National Crisis in British Health Care
Sergeant Malenoid
on-the-NHS.html
Sentenced to death on the NHS (AKA, putting the government in charge of
your health care)
Patients with terminal illnesses are being made to die prematurely under
an NHS scheme to help end their lives, leading doctors have warned.
Under NHS guidance introduced across England to help doctors and medical
staff deal with dying patients, they can then have fluid and drugs
withdrawn and many are put on continuous sedation until they pass away.
But this approach can also mask the signs that their condition is
improving, the experts warn.
As a result the scheme is causing a "national crisis" in patient care,
the letter states. It has been signed palliative care experts including
Professor Peter Millard, Emeritus Professor of Geriatrics, University of
London, Dr Peter Hargreaves, a consultant in Palliative Medicine at St
Luke's cancer centre in Guildford, and four others.
"Forecasting death is an inexact science," they say. Patients are being
diagnosed as being close to death "without regard to the fact that the
diagnosis could be wrong.
"As a result a national wave of discontent is building up, as family and
friends witness the denial of fluids and food to patients."
God Bless the USA!
acar
[He added: "What they are trying to do is stop people being
overtreated as they are dying.
"It is a very laudable idea. But the concern is that it is tick box
medicine that stops people thinking." ]
The above is not a problem limited to public medicine. It is a medical
problem -- a problem of deciding what is best for patients and families
of patients who are -- by objective medically established criteria --
clearly and irreversibly dying.
There are in medicine many approaches to therapy that can be crticized
in one or another way. For example aspirin is one of the most useful
drugs available but it can promote retinal hemorrhages and even
strokes or Reyes syndrome. Because perfection is elusive consensus is
the gold standard.
This is what Sara Palin disingeniously describes as death panels, and
in any case is emphatically NOT what has been advocated for use in the
US, which is about providing family counseling and does NOT address
patient management.
.
.
.
Sergeant Malenoid
b17d77...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:
> The above is not a problem limited to public medicine. It is a medical
> problem -- a problem of deciding what is best for patients and families
> of patients who are -- by objective medically established criteria --
> clearly and irreversibly dying.
The problem, as stated by the article I cited, is that a dying patient's
relatives have no choice in the matter of treatment, and a dying patient
is kept in a state where choices are no longer possible. And now these
same relatives are up in arms against the heartless system which they
might have voted for and which made it possible.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
God Bless the U.S.A.
If tomorrow all the things were gone
I'd worked for all my life,
And I had to start again
with just my children and my wife,
I'd thank my lucky stars
to be living here today,
'Cause the flag still stands for freedom
and they can't take that away.
And I'm proud to be an American
where at least I know I'm free,
And I won't forget the men who died
who gave that right to me,
And I gladly stand up next to you
and defend her still today,
'Cause there ain't no doubt I love this land
God Bless the U.S.A.
From the lakes of Minnesota
to the hills of Tennessee,
Across the plains of Texas
from sea to shining sea.
From Detroit down to Houston
and New York to L.A.,
well There's pride in every American heart
and it's time we stand and say:
that I'm proud to be an American
where at least I know I'm free,
And I won't forget the men who died
who gave that right to me,
And I gladly stand up next to you
and defend her still today,
'Cause there ain't no doubt I love this land
God Bless the U.S.A.
And I'm proud to be an American
where at least I know I'm free,
And I won't forget the men who died
who gave that right to me,
And I gladly stand up next to you
and defend her still today,
'Cause there ain't no doubt I love this land
God Bless the U.S.A.
Lee Greenwood
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I may not have *socialized medicine,* but AT LEAST I KNOW I'M FREE!
acar
<malenoidathotmail....@giganews.com> wrote:
> acar <acarm...@mail.com> wrote in news:a3cd5892-2d7b-4951-b7bf-
> b17d77164...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:
>
> > The above is not a problem limited to public medicine. It is a medical
> > problem -- a problem of deciding what is best for patients and families
> > of patients who are -- by objective medically established criteria --
> > clearly and irreversibly dying.
>
> The problem, as stated by the article I cited, is that a dying patient's
> relatives have no choice in the matter of treatment, and a dying patient
> is kept in a state where choices are no longer possible. And now these
> same relatives are up in arms against the heartless system which they
> might have voted for and which made it possible.
>
The practice of offering only palliative treatment when there is no
indication for curative treatmet is a sound practice which has has
been a standard for decades. What is this heartless system that you
are taking about? If you are pushing for euthanasia, that is not yet
an accepted ethical practice, with or without the family's consent.
> I may not have *socialized medicine,* but AT LEAST I KNOW I'M FREE!
We are all free in the USA. It is very funny to see advocates of
freedom screaming against choice and competition. Ideology vs. itself!
.
.
.
Sergeant Malenoid
news:85acceef-101e-4591...@r31g2000vbi.googlegroups.com:
> On Oct 28, 7:12�pm, Sergeant Malenoid
> <malenoidathotmail....@giganews.com> wrote:
>> acar <acarm...@mail.com> wrote in news:a3cd5892-2d7b-4951-b7bf-
>> b17d77164...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:
..
>> > The above is not a problem limited to public medicine. It is a
>> > medical problem -- a problem of deciding what is best for patients
>> > and families of patients who are -- by objective medically
>> > established criteria -- clearly and irreversibly dying.
..
>> The problem, as stated by the article I cited, is that a dying
>> patient's relatives have no choice in the matter of treatment, and a
>> dying patient is kept in a state where choices are no longer
>> possible. And now these same relatives are up in arms against the
>> heartless system which they might have voted for and which made it
>> possible.
..
> The practice of offering only palliative treatment when there is no
> indication for curative treatmet is a sound practice which has has
> been a standard for decades. What is this heartless system that you
> are taking about? If you are pushing for euthanasia, that is not yet
> an accepted ethical practice, with or without the family's consent.
You need to read the article. Euthanasia is being practiced, one
"problem" pointed out by the article is that doctors are not always
qualified to know when euthanasia is appropriate, so they keep killing
off patients whose conditions might actually be improving. But in
principle euthanasia is a completely acceptable practice in socialist
England with or without the family's consent. And, indeed, it is
practiced without their consent.
acar
<malenoidathotmail....@giganews.com> wrote:
> You need to read the article. Euthanasia is being practiced,
It is still illegal in this country.
> one
> "problem" pointed out by the article is that doctors are not always
> qualified to know when euthanasia is appropriate,
The morphine drip is regarded as everybody's friend in very obvious
situations that are being handled by specialists. That is why
authorities look the other way. In countries where it is legal the
decision is not made by one doctor but by panels of doctors that have
expertise in matters of death and ethics. The author of the article
is an outlier -- there will always be dissenting opinions. What is the
solution? Appoint him to the panel?
> so they keep killing
> off patients whose conditions might actually be improving.
Several doctors, not just one make those judgments. Since you are not
involved in making that decision you get to chose who you want to
believe. Consensus is more objective than just one opinion. Are
mistakes possible? Innocent men are executed by the justice system.
Perfection is elusive. That is why we (USA) don't condone eiuthanasia.
> But in
> principle euthanasia is a completely acceptable practice in socialist
> England with or without the family's consent. And, indeed, it is
> practiced without their consent.- Hide quoted text -
I am still not clear about what you your point is regarding the USA.
Sergeant Malenoid
@v37g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
> The morphine drip is regarded as everybody's friend in very obvious
> situations that are being handled by specialists.
If it's so obvious then why the debate concerning when or when not to
administer it? But there is more to it than morphine, there is also the
withdrawal of food and water.
acar
<malenoidathotmail....@giganews.com> wrote:
> acar <acarm...@mail.com> wrote in news:46ab39c3-1ada-4cd1-bd68-176448aabbb1
I am not familiar with withdrawal of food and water as an acceptable
practice, official or unofficial. For another thing, families would
not stand for it. If you have direct personal knowledge of specific
cases let us know. The vast majority of doctors want to be ethical and
want to do what is best for their patients. Denial of nursing care as
a way of accelerating exodus goes against the grain of every doctor
that I know, and I know many.
Sergeant Malenoid
news:24e4761d-89e8-42c4...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/aug/09081803.html
Yes, patients' families are complaining.
http://blog.taragana.com/n/british-doctors-complain-of-tick-box-approach-
to-care-of-terminally-ill-patients-158753/
'The guidelines for the terminally ill, which are not mandatory, were
designed by a hospice in Liverpool and recommended as a model in 2004 by
the body that sets national health care standards.
They lay out signs that a patient is close to death -- including loss of
consciousness and difficulty swallowing -- and say that once an assessment
has been made doctors may remove medication or intravenous drips that are
no longer effective.
The letter-writers said the problem with the guidance was that
"forecasting death is an inexact science" and that some patients might be
denied food or fluids, or put under sedation with the result that signs
of improvement might be missed.
"It is supposed to let people die with dignity, but it can become a self-
fulfilling prophecy," said Dr. Peter Hargreaves, one of the signatories.
"Patients who are allowed to become dehydrated and then become confused
can be wrongly put on this pathway."'
Potroast
While universal health care has some drawbacks (most notably wait
times), I wouldn't be too sure your current health system is better
when US lifespans can be compared to communist Cuba. According to the
2009 CIA factbook and UN the average life expectancy of Cubans and
Americans is very close The U S is ranked 38 and. Cuba 37 according
to CIA fact book..35th and 38th by the UN. This is well behind leading
nations Horror story examples can be cherry picked to suit any
argument but If decades of life expectancy and infant mortality stats
mean anything... more people consistently die prematurely in the US
than practically any first world country.
There is also the kicker nations with universal health care spend
significantly less money, everyone is covered, they don't stress over
worries of insurance company rejections, and they don't have to worry
about personal bankruptcies. (50% in the US are due to medical
reasons. In Canada that figure is somewhere below 1%)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_spe_per_per-health-spending-per-person
There is an argument to be made diet is to blame for the difference in
life expectancy but given we have plenty of junk food up here in
Canada and live longer it doesn't seem to be the factor (although
obesity is a bigger problem in the US so that might be it). Others
argue demographics are to blame but even if you pull out US blacks and
measure US whites alone... the US still doesn't crack the top thirty
nations in life expectancy (and again you end up paying way more for
health care)
http://www.mcgill.ca/newsroom/news/item/?item_id=24400
Putting aside politics and just looking at the numbers.... IMO the
main argument against universal health care is a factor that's
surprisingly rarely argued by those that oppose universal health care
in the US. Since the US spends the most amount of money on new medical
technology countries with universal health care might be indirectly
reaping hidden benefits from those investments which makes their
health systems appear more economically efficient than they actually
are. (in other words.. .maybe we are mooching off you)
For instance, going back to the Cuba US comparison.... when an
American gets sick many of those treatments originated in America.
When a Cuban gets sick the medicines and treatments weren't typically
developed in Cuba. It thus follows that the costs to develop their
treatments had some of the financial burden elsewhere.(even
considering Cuba is a smaller nation)
On the other hand, countries like Canada, Germany, Sweden, the UK,
Japan... all develop a substantial amount of medical technology
themselves (on a per capita basis). Private R&D is the still the norm
in countries with universal health care. The main difference seems to
be the last mile. Treatment is what's public... and even then some
also still offer private option as well. It would be interesting to
see some stats on the matter but I haven't seen any yet that address
the specific argument.
....
In the meantime.. some ideas to tweak the US system that might help
reduce costs a little (that doesn't involve the government taking
things over)
If insurance deductibles are jacked up, it seems sensible that
insurance companies can lower rates. (since people will be less prone
to spend money on frivolous visits to the doctor if they have to pay
out of pocket) This presents a problem for people with lower incomes
though. However, if one created a tax shelter for lower income earners
to save up specifically for deductibles it might help offset this.
Another factor for high US premiums seems to be insurance company
bureaucracy that has little to do with actual treatment. The law could
be changed to stipulate coverage can't be denied by an insurance
company for any reason whatsoever and that no one could face
discriminatory pricing on basic services (due to age. wealth, weight,
risk factors, etc) Insurance companies could still compete with one
another on price and additional frilly services but it would eliminate
much of the repetitious approval bureaucracy, much of the money wasted
repetitiously analyzing risk (to figure out rates for each potential
client), and all temptation to find ways to weasel out of paying when
clients get sick.
It's not quite universal health care but it might bring down costs
enough where the US is closer to the rest of the first world in terms
of spending/per capita and spending as a portion of GDP). If costs did
come down then there would also be fewer uninsured and less demand for
Medicare and similar programs.
Potroast
read "The U S is ranked 38 and. Cuba 37 according to UN and 35th and
38th according to CIA fact book."
Sergeant Malenoid
533cb1...@15g2000yqy.googlegroups.com:
..
> Others
> argue demographics are to blame but even if you pull out US blacks and
> measure US whites alone... the US still doesn't crack the top thirty
> nations in life expectancy (and again you end up paying way more for
> health care)
"Live fast, die young, and leave a fat corpse." The goal of that motto
obviously has nothing to do with longevity. It's just not possible to have
it both ways. However, if someone needs a life-saving cancer operation then
the US is the best place to get one.
Potroast
<malenoidathotmail....@giganews.com> wrote:
> Potroast <ilou...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:11eee783-c1da-4370-94a0-
> 533cb11ce...@15g2000yqy.googlegroups.com:
> ..> �Others
> > argue demographics are to blame but even if you pull out US blacks and
> > measure US whites alone... the US still doesn't crack the top thirty
> > nations in life expectancy (and again you end up paying way more for
> > health care)
>
> ..
>
> "Live fast, die young, and leave a fat corpse." The goal of that motto
> obviously has nothing to do with longevity. It's just not possible to have
> it both ways. However, if someone needs a life-saving cancer operation then
> the US is the best place to get one.
Indeed stats seems to show cancer survival rates are better in the
US. On the other hand, according to the CIA factbook the US is ranked
46th in the world in infant mortality. (over double the number of
deaths of leading nations and behind communist Cuba) Neither cherry
picked stat conveys a complete picture though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate
A nations average life expectancy isn't a complete picture of health
either but it's a more relevant stat than any particular ailment. And
while you quote someone dissatified with some aspect of their public
health care system (btw - I don't think he was calling for
privatization.if I had to guess it was more public funding)... stats
seem to show citizens in nations with universal health care are more
confident in their health care system than nations without it
http://www.gallup.com/poll/122393/oecd-countries-universal-healthcare-gets-high-marks.aspx
Even most Americans appear dissatisfied with their current system.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jvs4MD6yXvC7MdsFhZc37gSzA8vA
However, polls of this sort don't really mean anything. What matters
most are stats on lifespan, health during that time, and costs.
Whatever the cause, I don't envy millions of people that have to think
twice to get treated when they are sick. Whether capitalist or
socialist ideas are ultimately going to fix it, something does appear
to need tweaking in the US (although I'm not certain due to the
aforementioned reasons).
Sergeant Malenoid
news:9aa91bfd-32fa-4b9b...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
>
> Even most Americans appear dissatisfied with their current system.
