern...omparisons.pdf

---

Those figures are based on income taxes as a percentage of GDP. That's not what we're talking about. Here is a more accurate picture.

http://www.oecd.org/document/51/0,23..._1_1_1,00.html

I was pretty close, with Germany in the 50% of household income for a single worker.

[vigabrand]

Originally posted by djtool:
fogive me for not quoting you vigabrand.


I can't believe you would insinuate that a man not pushing his own personal values upon the country is a bad thing. I don't know kerry personally, but i do know that the president is not an elected king. It is not the presidents job to impose his values upon americans, but to manage comprimise with them.

His job as a senator and possibly president is to represent the beliefs of a certain group of people and govern by them. He is supposed to create legislation and administer based on those beliefs. That is his job. That is why someone would vote for him. Compromise is only when you can't get the full support you need to push whatever adjenda you promised to fulfill.

[Cainehill]

Originally posted by NTJedi:
]Have I written anything about supporting Republicans??? NO ! So despite your vast mind reading abilities you are wrong here. I am not supporting either side... just don't want Kerry because he is trying to make huge changes which will give us HIGHER taxes, more government intervention and he is for abortion which goes against my moral beliefs.

He'll give us higher taxes? Than what we have now? Which are at near historical lows, at least and especially for the rich, since when income taxes were first put in effect in the USA.

Not to mention that we're _STILL_ getting more government intervention right now - you'd think that with the "war on terror", our government would have better things to do than ... crack down on strip joints and Online porn, on Online music sharing (Oh! The terrorists are financing their bombings via Online music sharing!), on legalized marijuana for medicinal purposes, on abortion, on people having the state-legalized right to die with a little dignity.

Not to mention that the current administration has asked Congress to give the Department of Homeland Security the authority to delay the presidential election, "just in case". Delay, postpone, cancel - screw that.

We're not going away from big government - we're just watching our civil liberties being stripped away ("He better watch what he says" - White House Press Secretary, on camera, speaking about Bill Mahrer's Politically Incorrect TV show - what the F@# happened to free speech and the first amendment?) in the name of "national security" as done by the Three Studges (Baby Bush, Dick "What an *******" Cheny, and Big Biziness), and in the name of corporate profits.

Your morality is against abortion? Fine! Don't get an abortion. It isn't like Kerry is going to _FORCE_ your girlfriend/wife/sheep to get one.

I'm with Arryn - blood and bone, I wish McCain had gotten the nomination. Or Bradley. Or Charlie f-ing Manson even. I'd vote for McCain. I'd have voted for Bradley. And right now, I'd vote for Manson if I thought he could defeat Boy George.

None of the presidents have changed the national debt from increasing to decreasing.... when one of them can do this then I'd have enough faith to give him a shot at some national healthcare system which is also a huge financial task/responsibility.

Gee - under Clinton (who only screwed a few women, and not the country) the national debt _DID_ decrease.

[ July 27, 2004, 02:49: Message edited by: Cainehill ]

[Cainehill]

Originally posted by vigabrand:
His job as a senator and possibly president is to represent the beliefs of a certain group of people and govern by them. He is supposed to create legislation and administer based on those beliefs. That is his job. That is why someone would vote for him. Compromise is only when you can't get the full support you need to push whatever adjenda you promised to fulfill.

Oh, you mean like Dumb ****'s 49 percent - that was what made him say it didn't matter, he was 100% of the president.

No - _Dubya_'s job may be to create laws based on the beliefs of the far right fundamentalist Xians and the corporations, but that _isn't_ what a senator's job, or a president's job, is supposed to be.

We're not a bloody theocracy, nor a monarchy, and given that any particular group is going to represent at most maybe 20-25% of the population, you think that group's morals and standards should be imposed as law?

Swive me, and bugger you.

Heh. On the bright side - maybe Thomas Ricks was right in his book on the Marine Corps, and the Corps _will_ rebel against society as it finds society's mores and standards increasing divorced from its own.

Or maybe we'll wake up to guillotines on the White House and Senate steps, or a return to the "one bullet, one vote" philosophy.

Sheesh.