> http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jvs4MD6yXvC7MdsFhZc3
> 7gSzA8vA
So am I. It has become, over the past 30 years, an increasingly
insurance-based system. This means *whatever is best for insurance
company bottom-lines* and screw the patients. Over the past 20 years I
have heard the line "our insurance company won't let us do" blah blah
more and more often, and this includes more than health care scenarios
but also issues such as liability. So it is not only health care
suffering from insurance company control freaks. We are still free to
pursue this or that course, it's not so much made illegal, but the
insurance companies better not find out about it or they will drop your
policy or deny your claim.
But this situation was made possible by government regulations which, for
the most part, stifle competition, thus allowing insurance companies to
get away with abuses, and to virtually strait-jacket people through their
desire to avoid suffering financial loss.
> However, polls of this sort don't really mean anything. What matters
> most are stats on lifespan, health during that time, and costs.
> Whatever the cause, I don't envy millions of people that have to think
> twice to get treated when they are sick. Whether capitalist or
> socialist ideas are ultimately going to fix it, something does appear
> to need tweaking in the US (although I'm not certain due to the
> aforementioned reasons).
Rationing of health care in the US is already in place, although to a
lesser extent than in a bureaucratically regulated health-care system.
It is rationed indirectly through the desire of insurance companies to
protect their bottom lines and to make them grow. Government may well
out-compete the medical insurance business, which, in order to prevent a
large segment of the economy from collapsing (again), will require the
assistance of large government subsidies to remain afloat. Patient and
doctor abuse (which is inevitable) of the new government-based insurance
system will require higher taxation, and the diminishing of whatever
productive, capital wealth is left out there. And with the cost of a
medical education as high as it is there will be fewer pre-med students
willing to take a chance on taking out a gigantic student loan which
normally takes a good 20 years to pay off, but in the new system will
never be paid off unless the new doctors learn how to cheat the system in
order just to survive.
Les Cargill
> On Oct 30, 11:07 am, Sergeant Malenoid
>
> Indeed stats seems to show cancer survival rates are better in the
> US. On the other hand, according to the CIA factbook the US is ranked
> 46th in the world in infant mortality. (over double the number of
> deaths of leading nations and behind communist Cuba) Neither cherry
> picked stat conveys a complete picture though.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate
>
The infant mortality figures are biased by better prenatal care.
--
Les Cargill
Sergeant Malenoid
@news.eternal-september.org:
> Potroast wrote:
>> On Oct 30, 11:07 am, Sergeant Malenoid
> <snip>
..
>> Indeed stats seems to show cancer survival rates are better in the
>> US. On the other hand, according to the CIA factbook the US is ranked
>> 46th in the world in infant mortality. (over double the number of
>> deaths of leading nations and behind communist Cuba) Neither cherry
>> picked stat conveys a complete picture though.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate
..
> The infant mortality figures are biased by better prenatal care.
..
> Les Cargill
..
Yes, this has been known for years. Euro-trash females who dumpster dump
their newborns after having them at home aren't counted in the stats.
Potroast
<malenoidathotmail....@giganews.com> wrote:
> Les Cargill <lcargil...@comcast.net> wrote in news:hcfr1d$oeg$3
Do you see the word "Euro-trash" as akin to the word "redneck"? While
Europeans are fair game for criticism (like everyone else) I've always
found that term too broadly offensive. The EU might one day become a
nation (as it effectively was under Rome) but that's still quite some
distance away. Europe is a continent not a nation (of which not all
nations are even part of the EU). It's sort of like uttering North
American-"trash".... or Eura-asia-"trash". People that don't speak
the same language, belong to different religions, have different
governments, belong to different ethnic groups, have different goals,
and occasionally get into wars with one another....can't really be
lumped into single category (Other than human).
In any case... its not only Europe these figures are coming from. Last
I checked, countries like China. Israel, Japan, Canada. Singapore.
Australia all have universal health care... all have greater life
expectancy.... all spend signficantly less money on health care. (so I
find it dubious dumpster baby dumping is the issue or skewed
statistics)
So the question is.... what's the cause of the discrepancy?
Demographics? Diet? Exercise? If government intervention is always
worse and they have far more government intervention... shouldn't
those dozens of nations be be far worse off in health care? (instead
of seemingly better)
IMO a drawback of dealing with absolutes (e.g. all capitalism or all
socialism sucks) is that we limit our options. I think this is how we
ended up in mixed economies. It gave us flexibility. On the other
hand, I can see flaws in mixed economies too so I'm not saying they
are the "right:"solution either. My bet is the problem is how we've
framed our political debate has trapped us into seeing the world a
certain way.... that there is a forth option out there (and possibly
many more) that better describes how to run a civilization than the
current incumbents.
Sergeant Malenoid
news:8aa42043-8513-431f...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
..
..
> In any case... its not only Europe these figures are coming from. Last
> I checked, countries like China. Israel, Japan, Canada. Singapore.
> Australia all have universal health care... all have greater life
> expectancy.... all spend signficantly less money on health care. (so I
> find it dubious dumpster baby dumping is the issue or skewed
> statistics)
..
> So the question is.... what's the cause of the discrepancy?
> Demographics? Diet? Exercise? If government intervention is always
> worse and they have far more government intervention... shouldn't
> those dozens of nations be be far worse off in health care? (instead
> of seemingly better)
..
Being overweight, obese, and short-lived are a sign of economic prosperity.
There is no doubt that capitalism is good for general prosperity, it is
simply not good for living long and keeping one's weight down.
..
The question is: why value living a long life, and who cares about one's
weight anyway? Last I heard, living until 90 or 100 was not a piece of cake
toward the end. A youth-oriented society such as ours is not going to care
about the issue of longevity.
..
..
Potroast
<malenoidathotmail....@giganews.com> wrote:
I don't care how heavy someone is (although it can unattractive if
extreme). Lifespan I do care about though. I would take 100 years of
being poor over 50 years of being the wealthiest man on earth. Money,
while important, does us no good when we are dead.
Any how...the largest increases in lifespan in the last couple of
centuries haven't really been due to medical treatments. They've been
mostly due to sanitation, clean water, and abundance of food. While
life expectancy the last 50 years (in developed nations) is still
creeping upwards the pace has noticeably slowed down (given all the
technology advances one would think the opposite would be true). My
guess for this is because the human body only lasts around a century
or so naturally (although there are a handful of oddball cases around
120)
I think we are due for a dramatic spike in life expectancy soon.
Although medical technology hasn't moved lifespans forward that much
the last few decades at some point it should have dividends. It's
quite impressive how in-depth a map of our body's processes scientists
have acquired in recent years. Most of those advances I attribute to
advances in physics-which translated into advances in devices that
allowed better examination of the human body. It's reasonable to
assume some of that information will translate into life extending
therapies. (especially given how much computer power we have these
days). Hopefully it will happen in our lifetime.
acar
<malenoidathotmail....@giganews.com> wrote:
> Potroast <ilou...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:8aa42043-8513-431f...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
>
> toward the end. A youth-oriented society such as ours is not going to care
> about the issue of longevity.
> ..
value. At what age do you plan to commit hara-kiri? 60? 70?
,
,
,
Sergeant Malenoid
news:c8e6553d-73c1-4005...@t2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
I'm just going to play it by ear, but by that time I suppose ObamaCare
will be taking care of that problem for us. Medical care for the elderly
is some of the most longlasting and expensive kind, and the government
does not have the kind of infinite wealth needed to preserve the lives of
non-taxpaying members of society who are on their last legs.
You are assuming that for Objectivists longevity is the standard of
value, when in fact it is only Life - not long life, not quality of life,
but only life - that is the basic standard of value. Rand spoke to the
furtherance of life, not in terms of lifespan but more in terms of
actualization of potential for happiness made possible by reason.
Sergeant Malenoid
news:de2d9374-1597-44d3...@15g2000yqy.googlegroups.com:
>> The question is: why value living a long life, and who cares about
>> one's weight anyway? Last I heard, living until 90 or 100 was not a
>> piece of cake toward the end. A youth-oriented society such as ours
>> is not going to care about the issue of longevity.
>
> I don't care how heavy someone is (although it can unattractive if
> extreme). Lifespan I do care about though. I would take 100 years of
> being poor over 50 years of being the wealthiest man on earth. Money,
> while important, does us no good when we are dead.
I'm talking about general prosperity in which everybody generally has
enough to live on and can take care of their needs. That's not the same as
being wealthy. The US is wealthy *as a nation,* but I for one am not at all
wealthy.
I agree with Rand that the wealth of a few - if it is productive wealth and
not the parasitic kind found in English royalty - lifts us all up to a
level which one could call general prosperity. It has been argued that
capitalism, not philosophy, helped lift Europe out of the Dark Ages because
it is a wealth generator, where wealth was important for creating better
fortified towns and cities better able to resist the barbarians. Capitalism
also results in more inventiveness, as with the invention of the long-bow
that helped turned the tide of the Mongolian invaders.
Tomm Carr
>
> I don't care how heavy someone is (although it can unattractive if
> extreme). Lifespan I do care about though. I would take 100 years of
> being poor over 50 years of being the wealthiest man on earth. Money,
> while important, does us no good when we are dead.
Yet in another thread you berate Rand for no other reason other than
because she did not achieve more wealth than she did. Here you recognize
that we need more from life than just money.
I have had the suspicion that you did not argue out of principle, that
you merely deny whatever others say. Your argument in one thread
completely contradicts an argument you are using in a different thread.
I don't think you even consider this a problem.
Well, it is. It's a tiresome problem.
--
Tomm Catt
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In
practice, there is.
Potroast
> Potroast wrote:
>
> > I don't care how heavy someone is (although it can unattractive if
> > extreme). �Lifespan I do care about though. I would take 100 years of
> > being poor over 50 years of being the wealthiest man on earth. Money,
> > while important, does us no good when we are dead.
>
> Yet in another thread you berate Rand for no other reason other than
> because she did not achieve more wealth than she did. Here you recognize
> that we need more from life than just money.
> I have had the suspicion that you did not argue out of principle, that
> you merely deny whatever others say. Your argument in one thread
> completely contradicts an argument you are using in a different thread.
> I don't think you even consider this a problem.
> I have had the suspicion that you did not argue out of principle, that
> you merely deny whatever others say. Your argument in one thread
> completely contradicts an argument you are using in a different thread.
> I don't think you even consider this a problem.
I said given the choice between double the years and vast wealth I
would take the years. Nowhere in that sentence did I say money doesn't
matter.
And nowhere did I say other things don't matter All I suggested is
that if capitalism is what Rand claimed to know it would have been a
point in her favour if she had produced her own wealth. (and not a
point if she did not) This does not ultimately prove anything but it's
a piece of evidence that needs to be weighed and considered.
You insert non-existent evidence to prove your own fallacious
argument..
Potroast
<malenoidathotmail....@giganews.com> wrote:
> I agree with Rand that the wealth of a few - if it is productive wealth and
> not the parasitic kind found in English royalty - lifts us all up to a
> level which one could call general prosperity.
I have no issue with wealthy people provided their wealth was earned
fairly via their talents and/or hard work. The mechanism that
achieves that can sometimes be a murky issue. For instance, borrowing
your word.... I tend to see vast inheritance as "parasitic" in nature.
(although I'm always open to good arguments as to why I shouldn't see
it that way)
I sometimes wonder if machines will eventually take complete control
of industry. If mass production general purpose robots ever show up
(and they should eventually) what effect that will have on industry
and commerce.
> It has been argued that
> capitalism, not philosophy, helped lift Europe out of the Dark Ages because
> it is a wealth generator, where wealth was important for creating better
> fortified towns and cities better able to resist the barbarians.
Capitalism required philosophical discourse (e.g Adam Smith was a
philosopher). For trade to occur the political environment has to
support it. The absence of a government (TM) is not the absence of
politics. It's just a different form of it where the leaders are
different and rules have been shuffled around. The moment two people
are interacting politics occurs. Politics flows from philosophy.
Philosophy is king. (although maybe one day someone will find a more
coherent concept)
> Capitalism also results in more inventiveness, as with the invention of the long-bow that helped turned the tide of the Mongolian invaders.
What do you see as the (rough) date as the invention of capitalism?
(and what definition of capitalism are you using)
1Z
<malenoidathotmail....@giganews.com> wrote:
> Being overweight, obese, and short-lived are a sign of economic prosperity.
> There is no doubt that capitalism is good for general prosperity, it is
> simply not good for living long and keeping one's weight down.
What good is prosperity if it doesn't promote life?
> The question is: why value living a long life, and who cares about one's
> weight anyway? Last I heard, living until 90 or 100 was not a piece of cake
> toward the end. A youth-oriented society such as ours is not going to care
> about the issue of longevity.
Living unhealthilly doesn't make you drop dead in perfect health
at 65, it brings on the years of moribund ill health earlier.
1Z
<malenoidathotmail....@giganews.com> wrote:
> I'm just going to play it by ear, but by that time I suppose ObamaCare
> will be taking care of that problem for us. Medical care for the elderly
> is some of the most longlasting and expensive kind, and the government
> does not have the kind of infinite wealth needed to preserve the lives of
> non-taxpaying members of society who are on their last legs.
Who does? How is the private sector going to solve it?
Is you solution of not bothering with insurance going to help?
Sergeant Malenoid
news:e99a6747-d9b6-4032...@t2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
> On 31 Oct, 23:26, Sergeant Malenoid
> <malenoidathotmail....@giganews.com> wrote:
..
>> Being overweight, obese, and short-lived are a sign of economic
>> prosperity. There is no doubt that capitalism is good for general
>> prosperity, it is simply not good for living long and keeping one's
>> weight down.
..
> What good is prosperity if it doesn't promote life?
Quality of life - but as one fast-living Swedish gal told me, "You gotta
go sometime."
> Living unhealthilly doesn't make you drop dead in perfect health
> at 65, it brings on the years of moribund ill health earlier.
And we are free to choose that course. You are not. I certainly
discourage those kinds of activities that promote death over life, but
that doesn't mean I'm some kind of control freak who has to ask the
government to step in and mandate health care to others. It is more moral
to make the right decision than it is to be forced into choosing it. We
Americans do not need any Big Brother government to make our decisions
for us. If it wasn't for foreign and internal threats to our well-being
we wouldn't need government at all.
1Z
<malenoidathotmail....@giganews.com> wrote:
> > Living unhealthilly doesn't make you drop dead in perfect health
> > at 65, it brings on the years of moribund ill health earlier.
>
> And we are free to choose that course. You are not.
I'm not, am I? You mean booze, burgers and cigs are illegal
in the UK? THat's news to me.
>I certainly
> discourage those kinds of activities that promote death over life, but
> that doesn't mean I'm some kind of control freak who has to ask the
> government to step in and mandate health care to others.
Payment into the systems is compulsory.
Treatment is not.
Jim Klein
> I tend to see vast inheritance as "parasitic" in nature.
> (although I'm always open to good arguments as to why I shouldn't see
> it that way)
Try looking at it, instead of looking for arguments about it.
Where's the parasitee, or victim? Case closed, so let's
see how "open" your mind really is. And save the
bullshit, "We are all the victims." We can't all be the
victims unless at least you are, so explain why you're
a victim if some guy squanders his earnings on his
idiot relatives.
You won't have an answer that amounts to anything
more than, "I want it, so I should take it." Grow up.
Try looking at it, instead of looking for arguments about it.
jk
Sergeant Malenoid
0751e5...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
> On 2 Nov, 14:57, Sergeant Malenoid
> <malenoidathotmail....@giganews.com> wrote:
>
>> > Living unhealthilly doesn't make you drop dead in perfect health
>> > at 65, it brings on the years of moribund ill health earlier.
>>
>> And we are free to choose that course. You are not.
>
> I'm not, am I? You mean booze, burgers and cigs are illegal
> in the UK? THat's news to me.
The issue is not whether they exist, but whether anybody can afford to
buy these things, and how much of it they can buy, after paying their
taxes to the state. Obviously personal health care is not breaking the
bank in the US because people (especially the young crowd) can still
afford to buy those things in droves, and eventually paying the price.
Our famous issue with weight is primarily caused by personal activity and
personal choice, but this activity is made possible through general
prosperity. And greater weight, whether 20 pounds or 500 pounds over,
serves to decrease the potential for greater lifespan.
>>I certainly
>> discourage those kinds of activities that promote death over life, but
>> that doesn't mean I'm some kind of control freak who has to ask the
>> government to step in and mandate health care to others.
>
> Payment into the systems is compulsory.
> Treatment is not.
That brings up another issue: "free" health care always means more people
will seek it out, and sometimes for frivolous reasons, which puts a
burden on the entire health care system and the nation as a whole.
1Z
<malenoidathotmail....@giganews.com> wrote:
> The issue is not whether they exist, but whether anybody can afford to
> buy these things, and how much of it they can buy, after paying their
> taxes to the state.
Uh-huh. Well, it would be great to see some figures on that.
UK tax is about 10% higher than US tax. How much does
the average citizen pay in insurance?
>Obviously personal health care is not breaking the
> bank in the US because people (especially the young crowd) can still
> afford to buy those things in droves,
You are kind of assuming that we can't. Where's
your evidence for that? That we a less obese?
> and eventually paying the price.
> Our famous issue with weight is primarily caused by personal activity and
> personal choice, but this activity is made possible through general
> prosperity. And greater weight, whether 20 pounds or 500 pounds over,
> serves to decrease the potential for greater lifespan.
Which you, insanely, think is a good thing.
> That brings up another issue: "free" health care always means more people
> will seek it out, and sometimes for frivolous reasons, which puts a
> burden on the entire health care system and the nation as a whole.
Empirically, the NHS is more efificient that the
US system.
Sergeant Malenoid
news:6f7d3ba9-c33a-4f77...@15g2000yqy.googlegroups.com:
You mean, who has the kind of infinite wealth needed to preserve their
lives up to the last possible minute? This has been left up to
individuals and their families, as it should be, through whatever means
they can garner the financial support. Sometimes it involves personal
wealth - people do save for retirement, you know, and they do have health
insurance - sometimes the problem is solved with the aid of Medicare. In
my own father's case, he opted not to go through another degrading
surgery (it was degrading for a good reason), and he decided he had lived
long enough (that is almost an exact quote), so he chose to let the
cancer take him (he was never able to quit smoking or at least not for
very long). Medicare paid for everything - of course he had the advantage
of being retired after a long life of paying into the system - and he had
purchased funeral insurance some years prior. His family paid little or
nothing out of pocket.
But that is not the issue, the issue today involves the under-insured or
the non-insured. The only issue is the number of people who need major
surgeries that they cannot afford. One family recently solved this
problem by asking for charity, they raised over $80,000 through a hugely
successful media charity campaign (they asked 80,000 people to donate
$1). Did they "bother with insurance"? They tried, but the insurance
company (through his work) replied that it was illegal for them to
finance his experimental form of surgery. ILLEGAL for them. In other
words, the government stepped in and said "no." So what would happen if
some kind of government health-care insurance was involved? I submit the
exact same denial of benefits would have happened. I just fear that in
this kind of government-based insurance society that would result, nobody
will be able to donate to charity, or their taxes will be so high that
they will simply not be in the right mindset for donating to charitable
causes. Resentment toward having one's rightfully gained and hard-earned
money ripped away by the omnipotent IRS does not promote a very
charitable attitude.
But then, that's the way we are in the US. Perhaps in Europe you guys
like being abused by the government. Perhaps you are used to it. Or
masochism is inherent to your genetic structure.
Sergeant Malenoid
news:906bcb64-de13-4a07...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> On 2 Nov, 15:44, Sergeant Malenoid
> <malenoidathotmail....@giganews.com> wrote:
>
>> The issue is not whether they exist, but whether anybody can afford
>> to buy these things, and how much of it they can buy, after paying
>> their taxes to the state.
>
> Uh-huh. Well, it would be great to see some figures on that.
> UK tax is about 10% higher than US tax. How much does
> the average citizen pay in insurance?
>
>>Obviously personal health care is not breaking the
>> bank in the US because people (especially the young crowd) can still
>> afford to buy those things in droves,
>
>
> You are kind of assuming that we can't. Where's
> your evidence for that? That we a less obese?
Some news articles I read earlier this year stating that Europe is
decades behind the US in terms of prosperity. These articles made the
link between prosperity and obesity, I did not just invent it.
Since you asked for evidence, I did a brief Google search and found this
at the top of 5,640,000 results:
'Obesity is the cost of economic prosperity Professor Sonia Anand offers
in a comment article, Canadian Medical Association Journal, Oct. 24, 2006
issue. She says action at all levels of government is required to deal
with the issue.
Responding to a report by TH Jafar and associates and WHO studies in
other parts of the world, Anand concludes that, "The strongest predictors
of overweight and obesity were societal factors, including urban living
and high economic status." '
Of course she is crying for government to come to the rescue, she is
Canadian - which is basically a European nanny-state government mindset.
>> and eventually paying the price.
>> Our famous issue with weight is primarily caused by personal activity
>> and personal choice, but this activity is made possible through
>> general prosperity. And greater weight, whether 20 pounds or 500
>> pounds over, serves to decrease the potential for greater lifespan.
>
> Which you, insanely, think is a good thing.
Not after I just stated - and I assume you read - that I am against
people abusing their bodies for short-term use and long-term neglect
leading to shorter life-spans. I also stated that I did not believe
(unlike the Canadian girl in the above quote) government needs to come to
anybody's rescue.
>> That brings up another issue: "free" health care always means more
>> people will seek it out, and sometimes for frivolous reasons, which
>> puts a burden on the entire health care system and the nation as a
>> whole.
..
> Empirically, the NHS is more efificient that the
> US system.
It better be. Increasing life-span will only lead to a greater burden on
the system to generate better life-span statistics that you can parade in
front of other countries and say "nyah-nyah."
http://news.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news-3/Aging-population-will-
impose-huge-NHS-burden-7195-1/
'New figures published by Dr Foster in this week's BMJ predict that the
UK's ageing population will impose considerable workload and financial
pressures on the NHS.
The number of people aged 65 and over is predicted to increase by about
53% between 2001 and 2031. This is likely to lead to an increase in the
number of people who have chronic diseases, including cardiovascular
diseases.
Researchers examined the possible impact of the ageing population on the
expected number of people with three cardiovascular disorders: coronary
heart disease, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation (irregular heart
rhythm).
By 2031, they predict that the number of cases of coronary heart disease
will increase by 44%, the number of cases of heart failure will increase
by 54%, and the number of cases of atrial fibrillation will increase by
46%.
If realised, these increases will have important implications for the
NHS, say the authors.
For example, statins have become the single biggest component of the NHS
prescribing budget, and their cost to the NHS is likely to increase
further. So too will the costs of other drugs, as well as the costs of
diagnostic tests, surgical procedures, and regular monitoring of
patients. New medical technologies may also have a considerable impact on
future caseloads.
Obesity, diabetes, and high blood pressure all increase the risk of
developing heart disease, they write. "A key aim of government policy
should therefore be to encourage people to remain active, engage in
regular physical exercise, and refrain from behaviours that could have a
detrimental effect on their health, such as smoking and overeating."'
By the way, do you know who are the biggest neglecters of their own
health in a given society? Not the under-class, not the upper-class - but
those in the below average IQ category (below 90). These people do not
understand the government pamphlets on health care, they do not read the
government pamphlets on health care, they do not care about it. Nothing
you government does can make a difference because it is not possible to
raise someone's IQ. And it is not possible to raise the awareness of
someone with a low IQ who obviously does not give a shit about it anyway.
1Z
<malenoidathotmail....@giganews.com> wrote:
> You mean, who has the kind of infinite wealth needed to preserve their
> lives up to the last possible minute? This has been left up to
> individuals and their families, as it should be, through whatever means
> they can garner the financial support.
If paying $X in insurance premiums works, why
shouldn't paying $X in extra taxes?
> So what would happen if
> some kind of government health-care insurance was involved? I submit the
> exact same denial of benefits would have happened.
You've cherry-picked a case involving an experimental (dangerous?
ineffective? procedure. The differene between the systems is in how
poor people with treatable conditions fare.
And you haven't answered the question about how the inefficient
US system is supposed to handle an aging population better
than the alternatives.
>I just fear that in
> this kind of government-based insurance society that would result, nobody
> will be able to donate to charity, or their taxes will be so high that
> they will simply not be in the right mindset for donating to charitable
> causes.
So no-one gives to charity in the UK? Why
don't you look at the facts instead of makign speculaitve
guesses?
> But then, that's the way we are in the US. Perhaps in Europe you guys
> like being abused by the government.
I have two broken arms fixed: cost GBP0.00
I don't call that abuse.
Sergeant Malenoid
news:9f6acd42-b879-4aed...@15g2000yqy.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 1, 1:21�pm, Sergeant Malenoid
> <malenoidathotmail....@giganews.com> wrote:
>> I agree with Rand that the wealth of a few - if it is productive
>> wealth and not the parasitic kind found in English royalty - lifts us
>> all up to a level which one could call general prosperity.
>
> I have no issue with wealthy people provided their wealth was earned
> fairly via their talents and/or hard work. The mechanism that
> achieves that can sometimes be a murky issue. For instance, borrowing
> your word.... I tend to see vast inheritance as "parasitic" in nature.
> (although I'm always open to good arguments as to why I shouldn't see
> it that way)
It is not always going to be a bed of roses in a free society. Capitalism
brings annoying advertising. It brings a lot of things that I have seen
the libertarians on this forum complain about, but they don't dare to
pinpoint the cause within their own beliefs.
> I sometimes wonder if machines will eventually take complete control
> of industry. If mass production general purpose robots ever show up
> (and they should eventually) what effect that will have on industry
> and commerce.
Robot factories were tried in Japan and failed because of constant
breakdowns. That system was too expensive to maintain.
>> It has been argued that
>> capitalism, not philosophy, helped lift Europe out of the Dark Ages
>> because it is a wealth generator, where wealth was important for
>> creating better fortified towns and cities better able to resist the
>> barbarians.
>
> Capitalism required philosophical discourse (e.g Adam Smith was a
> philosopher).
No, capitalism has always been with us to the extent that there was a
monetary system and relative freedom of trade. It did not take a
philosopher to figure out that traders can become highly wealthy people,
that this wealth can be taxed, and that these taxes can be used in return
to protect the trader class through the development of armaments,
standing armies, and fortified cities to fend off the barbarians during
the Dark Ages - centuries before Adam Smith who did not invent capitalism
but possibly only gave it its name.
> For trade to occur the political environment has to
> support it. The absence of a government (TM) is not the absence of
> politics. It's just a different form of it where the leaders are
> different and rules have been shuffled around. The moment two people
> are interacting politics occurs. Politics flows from philosophy.
> Philosophy is king. (although maybe one day someone will find a more
> coherent concept)
However, people were getting along just fine before philosophy was
invented. And anyway philosophy is far, far more than this stuff Rand
said it was. Much of it consists of a hugely skeptical, questioning
thrust against certain elements of reason and society that probably
should be questioned.
>> Capitalism also results in more inventiveness, as with the invention
>> of the long-bow that helped turned the tide of the Mongolian
>> invaders.
..
> What do you see as the (rough) date as the invention of capitalism?
> (and what definition of capitalism are you using)
I roughly defined it above. I don't see a barter society as anything more
than potentially capitalistic, because somebody has to invent money.
There is no date for the invention of capitalism, or money, any more than
than we can date the invention of fire or the wheel, although it may be
possible to get a rough estimate on the invention of coinage. But it is
probably pre-historic.
Sergeant Malenoid
news:a9438fc5-e4e8-4bfe...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:
> On 2 Nov, 16:01, Sergeant Malenoid
> <malenoidathotmail....@giganews.com> wrote:
>
>> You mean, who has the kind of infinite wealth needed to preserve
>> their lives up to the last possible minute? This has been left up to
>> individuals and their families, as it should be, through whatever
>> means they can garner the financial support.
>
> If paying $X in insurance premiums works, why
> shouldn't paying $X in extra taxes?
I have indirectly answered that question already. Americans enjoy the
(relative) freedom to shop around for their insurance - and they despise
the IRS.
>> So what would happen if
>> some kind of government health-care insurance was involved? I submit
>> the exact same denial of benefits would have happened.
..
> You've cherry-picked a case involving an experimental (dangerous?
> ineffective? procedure. The differene between the systems is in how
> poor people with treatable conditions fare.
Not dangerous or ineffective, but only 60% effective. I submit that the
government would not have paid for it BECAUSE the government decreed that
the insurance company could not pay for it.
> And you haven't answered the question about how the inefficient
> US system is supposed to handle an aging population better
> than the alternatives.
I never claimed we have an efficient system. But I will say that the
likelihood of dying at a younger age puts less of a burden on the social
security system.
I'm not terribly concerned with your claim to efficiency - to bring up an
old tropism, it has been shown that the Nazis were extremely organized
and efficient. So your vaunting claim to efficiency, which is so primary
to the arguments of government socialists such as Clinton and Obama, is
ineffectless with me. Don't get me wrong, I think Clinton was marvellous
at cleaning up the US budget deficit problem. Obama has the same mindset,
I just don't see how it can be accomplished while at the same time
fighting terrorism abroad by increasing the number of troops in
Afghanistan, and also pushing for some kind of expensive national
socialized health-care.
>>I just fear that in
>> this kind of government-based insurance society that would result,
>> nobody will be able to donate to charity, or their taxes will be so
>> high that they will simply not be in the right mindset for donating
>> to charitable causes.
>
> So no-one gives to charity in the UK? Why
> don't you look at the facts instead of makign speculaitve
> guesses?
I didn't say nobody gives to charity in the UK, not even indirectly, your
inference is invalid. In fact, I am saying that AMERICANS will not stand
for this kind of assault on their hard-earned money, from which I then
distinguished the European mindset which apparently doesn't mind that
kind of abuse.
>> But then, that's the way we are in the US. Perhaps in Europe you guys
>> like being abused by the government.
>
> I have two broken arms fixed: cost GBP0.00
>
> I don't call that abuse.
I assume you personally pay 10% more in taxes, Americans consider that
abusive. Work out how much you've paid in taxes to support the system
versus how much it would have cost to fix your broken arms in the US,
then get back to me. (And, while you're at it, work out how many personal
man hours went into paying those taxes.) What you will find is that your
loss in taxes is so GRADUAL, occurring over long periods of time, that
you do not notice it as much as you would a grand total at the bottom of
a hospital bill. Now take the grand total of all the taxes you've paid
into the system and think of that as the hospital bill you shelled out
for yourself and everybody around you who took from the system and
pretended that they paid GBP0.00 for it as you just did.
It doesn't make Americans feel any better to tell them that they worked
the first three months of the year just to pay their tax liability.
1Z
<malenoidathotmail....@giganews.com> wrote:
> I have indirectly answered that question already. Americans enjoy the
> (relative) freedom to shop around for their insurance - and they despise
> the IRS.
So your answer has nothing to do with the *inability* of
the NHS to deliver.
> I never claimed we have an efficient system. But I will say that the
> likelihood of dying at a younger age puts less of a burden on the social
> security system.
So how much is a human life worth to you?
> I'm not terribly concerned with your claim to efficiency - to bring up an
> old tropism, it has been shown that the Nazis were extremely organized
> and efficient.
Whilst it has not been shown that NHS -- which has massive popular
support -- is in nay way oppressive.
> I didn't say nobody gives to charity in the UK, not even indirectly, your
> inference is invalid. In fact, I am saying that AMERICANS will not stand
> for this kind of assault on their hard-earned money, from which I then
> distinguished the European mindset which apparently doesn't mind that
> kind of abuse.
Speculations about other people's psychology don't cut much
ice with me.
> I assume you personally pay 10% more in taxes, Americans consider that
> abusive. Work out how much you've paid in taxes to support the system
> versus how much it would have cost to fix your broken arms in the US,
> then get back to me.
Well, the US system is the least efficient.....
>Now take the grand total of all the taxes you've paid
> into the system and think of that as the hospital bill you shelled out
> for yourself and everybody around you who took from the system and
> pretended that they paid GBP0.00 for it as you just did.
So the cost was spread and rendered unnoticable.
Great. That is one reason people take out
insurance.
> It doesn't make Americans feel any better to tell them that they worked
> the first three months of the year just to pay their tax liability.
Maybe they'd feel better if they got more back.
Sergeant Malenoid
news:0aef15e2-08ef-4edc...@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> On 2 Nov, 16:50, Sergeant Malenoid
> <malenoidathotmail....@giganews.com> wrote:
>
>> I have indirectly answered that question already. Americans enjoy the
>> (relative) freedom to shop around for their insurance - and they
>> despise the IRS.
>
> So your answer has nothing to do with the *inability* of
> the NHS to deliver.
>
>
>
>> I never claimed we have an efficient system. But I will say that the
>> likelihood of dying at a younger age puts less of a burden on the
>> social security system.
>
> So how much is a human life worth to you?
>
>> I'm not terribly concerned with your claim to efficiency - to bring
>> up an old tropism, it has been shown that the Nazis were extremely
>> organized and efficient.
>
> Whilst it has not been shown that NHS -- which has massive popular
> support -- is in nay way oppressive.
No, just the tax burden required to support it. But the popular support
issue - while true statistically - is belied by the number of actual
complaints that come from patients and their families. Yes, it's true,
people say "yes" versus "no" to the system - but only because they have
now become dependent on it. And governments creates such dependency as
with chronic welfare cases in the US. It is easier to go with the times,
the people are relatively happy, changing back to the old ways brings a
temporary unhappiness or dis-ease which seems intolerable. And yet, we
all know that for hundreds of years prior to the new state system people
actually got along quite well if not better.
http://www.which.co.uk/news/2007/10/nhs-failing-to-deal-with-patient-
complaints-123495.jsp
"We recently published our own research which found almost half of NHS
patients are unhappy with an aspect of their care but the majority don't
raise the issue with staff, because they don't feel it will make any
difference or think it may be detrimental to the care they receive."
Don't complain or next time we'll make it worse for ya, bloke!
>> I didn't say nobody gives to charity in the UK, not even indirectly,
>> your inference is invalid. In fact, I am saying that AMERICANS will
>> not stand for this kind of assault on their hard-earned money, from
>> which I then distinguished the European mindset which apparently
>> doesn't mind that kind of abuse.
>
> Speculations about other people's psychology don't cut much
> ice with me.
It's not speculation, the facts are out there, the videos of Americans
complaining to their government are out there. The evidence that
Europeans lay back and allow their throats to be slit is found in posts
such as yours and many others. It's a simple fact, not speculation, that
Americans won't stand for that kind of thing from their government, and
that Americans do not tolerate the governmental abuses that Europeans
have tolerated for centuries. We are not subjects of any queen, and even
if you say you are no longer technically "subjects," the attitude
remains. The very existence of this nation was founded on resistance to
governmental oppression, and that attitude remains - believe me, I live
here and I can tell you for a fact that the same rebellious attitude that
kicked your British army and navy out twice remains strong within us.
>> I assume you personally pay 10% more in taxes, Americans consider
>> that abusive. Work out how much you've paid in taxes to support the
>> system versus how much it would have cost to fix your broken arms in
>> the US, then get back to me.
>
> Well, the US system is the least efficient.....
The US system is the least abusive, and here's why. You pay your medical
bills through taxes, we pay ours through insurance or out-of-pocket (or
charity). What happens if you don't pay your taxes? You go to jail. In
other words, you go to jail for failing to pay society's medical bills
through taxation. In the US we do not go to jail for failure to pay -
yours is precisely the same as an old-fashioned debtor's prison, except
those are for future debts on the future bills of millions of others.
In the US, we can certainly refuse to pay our medical bills, people do it
all the time. Eventually the hospital or clinic sends the bill to
collections. Eventually, the bill gets written off the books, millions of
dollars are written off the books at some hospitals every year, yet they
remain in business. Patients in the US do not get thrown in jail as they
do in Europe, he only gets a blot on his credit report.
A blot on his credit report, versus "debtor's prison," for failure to
pay. And in the latter case, it is not even his own debt, it is part of
everybody's debt he legally owes.
Now, I submit on the basis of this evidence that your system is more
efficient, while ours.... is more JUST.
>>Now take the grand total of all the taxes you've paid
>> into the system and think of that as the hospital bill you shelled
>> out for yourself and everybody around you who took from the system
>> and pretended that they paid GBP0.00 for it as you just did.
>
> So the cost was spread and rendered unnoticable.
> Great. That is one reason people take out insurance.
Insurance is not normally a criminal issue (except in cases of fraud),
but when taxation is involved it becomes a criminal matter when those
taxes aren't paid. If an insurance policy-holder doesn't pay his bill his
insurance company drops him. If a European taxpayer doesn't pay his tax
debt then the gendarmes get their due instead.
>> It doesn't make Americans feel any better to tell them that they
>> worked the first three months of the year just to pay their tax
>> liability.
>
> Maybe they'd feel better if they got more back.
Refund time is already happy time for millions of Americans every year,
some of whom get a check from the IRS in terms of thousands of dollars.
But more what? More justice? Is it just to take earnings from people who
work hard for it and give it to people who have not earned it and yet lay
claim to it? Is it justice in the sense I described above, to create
criminality where there should be none, because it is paid through
taxation instead of remaining a financial issue to be taken up between
private individuals? Yes, sometimes a debt becomes a legal issue, it is
simply not a criminal one in the US unless fraud or some such is
involved.
1Z
<malenoidathotmail....@giganews.com> wrote:
> > Whilst it has not been shown that NHS -- which has massive popular
> > support -- is in nay way oppressive.
>
> No, just the tax burden required to support it.
It's pretty hysterical to compare it to
the nazis
>But the popular support
> issue - while true statistically - is belied by the number of actual
> complaints that come from patients and their families.
Well...no. The complaints are about the details
fo it works and how well it works. No-one thinks
wholesale privatisaion will cure things.
>Yes, it's true,
> people say "yes" versus "no" to the system - but only because they have
> now become dependent on it.
Tu quoque. Maybe you are dependent on the
usian system.
>And governments creates such dependency as
> with chronic welfare cases in the US. It is easier to go with the times,
> the people are relatively happy, changing back to the old ways brings a
> temporary unhappiness or dis-ease which seems intolerable. And yet, we
> all know that for hundreds of years prior to the new state system people
> actually got along quite well if not better.
Nonsense. They live 10 or twenty years less, lost one in 3 or so
of their children...
> > Speculations about other people's psychology don't cut much
> > ice with me.
>
> It's not speculation, the facts are out there, the videos of Americans
> complaining to their government are out there.
No-one complains in Europe?
>The evidence that
> Europeans lay back and allow their throats to be slit is found in posts
> such as yours and many others.
The NHS cured me, it idid not slit my throat.
Silly exagerations and hyperbole impress me even less
than psychologising.
>It's a simple fact, not speculation, that
> Americans won't stand for that kind of thing from their government, and
> that Americans do not tolerate the governmental abuses that Europeans
> have tolerated for centuries.
There only abuses in your mind. You are running on
empty.
> We are not subjects of any queen,
Oh bloody, hell, here we go....
>and even
> if you say you are no longer technically "subjects," the attitude
> remains.
...that's the caricature that circulates among right wingers who
actually
know fuck all about the UK.
> > Well, the US system is the least efficient.....
>
> The US system is the least abusive, and here's why. You pay your medical
> bills through taxes, we pay ours through insurance or out-of-pocket (or
> charity). What happens if you don't pay your taxes? You go to jail. In
> other words, you go to jail for failing to pay society's medical bills
> through taxation.
What happens if you can't afford treatment? You die.
You are putting a price on other people lives.
> > So the cost was spread and rendered unnoticable.
> > Great. That is one reason people take out insurance.
>
> Insurance is not normally a criminal issue (except in cases of fraud),
> but when taxation is involved it becomes a criminal matter when those
> taxes aren't paid. If an insurance policy-holder doesn't pay his bill his
> insurance company drops him. If a European taxpayer doesn't pay his tax
> debt then the gendarmes get their due instead.
You have taxation too. You just get less back for it.
> >> It doesn't make Americans feel any better to tell them that they
> >> worked the first three months of the year just to pay their tax
> >> liability.
>
> > Maybe they'd feel better if they got more back.
>
> Refund time
I meant services, not money.
>is already happy time for millions of Americans every year,
> some of whom get a check from the IRS in terms of thousands of dollars.
> But more what? More justice? Is it just to take earnings from people who
> work hard for it and give it to people who have not earned it and yet lay
> claim to it?
Yes, if it preserves their lives. Let someone die
and you remove all their freedoms.
Potroast
<malenoidathotmail....@giganews.com> wrote:
> Potroast <ilou...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:9f6acd42-b879-4aed...@15g2000yqy.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Nov 1, 1:21�pm, Sergeant Malenoid
> > <malenoidathotmail....@giganews.com> wrote:
> Robot factories were tried in Japan and failed because of constant
> breakdowns. That system was too expensive to maintain.
I worked for a period at warehouse that used an automated system to
handle standard shipping pallets (but not on hardware end of things-
developing/maintaining shipping/inventory software) It was the exact
same problem. Too expensive because they'd break down too often
(although my understanding is the technology has improve to the point
it now makes financial sense) That really isn't the kind of general
purpose robots I'm talking about though. I mean more along the lines
of irobot (the film with Will Smith)
Speaking as a software developer and someone that studied electrical
engineering... IMO the issue with general purpose robots isn't a
hardware issue it seems to be programming. Or probably more precisely
programmers have no algorithms to use because no one has yet
described intelligence in mathematical terms. While programmers use
the term "AI" to describe certain kinds of code (e.g. a video game
computer opponent) I don't personally see it as intelligent. While
code can be programmed to behave quasi-randomly, every kind of general
behavior still need to be pre-written (so the programmer is still
pulling marionette strings).
Although code can be written for a computer to write its own code the
problem then becomes a computer doesn't understand why one piece of
code is better than another. For instance, lets suppose a robot was
designed to played catch. If it adjusted its own code to say "shred
the ball" it wouldn't hesitate a moment to do that either, It has
absolutely no judgment to decide that shredding balls is bad and
throwing a ball is good. (whereas a I good piece of code would figure
out by itself bouncing a ball is also fun)
IMO this is at the heart of the AI problem. Programmers can write code
that simulates behavior like a human might react, one can even teach
it to learn (within very specific situations)... but ultimately every
behavior and situation has to be described in narrow ways. We could
stitch together a robot that could get around and perform some tasks
but it won't be able to do much other than a handful of pre-programmed
repetitive chores. (my guess is the first general purpose robots will
likely take that approach and just keep adding tasks to make it more
versatile)
My own theory as to why we are stuck with AI comes down moral
judgment. This is a bit of a philosophical statement (backed up by
some scientific data though) but I believe to have moral judgment also
requires emotion. Since a computer doesn't have a "feel" for why one
action is better than another (unless we explicitly tell it) there is
no general way for it to differentiate between action A or action B.
In other words computers, the most analytical thing humans have ever
created... needs feelings. (or at least code that simulates feelings)
> > For trade to occur the political environment has to
> > support it. The absence of a government (TM) is not the absence of
> > politics. It's just a different form of it where the leaders are
> > different and rules have been shuffled around. �The moment two people
> > are interacting politics occurs. Politics flows from philosophy.
> > Philosophy is king. (although maybe one day someone will find a more
> > coherent concept)
>
> However, people were getting along just fine before philosophy was
> invented.
"Fine" wasn't that great in ancient times. Even in ancient Greece and
Rome life was short and brutal relative to today (although typically
better off than the less civilized areas where savagery was still
common). There were other civilizations as well of course but western
style civilization is mostly rooted in ancient Rome and Greece.
Similar to how you see your broad definition of capitalism as having
existed prior to Adam Smith... I see philosophy as having existed
prior to the pre-Socratics. Ancient Babylonians, Egyptians, Sumerians
et al still used something akin to philosophical reasoning to build
their civilizations (since they still had laws)...they just didn't
have a catchy name for it yet and their descriptions of the reasoning
processes behind their laws was blurrier.
Sergeant Malenoid
news:1bea53dc-318e-44b8...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 2, 11:33�am, Sergeant Malenoid
> <malenoidathotmail....@giganews.com> wrote:
>> Potroast <ilou...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> innews:9f6acd42-b879-4aed...@15g2000yqy.googlegroups.co
>> m:
..
> In other words computers, the most analytical thing humans have ever
> created... needs feelings. (or at least code that simulates feelings)
You mean emotions? Most life gets along just fine without them.
But there are robots that have acquired traits that make them appear to
behave selfishly.
http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2009/08/robots_evolve_to_deceive
_one_another.php
>> > For trade to occur the political environment has to
>> > support it. The absence of a government (TM) is not the absence of
>> > politics. It's just a different form of it where the leaders are
>> > different and rules have been shuffled around. �The moment two
>> > people are interacting politics occurs. Politics flows from
>> > philosophy. Philosophy is king. (although maybe one day someone
>> > will find a more coherent concept)
..
>> However, people were getting along just fine before philosophy was
>> invented.
..
> "Fine" wasn't that great in ancient times. Even in ancient Greece and
> Rome life was short and brutal relative to today (although typically
> better off than the less civilized areas where savagery was still
> common). There were other civilizations as well of course but western
> style civilization is mostly rooted in ancient Rome and Greece.
..
> Similar to how you see your broad definition of capitalism as having
> existed prior to Adam Smith... I see philosophy as having existed
> prior to the pre-Socratics. Ancient Babylonians, Egyptians, Sumerians
> et al still used something akin to philosophical reasoning to build
> their civilizations (since they still had laws)...they just didn't
> have a catchy name for it yet and their descriptions of the reasoning
> processes behind their laws was blurrier.
..
Don't forget religion, from which philosophy grew, and then science.
I have not a single clue as to the reasoning abilities of ancient
Babylonians, but I have a strong hunch that it lacked in the abstract
ability required of philosophers and scientists. They were extremely
clever in plotting and predicting the course of those lights in the
heavens, ancient Egyptians were master architects, ancient civilizations
had a rough or rudimentary form of science and some mathematics, but no
philosophy, only religion.
Sergeant Malenoid
news:265a206f-48ed-4f2a...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
> On 2 Nov, 18:47, Sergeant Malenoid
> <malenoidathotmail....@giganews.com> wrote:
..
>> > Whilst it has not been shown that NHS -- which has massive popular
>> > support -- is in nay way oppressive.
..
>> No, just the tax burden required to support it.
..
> It's pretty hysterical to compare it to the nazis
I did not compare the NHS to Nazis, I compared NHS efficiency to Nazi
efficiency, and then made a case for the value of justice versus
efficiency. Efficiency is only a tool, it is not in and of itself a value
to pursue. Efficiency is only good for whatever value it helps to
further. In the case of socialized medicine, or Nazism, it accomplishes
nothing of value, therefore it is no good.
>>But the popular support
>> issue - while true statistically - is belied by the number of actual
>> complaints that come from patients and their families.
..
> Well...no. The complaints are about the details
> fo it works and how well it works. No-one thinks
> wholesale privatisaion will cure things.
I know that, or at least let's say for argument's sake that "no-one"
thinks it will cure things. Creating dependency amongst a public where
the mindset toward dependency was already established in their culture,
is not a difficult thing to do. It will be more difficult in America,
however, where individualism still reigns supreme over the welfare state.
They say on this form that the individual is the basic unit of society.
But the individual himself requires social support. There are still (and
always will be) two units of society more basic than the individual:
first, the family, and second, the church. (Yes, church, where attendance
is still prolific.) That does not preclude the existence of other social
(non-governmental) organizations which aid individuals and their families
and always have long before bureaucrats stepped in and started making a
mess of things. The primary "mess" I am referring to is the destruction
of those basic units of society mentioned above. First, Social Security,
AKA the 1935 Social Security Act, the first step in destroying the basic
social unit by destroying the extended family. Second, Lyndon Johnson's
Great Society which began the destruction of the primary or nuclear
family. (Churches and other organizations are based around families so
they will fall as a result.) As government tears down every source of an
individual's protection from tyranny, the American mindset slowly returns
to its European roots along with all the social decay found there, the
remnants of a long dead but great civilization.
>>Yes, it's true,
>> people say "yes" versus "no" to the system - but only because they
>> have now become dependent on it.
..
> Tu quoque. Maybe you are dependent on the usian system.
It's "American," not "usian."
>>And governments creates such dependency as
>> with chronic welfare cases in the US. It is easier to go with the
>> times, the people are relatively happy, changing back to the old ways
>> brings a temporary unhappiness or dis-ease which seems intolerable.
>> And yet, we all know that for hundreds of years prior to the new
>> state system people actually got along quite well if not better.
..
> Nonsense. They live 10 or twenty years less, lost one in 3 or so
> of their children...
We know this because they didn't have "wheelie bins" to secretly dump
their dead baby corpses in like they do today.
>> > Speculations about other people's psychology don't cut much
>> > ice with me.
..
>> It's not speculation, the facts are out there, the videos of
>> Americans complaining to their government are out there.
..
> No-one complains in Europe?
Pay attention and stop being so snippy. Above I wrote in response to your
view that Europeans are in mass support of their socialized medicine
stating that the complaints are there also. Then I posted a link which
contained the words "NHS patient complaints ignored" and ended the
paragraph with a humorous jest which may have more truth to it than you
realize.
>> The evidence that
>> Europeans lay back and allow their throats to be slit is found in
>> posts such as yours and many others.
..
> The NHS cured me, it idid not slit my throat.
Figuratively speaking.
> Silly exagerations and hyperbole impress me even less
> than psychologising.
Slow death by taxation is comparable to slowly boiling a crab so that it
doesn't feel any pain.
>> It's a simple fact, not speculation, that
>> Americans won't stand for that kind of thing from their government,
>> and that Americans do not tolerate the governmental abuses that
>> Europeans have tolerated for centuries.
..
> There only abuses in your mind. You are running on empty.
..
>> We are not subjects of any queen,
..
> Oh bloody, hell, here we go....
..
>> and even
>> if you say you are no longer technically "subjects," the attitude
>> remains.
..
> ...that's the caricature that circulates among right wingers who
> actually know fuck all about the UK.
The fact that Brits and Europeans come out in mass support of their
socialized medicine, as you yourself stated, speaks volumes in support of
my view. I don't need to engage in any "hyperbole," I only need to cite
your own statements back to you. Europe is one giant welfare-dependency
state.
>> > Well, the US system is the least efficient.....
..
>> The US system is the least abusive, and here's why. You pay your
>> medical bills through taxes, we pay ours through insurance or
>> out-of-pocket (or charity). What happens if you don't pay your taxes?
>> You go to jail. In other words, you go to jail for failing to pay
>> society's medical bills through taxation.
..
> What happens if you can't afford treatment? You die.
> You are putting a price on other people lives.
What happens if the British government denies you surgery for cancer? You
die. What happens if a severe cluster-headache sufferer in the US is
denied by his insurance company, who is under the thumb of the federal
government? Americans - who are proud of their freedom and heritage -
respond in droves to pay for his experimental surgery knowing that it has
only a 60% success rate - because they still have feelings for their
fellow Americans even those who are perfect strangers to them - and at
least the government hasn't taken that away yet nor has it forced them to
pay out of their own pockets for someone else's "idealistic" socialized
health-care system sponsored by a foreign-born president and a Congress
they voted against for good reason.
>> > So the cost was spread and rendered unnoticable.
>> > Great. That is one reason people take out insurance.
..
>> Insurance is not normally a criminal issue (except in cases of
>> fraud), but when taxation is involved it becomes a criminal matter
>> when those taxes aren't paid. If an insurance policy-holder doesn't
>> pay his bill his insurance company drops him. If a European taxpayer
>> doesn't pay his tax debt then the gendarmes get their due instead.
..
> You have taxation too. You just get less back for it.
My family gets services. But many Americans feel ASHAMED to take
government hand-outs and feel reduced by it. I realize however that you
don't feel such shame and don't understand its source because you are not
an American. But the last time I personally had a medical bill to pay (in
2006) my boss fronted me an interest-free loan which I have long since
paid off.
>> >> It doesn't make Americans feel any better to tell them that they
>> >> worked the first three months of the year just to pay their tax
>> >> liability.
..
>> > Maybe they'd feel better if they got more back.
..
>> Refund time
..
> I meant services, not money.
..
>>is already happy time for millions of Americans every year,
>> some of whom get a check from the IRS in terms of thousands of
>> dollars. But more what? More justice? Is it just to take earnings
>> from people who work hard for it and give it to people who have not
>> earned it and yet lay claim to it?
..
> Yes, if it preserves their lives. Let someone die and you remove all
> their freedoms.
That's not hyperbole? Better to die a free man than to rot in some
European socialist "paradise."
Sergeant Malenoid
news:265a206f-48ed-4f2a...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
> On 2 Nov, 18:47, Sergeant Malenoid
> <malenoidathotmail....@giganews.com> wrote:
..
>> > Whilst it has not been shown that NHS -- which has massive popular
>> > support -- is in nay way oppressive.
..
>> No, just the tax burden required to support it.
..
> It's pretty hysterical to compare it to the nazis
I did not compare the NHS to Nazis, I compared NHS efficiency to Nazi
efficiency, and then made a case for the value of justice versus
efficiency. Efficiency is only a tool, it is not in and of itself a value
to pursue. Efficiency is only good for whatever value it helps to
further. In the case of socialized medicine, or Nazism, it accomplishes
nothing of value, therefore it is no good.
>>But the popular support
>> issue - while true statistically - is belied by the number of actual
>> complaints that come from patients and their families.
..
> Well...no. The complaints are about the details
> fo it works and how well it works. No-one thinks
> wholesale privatisaion will cure things.
I know that, or at least let's say for argument's sake that "no-one"
thinks it will cure things. Creating dependency amongst a public where
the mindset toward dependency was already established in their culture,
is not a difficult thing to do. It will be more difficult in America,
however, where individualism still reigns supreme over the welfare state.
They say on this form that the individual is the basic unit of society.
But the individual himself requires social support. There are still (and
always will be) two units of society more basic than the individual:
first, the family, and second, the church. (Yes, church, where attendance
is still prolific.) That does not preclude the existence of other social
(non-governmental) organizations which aid individuals and their families
and always have long before bureaucrats stepped in and started making a
mess of things. The primary "mess" I am referring to is the destruction
of those basic units of society mentioned above. First, Social Security,
AKA the 1935 Social Security Act, the first step in destroying the basic
social unit by destroying the extended family. Second, Lyndon Johnson's
Great Society which began the destruction of the primary or nuclear
family. (Churches and other organizations are based around families so
they will fall as a result.) As government tears down every source of an
individual's protection from tyranny, the American mindset slowly returns
to its European roots along with all the social decay found there, the
remnants of a long dead but great civilization.
>>Yes, it's true,
>> people say "yes" versus "no" to the system - but only because they
>> have now become dependent on it.
..
> Tu quoque. Maybe you are dependent on the usian system.
It's "American," not "usian."
>>And governments creates such dependency as
>> with chronic welfare cases in the US. It is easier to go with the
>> times, the people are relatively happy, changing back to the old ways
>> brings a temporary unhappiness or dis-ease which seems intolerable.
>> And yet, we all know that for hundreds of years prior to the new
>> state system people actually got along quite well if not better.
..
> Nonsense. They live 10 or twenty years less, lost one in 3 or so
> of their children...
We know this because they didn't have "wheelie bins" to secretly dump
their dead baby corpses in like they do today.
>> > Speculations about other people's psychology don't cut much
>> > ice with me.
..
>> It's not speculation, the facts are out there, the videos of
>> Americans complaining to their government are out there.
..
> No-one complains in Europe?
Pay attention and stop being so snippy. Above I wrote in response to your
view that Europeans are in mass support of their socialized medicine
stating that the complaints are there also. Then I posted a link which
contained the words "NHS patient complaints ignored" and ended the
paragraph with a humorous jest which may have more truth to it than you
realize.
>> The evidence that
>> Europeans lay back and allow their throats to be slit is found in
>> posts such as yours and many others.
..
> The NHS cured me, it idid not slit my throat.
Figuratively speaking.
> Silly exagerations and hyperbole impress me even less
> than psychologising.
Slow death by taxation is comparable to slowly boiling a crab so that it
doesn't feel any pain.
>> It's a simple fact, not speculation, that
>> Americans won't stand for that kind of thing from their government,
>> and that Americans do not tolerate the governmental abuses that
>> Europeans have tolerated for centuries.
..
> There only abuses in your mind. You are running on empty.
..
>> We are not subjects of any queen,
..
> Oh bloody, hell, here we go....
..
>> and even
>> if you say you are no longer technically "subjects," the attitude
>> remains.
..
> ...that's the caricature that circulates among right wingers who
> actually know fuck all about the UK.
The fact that Brits and Europeans come out in mass support of their
socialized medicine, as you yourself stated, speaks volumes in support of
my view. I don't need to engage in any "hyperbole," I only need to cite
your own statements back to you. Europe is one giant welfare-dependency
state.
>> > Well, the US system is the least efficient.....
..
>> The US system is the least abusive, and here's why. You pay your
>> medical bills through taxes, we pay ours through insurance or
>> out-of-pocket (or charity). What happens if you don't pay your taxes?
>> You go to jail. In other words, you go to jail for failing to pay
>> society's medical bills through taxation.
..
> What happens if you can't afford treatment? You die.
> You are putting a price on other people lives.
What happens if the British government denies you surgery for cancer? You
die. What happens if a severe cluster-headache sufferer in the US is
denied by his insurance company, who is under the thumb of the federal
government? Americans - who are proud of their freedom and heritage -
respond in droves to pay for his experimental surgery knowing that it has
only a 60% success rate - because they still have feelings for their
fellow Americans even those who are perfect strangers to them - and at
least the government hasn't taken that away yet nor has it forced them to
pay out of their own pockets for someone else's "idealistic" socialized
health-care system sponsored by a foreign-born president and a Congress
they voted against for good reason.
>> > So the cost was spread and rendered unnoticable.
>> > Great. That is one reason people take out insurance.
..
>> Insurance is not normally a criminal issue (except in cases of
>> fraud), but when taxation is involved it becomes a criminal matter
>> when those taxes aren't paid. If an insurance policy-holder doesn't
>> pay his bill his insurance company drops him. If a European taxpayer
>> doesn't pay his tax debt then the gendarmes get their due instead.
..
> You have taxation too. You just get less back for it.
My family gets services. But many Americans feel ASHAMED to take
government hand-outs and feel reduced by it. I realize however that you
don't feel such shame and don't understand its source because you are not
an American. But the last time I personally had a medical bill to pay (in
2006) my boss fronted me an interest-free loan which I have long since
paid off.
>> >> It doesn't make Americans feel any better to tell them that they
>> >> worked the first three months of the year just to pay their tax
>> >> liability.
..
>> > Maybe they'd feel better if they got more back.
..
>> Refund time
..
> I meant services, not money.
..
>>is already happy time for millions of Americans every year,
>> some of whom get a check from the IRS in terms of thousands of
>> dollars. But more what? More justice? Is it just to take earnings
>> from people who work hard for it and give it to people who have not
>> earned it and yet lay claim to it?
..
> Yes, if it preserves their lives. Let someone die and you remove all
> their freedoms.
That's not hyperbole? Better to die a free man than to rot in some
European socialist "paradise."
Potroast
<malenoidathotmail....@giganews.com> wrote:
> Potroast <ilou...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:1bea53dc-318e-44b8...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 2, 11:33�am, Sergeant Malenoid
> > <malenoidathotmail....@giganews.com> wrote:
> >> Potroast <ilou...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >> innews:9f6acd42-b879-4aed...@15g2000yqy.googlegroups.co
> >> m:
> ..
> > In other words computers, the most analytical thing humans have ever
> > created... needs feelings. (or at least code that simulates feelings)
>
> You mean emotions? Most life gets along just fine without them.
Not normal human life. There are some instances of reduced emotions
(e.g.sociopaths) but I'm not aware of a human being that's been ever
diagnosed as completely emotionless. Of course the trick is defining
what the heck is an emotion in the first place (which I can't do or
else I'd be collecting my nobel instead typing here :)
I see the terms feelings and emotions as a blurry line (that sometimes
be used interchangeably). We can get sensation when we touch something
but the warm and fuzzy sensation we can get kissing a spouse we could
consider emotion. Or we get angry if she cheats. Or we get happy if
she's happy. etc.. etc...
In the context I'm describing "feelings" I'm including emotion but I'd
also including sensory input. Our emotions mostly seem to have evolved
specifically to deal with interacting with reality around us. Thus we
see someone taking our food away involuntarily as "immoral" because we
know we'll "feel" hungry if someone did that.
> But there are robots that have acquired traits that make them appear to
> behave selfishly.
Can you be more specific? AI research is a very broad field.
> http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2009/08/robots_evolve_to_dec...
Exactly. While we sometimes frame individual debates as religion (the
supernatural) versus philosophy (the natural) the essence of religion
essentially falls into one of the branches of philosophy
(metaphysics). Religion was a rudimentary form of philosophy (but
missing other components).
On the flip side, science while excellent in dealing with the natural
generally avoids metaphysics.. and that's why philosophy remains king.
Metaphysics, although mostly silly, is an unavoidable subject. There
is so much complexity to reality that many of the things we consider
facts are metaphysics posing as facts. (why scientists chose the word
"theory" to cover their asses).
Potroast
> That's not hyperbole? Better to die a free man than to rot in some
> European socialist "paradise."
Talk about hyperbole. European cities are ranked amongst some of the
best places to live in the world. "Rot" isn't applicable for even one
EU nation. (maybe some of the former commie nations whose economies
are still a work in progress)
Since America is also a mixed economy with socialist attributes (like
welfare, social security, and government services, etc...)....at what
exact point of taxation do you see "socialism" kicking in? Americans
already pay more in taxes per capita than most nations. (although it's
the reverse when taxation if viewed as a portion of GDP)
Or is it some specific set of laws that doths the "socialist" name?
I've always been vague on the issue myself.
Sergeant Malenoid
news:c9525673-0de4-4624...@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 2, 2:54�pm, Sergeant Malenoid
> <malenoidathotmail....@giganews.com> wrote:
>> Potroast <ilou...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> innews:1bea53dc-318e-44b8...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.c
>> om:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 2, 11:33�am, Sergeant Malenoid
>> > <malenoidathotmail....@giganews.com> wrote:
>> >> Potroast <ilou...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> >> innews:9f6acd42-b879-4aed...@15g2000yqy.googlegroups
>> >> .co m:
>> ..
>> > In other words computers, the most analytical thing humans have
>> > ever created... needs feelings. (or at least code that simulates
>> > feelings)
>>
>> You mean emotions? Most life gets along just fine without them.
>
> Not normal human life. There are some instances of reduced emotions
> (e.g.sociopaths) but I'm not aware of a human being that's been ever
> diagnosed as completely emotionless. Of course the trick is defining
> what the heck is an emotion in the first place (which I can't do or
> else I'd be collecting my nobel instead typing here :)
>
> I see the terms feelings and emotions as a blurry line (that sometimes
> be used interchangeably). We can get sensation when we touch something
> but the warm and fuzzy sensation we can get kissing a spouse we could
> consider emotion. Or we get angry if she cheats. Or we get happy if
> she's happy. etc.. etc...
>
> In the context I'm describing "feelings" I'm including emotion but I'd
> also including sensory input. Our emotions mostly seem to have evolved
> specifically to deal with interacting with reality around us. Thus we
> see someone taking our food away involuntarily as "immoral" because we
> know we'll "feel" hungry if someone did that.
What the evolutionists don't tell you is that emotions, and self-esteem,
did not evolve "naturally," they evolved in human society. Wolves do not
appear to have emotions, even though they are "social" animals, but pet
dogs certainly do because they evolved to live among humans. One of the
funniest emotions I've witnessed in a dog was embarrassment.
>> But there are robots that have acquired traits that make them appear
>> to behave selfishly.
>
> Can you be more specific? AI research is a very broad field.
Well, that's what the link was for. Here it is again.
http://snurl.com/t0x3o
http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2009/08/robots_evolve_to_deceive
_one_another.php
Those components are key to determining whether or not a religion is a
philosophy. Ancient religion lacks in abstractedness, it lacks in
conceptualism, it lacks in reason and is completely based in superstition
and myth. Modern religion has taken on some philosophical
characteristics, this is called theology.
> On the flip side, science while excellent in dealing with the natural
> generally avoids metaphysics.. and that's why philosophy remains king.
> Metaphysics, although mostly silly, is an unavoidable subject. There
> is so much complexity to reality that many of the things we consider
> facts are metaphysics posing as facts. (why scientists chose the word
> "theory" to cover their asses).
Science, I agree, does not delve into metaphysics, although some
scientists like to speculate on the subject. However, science itself must
be based in metaphysics. It is metaphysics that guides scientific
reasoning into seeking the whole, it is metaphysics that guides
scientific reasoning into seeking the tiniest indivisible unit. It is
metaphysics that guides science's quest to determine the basic
fundamental laws of existence.
Potroast
<malenoidathotmail....@giganews.com> wrote:
> One of the funniest emotions I've witnessed in a dog was embarrassment.
You are not going to keep me hanging on that one are you? How in hades
did you know the dog was embarrassed?
Sergeant Malenoid
f92f85...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 2, 4:35�pm, Sergeant Malenoid
> <malenoidathotmail....@giganews.com> wrote:
>> One of the funniest emotions I've witnessed in a dog was embarrassment.
..
> You are not going to keep me hanging on that one are you? How in hades
> did you know the dog was embarrassed?
..
Because of the context of the event and the way the dog looked when he
reacted.
Sergeant Malenoid
Newsgroups: supernews:humanities.philosophy.objectivism
To: Potroast <ilo...@hotmail.com>
..
Potroast <ilo...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:72b29ac0-295f-414a-afda-
f92f85...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
..
> On Nov 2, 4:35�pm, Sergeant Malenoid
> <malenoidathotmail....@giganews.com> wrote:
>> One of the funniest emotions I've witnessed in a dog was embarrassment.
> You are not going to keep me hanging on that one are you? How in hades
> did you know the dog was embarrassed?
Because of the context of the event and the way the dog looked when he
reacted.
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
Sergeant Malenoid
ea4820...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 2, 4:01�pm, Sergeant Malenoid <malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> That's not hyperbole? Better to die a free man than to rot in some
>> European socialist "paradise."
>
> Talk about hyperbole.
Of course, that's why I said it in response to yours.
> European cities are ranked amongst some of the
> best places to live in the world. "Rot" isn't applicable for even one
> EU nation. (maybe some of the former commie nations whose economies
> are still a work in progress)
I guess if you're wealthy enough to buy your own quality of life, then
there are various European cities, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong,
Canada and generally anywhere in the US whether in the city or out in the
countryside.
If, however, you are poor, then I would choose Australia or New Zealand
over either the US, Canada or Europe.
> Since America is also a mixed economy with socialist attributes (like
> welfare, social security, and government services, etc...)....at what
> exact point of taxation do you see "socialism" kicking in? Americans
> already pay more in taxes per capita than most nations. (although it's
> the reverse when taxation if viewed as a portion of GDP)
The topic was socialized medicine. That is scheduled to kick in as soon
as Obama and his cronies decide on which compromise plan to compromise on
and which will obviously deliver the least beneficial results. I think
they already have, but I don't keep track because I don't care.
> Or is it some specific set of laws that doths the "socialist" name?
> I've always been vague on the issue myself.
American socialist schemes have been slowly eroding her culture since
1935. But communist union leaders were attempting to bring down
industries long before that. A state becomes socialistic when a major
portion of the private sector has gone public, and is thus no longer free
to make decisions for itself. A government take-over of the NYSE, which
would then be run by an army of idealistically high-minded statist
bureaucrats from their little baronies, would be one good way to start.
acar
<malenoidathotmail....@giganews.com> wrote:
>
> American socialist schemes have been slowly eroding her culture since
> 1935. But communist union leaders were attempting to bring down
> industries long before that. A state becomes socialistic when a major
> portion of the private sector has gone public, and is thus no longer free
> to make decisions for itself. A government take-over of the NYSE, which
> would then be run by an army of idealistically high-minded statist
> bureaucrats from their little baronies, would be one good way to start.
One of the worse problems with extremists is that they don't feel like
extremists; to them, their ideology seems just right. Which gives rise
to their blind spot -- for them the center des not exist. The center by
its pragmatic approach adopts whatever it finds useful anywhere in the
entire range of ideologies. But when the righties see Social Security
or universal health care they cry: "SOCIALISM!". This is of course
incorrect because private enterprise with its pension system is
equally supported by centrists, and doctors are not salaried
employees of the state; they work for themselves. When the righties
see regulation they cry "FASCISM!". But the regulators are just trying
to make capitalism work better by attempting to minimize predatory
practices (which come so naturally to the human animal). One enormous
error of socialism and communism is their approach to the problem of
social injustice by stifling the natural human need for freedom and
individual initiative. This is also the error of dictatorships and
monarchies. Unregulated capitalism would make the same mistake by
failing to acknowledge the equally innate properties of greed and
acquisitiveness. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of
litigation.
Sergeant Malenoid
news:12525018-1590-4903...@u20g2000vbq.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 2, 6:26�pm, Sergeant Malenoid
You're forgetting a little rule called "the slippery slope." Regulation
begets more regulation, control begets more control. I'll admit that the
problems inherent to capitalism (and these problems do exist) cannot be
solved using passive means. A major problem with capitalism is that it
does nothing to promote moral behavior, some would say that it promotes
evil behavior but the capacity for that is always present. The primary
problem with capitalism - as with anything else involving humans - is
precisely the fact that it involves ethically and intellectually fallible
people. This is also true of government. Capitalism, on the other hand,
has been a great boon to civilization, and considering the fact that the
leaders of communist societies cannot control the laws of economics or
predict very well beyond a 5-year time-span, it would be best to curb
this tendency of government run by intellectually fallible humans to
stick their noses in where it doesn't belong. Bureaucracies, once
established, are notoriously difficult to dismantle, these minor fiefdoms
produce a culture of their own and a hierarchical structure held in place
dogmatically, like a religion.
Potroast
> 1935. But communist union leaders were attempting to bring down
> industries long before that. A state becomes socialistic when a major
> portion of the private sector has gone public, and is thus no longer free
> to make decisions for itself. A government take-over of the NYSE, which
> would then be run by an army of idealistically high-minded statist
> bureaucrats from their little baronies, would be one good way to start.
How much is a "major portion" of the private sector?
Even in socialist countries like Sweden by far most of the assets are
in private hands. As far as I know the biggest difference is they pay
significantly more in extra taxes to fund cradle-to-grave services.
(looking a taxation as a portion of GDP). Their standard of living is
consistently ranked near the highest in the world.
Potroast
<malenoidathotmail....@giganews.com> wrote:
> Capitalism, on the other hand, has been a great boon to civilization
There are no pure capitalist economies in the world. If anything
liberalism, which includes a capitalist component, has been dominant.
This isn't to say more capitalism is wrong but that's the historical
score card at the moment.
Back in the 1930's western countries moved heavily into socialist
territory with the formation of unions and
new deals. With the departure of communism the pendulum swung back
strongly to the right. At the moment it's moving slightly to the left
again. (mostly because the global economy took a heavy dive) The
question of the 21st century will be where do we go from here. Will it
be detente or more swings to the far ends of the political spectrum.
Sergeant Malenoid
news:d957e843-0158-4ba8...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 2, 6:26�pm, Sergeant Malenoid
> <malenoidathotmail....@giganews.com> wrote:
>> American socialist schemes have been slowly eroding her culture since
>> 1935. But communist union leaders were attempting to bring down
>> industries long before that. A state becomes socialistic when a major
>> portion of the private sector has gone public, and is thus no longer
>> free to make decisions for itself. A government take-over of the
>> NYSE, which would then be run by an army of idealistically
>> high-minded statist bureaucrats from their little baronies, would be
>> one good way to start.
..
> How much is a "major portion" of the private sector?
..
How should I know? I'm not a professor of this subject.
..
> Even in socialist countries like Sweden by far most of the assets are
> in private hands. As far as I know the biggest difference is they pay
> significantly more in extra taxes to fund cradle-to-grave services.
> (looking a taxation as a portion of GDP). Their standard of living is
> consistently ranked near the highest in the world.
..
Here we go again, parading Sweden as the glittering gemstone of socialism
that the rest of the world should be like and envy. So what if most of
their assets are in private hands? I didn't say private ownership was
abolished. NHS doctors and dentists own their own practices. Hospitals
may be state-run and state-owned. All I'm saying and basically all I have
been saying is that Americans will not put up with any cradle-to-grave
nonsense no matter how wonderous and glorious Sweden may be.
1Z
On 2 Nov, 21:01, Sergeant Malenoid <malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote
> innews:265a206f-48ed-4f2a...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
> > Well...no. The complaints are about the details
> > fo it works and how well it works. No-one thinks
> > wholesale privatisaion will cure things.
>
> I know that, or at least let's say for argument's sake that "no-one"
> thinks it will cure things. Creating dependency amongst a public where
> the mindset toward dependency was already established in their culture,
> is not a difficult thing to do. It will be more difficult in America,
> however, where individualism still reigns supreme over the welfare state.
pffft. You say it's dependency. Maybe people have perfectly
good rational reasons for liking the system. You are guessing
psychologically again
> They say on this form that the individual is the basic unit of society.
> But the individual himself requires social support. There are still (and
> always will be) two units of society more basic than the individual:
> first, the family, and second, the church. (Yes, church, where attendance
> is still prolific.)
not here.
>?That does not preclude the existence of other social
> (non-governmental) organizations which aid individuals and their families
> and always have long before bureaucrats stepped in and started making a
> mess of things. The primary "mess" I am referring to is the destruction
> of those basic units of society mentioned above. First, Social Security,
> AKA the 1935 Social Security Act, the first step in destroying the basic
> social unit by destroying the extended family. Second, Lyndon Johnson's
> Great Society which began the destruction of the primary or nuclear
> family. (Churches and other organizations are based around families so
> they will fall as a result.) As government tears down every source of an
> individual's protection from tyranny, the American mindset slowly returns
> to its European roots along with all the social decay found there, the
> remnants of a long dead but great civilization.
rhetorical piffle.
> >>Yes, it's true,
> >> people say "yes" versus "no" to the system - but only because they
> >> have now become dependent on it.
> ..
> > Tu quoque. Maybe you are dependent on the usian system.
>
> It's "American," not "usian."
Canada is on continental america last time I looked
> > Nonsense. They live 10 or twenty years less, lost one in 3 or so
> > of their children...
>
> We know this because they didn't have "wheelie bins" to secretly dump
> their dead baby corpses in like they do today.
Whatever. Your comment was completely and provably wrong.
..
> > The NHS cured me, it idid not slit my throat.
>
> Figuratively speaking.
Your thinking is not clear. You launch
exagerated metaphors and then treat them
as fact
> > Silly exagerations and hyperbole impress me even less
> > than psychologising.
>
> Slow death by taxation is comparable to slowly boiling a crab so that it
> doesn't feel any pain.
Where's the "death"? It's just an empty metaphor.
> > ...that's the caricature that circulates among right wingers who
> > actually know fuck all about the UK.
>
> The fact that Brits and Europeans come out in mass support of their
> socialized medicine, as you yourself stated, speaks volumes in support of
> my view.
There is an alternative explanation: they are
free rational individuals who support those systems
for good reasons. YOu haven't argued against that
in any way. Psychological speculation counts for nothing.
You need to reason properly, based on objective facts
>I don't need to engage in any "hyperbole,"
Why do you keep doing it?
>I only need to cite
> your own statements back to you. Europe is one giant welfare-dependency
> state.
THe fact is that Europe has public health care systems.
"Dependency" is your psychological speculation.
.
> > What happens if you can't afford treatment? You die.
> > You are putting a price on other people lives.
>
> What happens if the British government denies you surgery for cancer?
Ineffective treatments are not funded under either system,
..
> > You have taxation too. You just get less back for it.
>
> My family gets services. But many Americans feel ASHAMED to take
> government hand-outs and feel reduced by it.
But charity is fine? That makes no sense.
> I realize however that you
> don't feel such shame and don't understand its source because you are not
> an American. But the last time I personally had a medical bill to pay (in
> 2006) my boss fronted me an interest-free loan which I have long since
> paid off.
And if he hadn't?
.
> > Yes, if it preserves their lives. Let someone die and you remove all
> > their freedoms.
>
> That's not hyperbole?
No, it's an objective fact. SHow me free corpse...
>Better to die a free man than to rot in some
> European socialist "paradise."
You are confusing socialism and social democracy again. Western
European social democracies are fine places to live.
1Z
<malenoidathotmail....@giganews.com> wrote:
> I guess if you're wealthy enough to buy your own quality of life, then
> there are various European cities, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong,
> Canada and generally anywhere in the US whether in the city or out in the
> countryside.
>
> If, however, you are poor, then I would choose Australia or New Zealand
> over either the US, Canada or Europe.
Is that based on personal experience? Statistics?
Isn't the whole point of a "socialised" system to make
life better for the poor?
1Z
<malenoidathotmail....@giganews.com> wrote:
> You're forgetting a little rule called "the slippery slope." Regulation
> begets more regulation, control begets more control.
It's not a rule. it's a fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
The empirical disproof is the election of Thatcher,
Sarlozy and Merkel.
1Z
<malenoidathotmail....@giganews.com> wrote:
> How should I know? I'm not a professor of this subject.
If you can't support statements, don't make them
> . All I'm saying and basically all I have
> been saying is that Americans will not put up with any cradle-to-grave
> nonsense no matter how wonderous and glorious Sweden may be.
So americans are irrational....
Sergeant Malenoid
e073ba...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> On 3 Nov, 04:37, Sergeant Malenoid
> <malenoidathotmail....@giganews.com> wrote:
..
>> How should I know? I'm not a professor of this subject.
..
> If you can't support statements, don't make them
Oh bullshit, you didn't ask for support you asked for an exact number WHICH
I RESEARCHED AND FOUND THAT THERE IS NO EXACT NUMBER.
>> . All I'm saying and basically all I have
>> been saying is that Americans will not put up with any cradle-to-grave
>> nonsense no matter how wonderous and glorious Sweden may be.
..
> So americans are irrational....
No, they are independent and they believe in their Constitution.
Sergeant Malenoid
news:930638a7-d599-47aa...@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
..
>> I guess if you're wealthy enough to buy your own quality of life,
>> then there are various European cities, Australia, New Zealand, Hong
>> Kong, Canada and generally anywhere in the US whether in the city or
>> out in the countryside.
>> If, however, you are poor, then I would choose Australia or New
>> Zealand over either the US, Canada or Europe.
> Is that based on personal experience? Statistics?
Do the words "I guess" mean anything to you?
Sergeant Malenoid
news:b8734800-9d4a-4979...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com:
..
> On 2 Nov, 21:01, Sergeant Malenoid <malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 2 Nov, 21:01, Sergeant Malenoid <malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> innews:265a206f-48ed-4f2a...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.co
>> m:
>> > Well...no. The complaints are about the details
>> > fo it works and how well it works. No-one thinks
>> > wholesale privatisaion will cure things.
>> I know that, or at least let's say for argument's sake that "no-one"
>> thinks it will cure things. Creating dependency amongst a public
>> where the mindset toward dependency was already established in their
>> culture, is not a difficult thing to do. It will be more difficult in
>> America, however, where individualism still reigns supreme over the
>> welfare state.
> pffft. You say it's dependency. Maybe people have perfectly
> good rational reasons for liking the system. You are guessing
> psychologically again
Welfare dependency is a known fact. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, our first
welfare-state president, admitted as much in his 1935 state of the union
address:
https://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj16n1-1.html
"The lessons of history, confirmed by evidence immediately before me,
show conclusively that continued dependence on relief induces a spiritual
and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber.
To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle
destroyer of the human spirit. It is inimical to the dictates of sound
policy. It is a violation of the traditions of America."
Apparently, these are precisely the things FDR wanted.
>> They say on this form that the individual is the basic unit of
>> society. But the individual himself requires social support. There
>> are still (and always will be) two units of society more basic than
>> the individual: first, the family, and second, the church. (Yes,
>> church, where attendance is still prolific.)
..
> not here.
I'm not talking about over there.
>>?That does not preclude the existence of other social
>> (non-governmental) organizations which aid individuals and their
>> families and always have long before bureaucrats stepped in and
>> started making a mess of things. The primary "mess" I am referring to
>> is the destruction of those basic units of society mentioned above.
>> First, Social Security, AKA the 1935 Social Security Act, the first
>> step in destroying the basic social unit by destroying the extended
>> family. Second, Lyndon Johnson's Great Society which began the
>> destruction of the primary or nuclear family. (Churches and other
>> organizations are based around families so they will fall as a
>> result.) As government tears down every source of an individual's
>> protection from tyranny, the American mindset slowly returns to its
>> European roots along with all the social decay found there, the
>> remnants of a long dead but great civilization.
..
> rhetorical piffle.
I see you're stalling until you can think up an answer.
>> >>Yes, it's true,
>> >> people say "yes" versus "no" to the system - but only because they
>> >> have now become dependent on it.
>> ..
>> > Tu quoque. Maybe you are dependent on the usian system.
..
>> It's "American," not "usian."
..
> Canada is on continental america last time I looked
Then go ask some Canadians if they are Americans. Start with Potroast. I
tried once on a Canadian and got shut down, but go ahead and see what
happens.
>> > Silly exagerations and hyperbole impress me even less
>> > than psychologising.
..
>> Slow death by taxation is comparable to slowly boiling a crab so that
>> it doesn't feel any pain.
..
> Where's the "death"? It's just an empty metaphor.
..
>> > ...that's the caricature that circulates among right wingers who
>> > actually know fuck all about the UK.
..
>> The fact that Brits and Europeans come out in mass support of their
>> socialized medicine, as you yourself stated, speaks volumes in
>> support of my view.
..
> There is an alternative explanation: they are
> free rational individuals who support those systems
> for good reasons. YOu haven't argued against that
> in any way. Psychological speculation counts for nothing.
> You need to reason properly, based on objective facts
The dependency mindset was already there to begin with, it is, one might
say, an integral part of European reasoning and it will be the death of
you all - not an empty metaphor.
>>I don't need to engage in any "hyperbole,"
..
> Why do you keep doing it?
..
>>I only need to cite
>> your own statements back to you. Europe is one giant
>> welfare-dependency state.
..
> THe fact is that Europe has public health care systems.
..
> "Dependency" is your psychological speculation.
Based on the fact that europeans come out in droves in support of a
system which they consistently complain about. I have seen the same
phenomenon while researching Canadian socialist health-care. There is
nothing irrational about their complaints, they are based in real
problems in your system. The fact that they nevertheless support it until
the day they die from it reveals the depth of their dependency.
>> > What happens if you can't afford treatment? You die.
>> > You are putting a price on other people lives.
..
>> What happens if the British government denies you surgery for cancer?
..
> Ineffective treatments are not funded under either system,
They do not deny only ineffective treatments (such as laetrile or psychic
surgery), they deny experimental treatments which are nevertheless
founded in science.
>> > You have taxation too. You just get less back for it.
..
>> My family gets services. But many Americans feel ASHAMED to take
>> government hand-outs and feel reduced by it.
..
> But charity is fine? That makes no sense.
As a last resort, or almost. For Ryan's family, selling their dream house
would have been the last resort. At least charity is voluntary, taxation
is forced. But in this case the government wasn't there for them, it
wouldn't have been there for them in any case.
Click this link,
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=135882450728&ref=mf
scroll down to the 7:07 minute video on the left titled "The Stockdale
Family," and after viewing the video tell me what your NHS would have
done for Ryan Stockdale.
>> I realize however that you
>> don't feel such shame and don't understand its source because you are
>> not an American. But the last time I personally had a medical bill to
>> pay (in 2006) my boss fronted me an interest-free loan which I have
>> long since paid off.
>
> And if he hadn't?
Then I would either borrow it from family members or take out an
unsecured interest-bearing loan. You see, there are always answers if you
are willing to make an effort that Europeans are not willing to make. But
when the government starts taking care of these needs automatically you
no longer have to think or plan, I imagine your brains even start to
shrink from disuse.
>> > Yes, if it preserves their lives. Let someone die and you remove
>> > all their freedoms.
>>
>> That's not hyperbole?
>
> No, it's an objective fact. SHow me free corpse...
>
>>Better to die a free man than to rot in some
>> European socialist "paradise."
>
> You are confusing socialism and social democracy again. Western
> European social democracies are fine places to live.
They're all right if you lack all sense of pride and self-worth, if you
prefer being kept like some pampered animal in a cage with velvet bars
and spoon-fed from a velvet glove.
You people are soft, falling asleep, and are ripe for takeover.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/britain-is-focal-point-for-
terrorism-warns-europes-police-force-830347.html
"Britain is the focal point for Islamic terrorism across Europe, and its
controversial military campaigns overseas are putting the entire
continent at risk, a disturbing new report has warned.
An analysis of the terrorist threat by Europol, the European Police
Office, has concluded that the dangers posed by militant groups rose to
unprecedented proportions in 2007, with steep increases in the number of
arrests, plots and attacks."
Already British law is slowly being replaced by Sharia law.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4749183.ece
"Islamic law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts
given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.
The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to
rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those
involving domestic violence."
While you focus on getting your ass wiped for you by government
bureaucrats, your once great civilization is slowly falling to a
completely foreign influence. Even the Australians, your former colony,
have more balls than you Brits.
http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/programguide/stories/200803/s2182633.htm
"Mr Howard dismissed the idea that Sharia law can be introduced into
Western societies, saying it is fundamental to the unity and purpose of a
democratic nation state that there be only one body of law to which all
are accountable.
The former Prime Minister says Western societies should not think they
can trade away some of their values to gain immunity from terrorists or
respect from noisy minorities."
You've traded your values for a little security, your brains have gone
numb from too much comfort, but soon enough you Brits will be dressed in
robes and raising your asses to the sky.
Sergeant Malenoid
6b1552...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
> On 3 Nov, 03:20, Sergeant Malenoid
> <malenoidathotmail....@giganews.com> wrote:
>
>> You're forgetting a little rule called "the slippery slope." Regulation
>> begets more regulation, control begets more control.
..
> It's not a rule. it's a fallacy.
..
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
..
> The empirical disproof is the election of Thatcher,
> Sarlozy and Merkel.
A rule is just a rule, not a law of nature. I already know that it's listed
as a fallacy - but only because it cannot be generalized to all cases, and
not because it never happens.
1Z
<malenoidathotmail....@giganews.com> wrote:
> 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:50f0d529-ee8e-414f-9447-
> Oh bullshit, you didn't ask for support you asked for an exact number WHICH
> I RESEARCHED AND FOUND THAT THERE IS NO EXACT NUMBER.
1) it was potroast
2) the question was "How much is a "major portion" of the private
sector? "
mericans are irrational....
>
> No, they are independent and they believe in their Constitution.
What's unconstitutional? Helathcare? Taxation?
1Z
<malenoidathotmail....@giganews.com> wrote:
> >> If, however, you are poor, then I would choose Australia or New
> >> Zealand over either the US, Canada or Europe.
> > Is that based on personal experience? Statistics?
> Do the words "I guess" mean anything to you?
They mean you're.....guessing?
1Z
<malenoidathotmail....@giganews.com> wrote:
> >> You're forgetting a little rule called "the slippery slope." Regulation
> >> begets more regulation, control begets more control.
> > It's not a rule. it's a fallacy.
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
> > The empirical disproof is the election of Thatcher,
> > Sarlozy and Merkel.
> A rule is just a rule, not a law of nature. I already know that it's listed
> as a fallacy - but only because it cannot be generalized to all cases, and
> not because it never happens.
There's no evidence that it will happen, and evidence that
it hasn't. You're running on empty.
acar
<malenoidathotmail....@giganews.com> wrote:
>
> You're forgetting a little rule called "the slippery slope."
Imagine an inverted V. The center is at the apex of the V. There are
two slippery slopes on each side of center. You can't rant against
slipping by having already slipped to your favorite side. But the V is
not inverted. The forces of gravity pull toward the center, where most
humans live. A few people climbing up that incline unfortunately
happens. Distorted and unbalanced perspectives happen.
> This is also true of government. Capitalism, on the other hand,
The same hand. Capitalism needs a government.
> it would be best to curb
> this tendency of government run by intellectually fallible humans to
> stick their noses in where it doesn't belong.
Capitalism by its emphasis on individual freedom has many problems.
The function of government is to deal with those problems and avoid
them whenever possible.
Potroast
So then you prefer cradle-to-grave insecurity?
btw- I'm not actually endorsing the Swedish model for the US. While I
admire their ingenuity I don't think their system would work nearly as
well in most countries. IMO their demographics and education level
play a big role in their success. While those Scandanavian countries
like to preach about "human rights"... they've generally shut out
immigrants. If they allowed in a ton of immigrants (like the US and
Canada do)... that would be more of a real test.
chazwin
> On Nov 1, 1:21�pm, Sergeant Malenoid
>
> <malenoidathotmail....@giganews.com> wrote:
> > I agree with Rand that the wealth of a few - if it is productive wealth and
> > not the parasitic kind found in English royalty - lifts us all up to a
> > level which one could call general prosperity.
This is a joke. I am no lover of the British Royalty but the
implication that the US has nothing similar is not only misguided but
it is sycophantic.
The US has a much larger number of established families whose
continuing generations do no work and simply enjoy the fruits gained
by their ancestors, than exist in the UK.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is living in a dream world.
>
> I have no issue with wealthy people provided their wealth was earned
> fairly via their talents and/or hard work. �The mechanism that
> achieves that can sometimes be a murky issue. For instance, borrowing
> your word.... I tend to see vast inheritance as "parasitic" in nature.
> (although I'm always open to good arguments as to why I shouldn't see
> it that way)
But what of their children and their children's children who continue
to live off the established wealth gained by earlier generations of
their family . How is it any different from any Royal family?
>
> I sometimes wonder if machines will eventually take complete control
> of industry. If mass production general purpose robots ever show up
> (and they should eventually) what effect that will have on industry
> and commerce.
>
> > It has been argued that
> > capitalism, not philosophy, helped lift Europe out of the Dark Ages because
> > it is a wealth generator, where wealth was important for creating better
> > fortified towns and cities better able to resist the barbarians.
>
> Capitalism required philosophical discourse (e.g Adam Smith was a
> philosopher). For trade to occur the political environment has to
> support it. The absence of a government (TM) is not the absence of
> politics. It's just a different form of it where the leaders are
> different and rules have been shuffled around. �The moment two people
> are interacting politics occurs. Politics flows from philosophy.
> Philosophy is king. (although maybe one day someone will find a more
> coherent concept)
>
> > Capitalism also results in more inventiveness, as with the invention of the long-bow that helped turned the tide of the Mongolian invaders.
>
> What do you see as the (rough) date as the invention of capitalism?
> (and what definition of capitalism are you using)
Sergeant Malenoid
@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
> The same hand. Capitalism needs a government.
I�m not a laissez-faire-ist, that is the same as anarcho-capitalism and
more or less just Marxism�s anti-pole.
>> it would be best to curb
>> this tendency of government run by intellectually fallible humans to
>> stick their noses in where it doesn't belong.
>
> Capitalism by its emphasis on individual freedom has many problems.
> The function of government is to deal with those problems and avoid
> them whenever possible.
I think you meant to say "one" function of government. And really, I don't
see citizens taking care of capitalism-generated problems (such as
pollution) on their own, on the other hand welfare-statism takes its toll
also.
acar
<malenoidathotmail....@giganews.com> wrote:
> on the other hand welfare-statism takes its toll
> also.
What do you mean by welfare statism? Is statism consistent with the
freedoms that we enjoy in the U.S.? Are you confusing the proper
functions of a government with statism?
What I call statism is the extreme left. Are you confusing the center
with the extreme left?
Sergeant Malenoid
5cde9a...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 7, 2:25�pm, Sergeant Malenoid
> <malenoidathotmail....@giganews.com> wrote:
..
>> on the other hand welfare-statism takes its toll
>> also.
..
> What do you mean by welfare statism? Is statism consistent with the
> freedoms that we enjoy in the U.S.? Are you confusing the proper
> functions of a government with statism?
> What I call statism is the extreme left. Are you confusing the center
> with the extreme left?
..
Statism is not at the extreme left, anarchy and not the state lies at the
extremes. In between the extremes are degrees of state control, this
translates to lack of freedom. The welfare state is a socialist form of
statism designed to increase social fairness and thus reduce envy, in
other words it is politicized envy-pandering.
I am not against this insofar as it is based in envy, I am against it
primarily because it is not based in philosophical or political principle
but in mere psychology raised to the level of a political creed. And
anyway, those whose envy is being pandered to aren�t worth the bother
except insofar as this produces dependence upon the state and the
assurance that the envy-panderers are re-elected next time around.
Envy, however, is irrational, it becomes a form of gluttony, it has
seemingly unlimited energy, and the more it is fed the stronger it
becomes.
Arnold Broese
news:78aee8dc-8d00-4ac8...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
>
> What do you mean by welfare statism? Is statism consistent with the
> freedoms that we enjoy in the U.S.? Are you confusing the proper
> functions of a government with statism?
> What I call statism is the extreme left. Are you confusing the center
> with the extreme left?
Don't let the fact that there are degrees of toxicity with poison, obscure
the fact that it is poison nonetheless.
.
.
.
--
Arnold
acar
wrote:
>
> Don't let the fact that there are degrees of toxicity with poison, obscure
> the fact that it is poison nonetheless.
>
good for the U.S. so far. So far it has gone from good to better, and
then from better to even better. The scenario of Atlas Shrugged is
irrelevant to the US. She was terrified by the Russian model from
which she escaped. She saw the American center as a slippery slope.
She even got Judge Narragansett to tamper with the Constitution! She
need not have bothered. I don't like Justice Roberts but I love
Sotomayor. The fact that both of them sit on the Supreme Court is the
secret to America's success.
.
.
.
acar
<malenoidathotmail....@giganews.com> wrote:
> acar <acarm...@mail.com> wrote in news:78aee8dc-8d00-4ac8-b22f-
> > Are you confusing the center
> > with the extreme left?
>
> Statism is not at the extreme left, anarchy and not the state lies at the
> extremes. In between the extremes are degrees of state control,
There is a balance at the center.
> this
> translates to lack of freedom.
Which is as it should be. Laws.
> The welfare state is a socialist form of
> statism designed to increase social fairness and thus reduce envy, in
> other words it is politicized envy-pandering.
What does that and your statements below have todo with te U.S.?
> I am not against this insofar as it is based in envy, I am against it
> primarily because it is not based in philosophical or political principle
> but in mere psychology raised to the level of a political creed. And
> anyway, those whose envy is being pandered to aren�t worth the bother
> except insofar as this produces dependence upon the state and the
> assurance that the envy-panderers are re-elected next time around.
>
> Envy, however, is irrational, it becomes a form of gluttony, it has
> seemingly unlimited energy, and the more it is fed the stronger it
> becomes.
.
.
.
.
.
Sergeant Malenoid
news:4b97b0c5-1f4d-4ff0...@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 7, 11:35�pm, Sergeant Malenoid
> <malenoidathotmail....@giganews.com> wrote:
>> acar <acarm...@mail.com> wrote in news:78aee8dc-8d00-4ac8-b22f-
..
>> > Are you confusing the center
>> > with the extreme left?
..
>> Statism is not at the extreme left, anarchy and not the state lies at
>> the extremes. In between the extremes are degrees of state control,
..
> There is a balance at the center.
Relevant to what?
>> this translates to lack of freedom.
..
> Which is as it should be. Laws.
Laws based in principle? Or laws based in pandering to the envy of
others?
>> The welfare state is a socialist form of
>> statism designed to increase social fairness and thus reduce envy, in
>> other words it is politicized envy-pandering.
..
> What does that and your statements below have todo with te U.S.?
It has to do with any welfare state, which would include the U.S., where
they use the government as a means of redistributing wealth, garnered
through taxation, to those who have a valid legal claim on it. If those
laws, which are based on envy-pandering, are removed, then the legal
claim loses its validity.
acar
<malenoidathotmail....@giganews.com> wrote:
> acar<acarm...@mail.com> wrote innews:4b97b0c5-1f4d-4ff0...@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
> ..
> >> Statism is not at the extreme left, anarchy and not the state lies at
> >> the extremes. In between the extremes are degrees of state control,
> ..
> > There is a balance at the center.
>
> Relevant to what?
>
> >> this translates to lack of freedom.
> ..
> > Which is as it should be. Laws.
>
> Laws based in principle? Or laws based in pandering to the envy of
> others?
Laws put together by elected representatives of the people. As long as
the elections are free and legitimate it doesn't matter whether the
laws are good, bad or indifferent. Impeach, wait for the next
elections, or endure. There is no good system of governement. We have
the best of all the bad ones.
> >> The welfare state is a socialist form of
> >> statism designed to increase social fairness and thus reduce envy, in
> >> other words it is politicized envy-pandering.
> ..
> > What does that and your statements below have todo with te U.S.?
>
> It has to do with any welfare state, which would include the U.S., where
> they use the government as a means of redistributing wealth,
But redistributing wealth is a straw man. Lotteries, insurance and
organization dues redistribute wealth. So do charitable organizations,
whether or not you call them benevolent. Trades redistribute wealth if
there is a profit involved.
> garnered
> through taxation, to those who have a valid legal claim on it. If those
> laws, which are based on envy-pandering, are removed, then the legal
> claim loses its validity.
Principles are man made. The only natural principles are those
described by physical laws and mathematics. When Ms. Rand attempts to
be objective about those, she drowns in a quagmire of subjectivity.
That in itself is not the problem. It is an inherent trait of the
human identity. The problem is that she doesn't know it. She believes
that she can always be objective and asks everybody else to be always
objective as well. In the planet Earth, it's not going to happen. If
all she asks is for us to do our best, knowing that we can not do it
all the time, then she is admitting to "original sin" and
contradicting herself.
chazwin
This sort of headline epitomises the perversity of the ideological
delusion suffered by the numpties on this NG.
The USA is facing in its so-called 'health system' the most serious
crisis since the great depression or the civil war, and the twats here
turn it into an attack on the British.
Tomm Carr
>
> This sort of headline epitomises the perversity of the ideological
> delusion suffered by the numpties on this NG.
Numpties???
The health care systems in the UK and other countries are held out as
standards by which we should compare our own. It is only right that such
examples be scrutinized and any weaknesses, if any (as well as
strengths, if any) closely examined. I don't know if you have personally
made glowing recommendations of The English System of Public Health
Care, but even if you haven't, others have, and so the system will be
thoroughly investigated.
> The USA is facing in its so-called 'health system' the most serious
> crisis since the great depression or the civil war, and the twats here
> turn it into an attack on the British.
Crisis? How is it a crisis? I have heard this word bandied about with so
much promiscuous abandon, it has lost all meaning.
Through the Civil War and on up through the Great Depression, very few
people had health insurance of any sort. What few did have policies,
they were generally catastrophic care -- they kicked in only when you
were so sick or injured you had to be hospitalized.
Now, so many Americans have health insurance that is so good that 83% of
us are satisfied and don't want what we have changed. That is why Obama
had to do adamantly assure us that we would not have to change our
policy or our doctor if we were happy with them. We are.
Where is the crisis? We have never lived longer, healthier lives. We've
eliminated Smallpox and we're "this close" to eliminating Polio. Many
cancers are now routinely curable, as are many formally fatal diseases.
And no matter how good it is today, tomorrow it will be better.
Where is the crisis? Don't keep it a secret. Tell us.
--
Tomm Catt
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In
practice, there is.
Tomm Carr
>
> The USA is facing in its so-called 'health system' the most serious
> crisis since the great depression or the civil war, and the twats here
> turn it into an attack on the British.
There was a study done some years ago that showed a vast majority of
black people in the US reporting that racism had not adversely affected
their life. However, a majority, if somewhat smaller than the other,
thought that racism does adversely affect the lives of other black people.
This shows there can be quite a discrepancy between reality and
perception. While it may be true that "perception = reality" in the
world of politics, out here in the real world, it can be, and generally
is, a recipe for disaster.
The constant criticism of the American health insurance industry (it
started out as criticism of the health /care/ industry until it became
clear that Americans have an extremely high regard for the American
health care system) is just an effort to have us make decisions based on
perception -- which would lead us to support the system advocated by the
ones doing the criticizing -- rather than on reality -- which would lead
us to have nothing whatsoever to do with such a monstrous system.
Behold: http://tinyurl.com/mgex9q
Tomm Carr
interstate competition advocated by some (such as me) may not have a
very significant affect. There are pros and cons which may lead to a
slight downward pressure for policy prices or to a slight upward
pressure or it could be a wash.
1Z
> Now, so many Americans have health insurance that is so good that 83% of
> us are satisfied and don't want what we have changed. That is why Obama
> had to do adamantly assure us that we would not have to change our
> policy or our doctor if we were happy with them. We are.
>
> Where is the crisis?
Paying for the care of an aging population
> We have never lived longer, healthier lives. We've
> eliminated Smallpox
The World Health Organisation eliminated smallpox,
chazwin
> chazwin wrote:
>
> > This sort of headline epitomises the perversity of the ideological
> > delusion suffered by the numpties on this NG.
>
> Numpties???
>
> The health care systems in the UK and other countries are held out as
> standards by which we should compare our own. It is only right that such
> examples be scrutinized and any weaknesses, if any (as well as
> strengths, if any) closely examined. I don't know if you have personally
> made glowing recommendations of The English System of Public Health
> Care, but even if you haven't, others have, and so the system will be
> thoroughly investigated.
Indeed I have. The NHS cured me of cancer last year. I have since
enjoyed the most careful consideration, after care and follow-up
treatment possible.
The NHS is the world's largest public body, second only to the Chinese
army. Due to its size there are bound to be problems identified by the
various news agencies with their own agendas, not because big means
clumsy, but because big just means that statistically minor problems
are bound to come to the surface by numbers alone.
A surgery might run for 100 years without a problem, but when there
are 100,000 such surgeries.. well you see what I mean.
>
> > �The USA is facing in its so-called 'health system' the most serious
> > crisis since the great depression or the civil war, and the twats here
> > turn it into an attack on the British.
>
> Crisis? How is it a crisis? I have heard this word bandied about with so
> much promiscuous abandon, it has lost all meaning.
It's only a crisis if you consider yourself an American citizen; part
of the citizen body together under the flag. I guess you are so wound
up by self interest that you can't see the wood for the fact that you
have hidden inside the crack in your own personal tree.
>
> Through the Civil War and on up through the Great Depression, very few
> people had health insurance of any sort. What few did have policies,
> they were generally catastrophic care -- they kicked in only when you
> were so sick or injured you had to be hospitalized.
I think you are missing the point here.
1Z
> > Where is the crisis?
>
> Paying for the care of an aging population
Of course, when a public healthcare system faces the same
problem, you guys are the first to start screaming that it's a
crisis....
Fred Weiss
> > �The USA is facing in its so-called 'health system' the most serious
> > crisis since the great depression or the civil war, and the twats here
> > turn it into an attack on the British.
>
> Crisis? How is it a crisis? I have heard this word bandied about with so
> much promiscuous abandon, it has lost all meaning.
>
> Through the Civil War and on up through the Great Depression, very few
> people had health insurance of any sort. What few did have policies,
> they were generally catastrophic care -- they kicked in only when you
> were so sick or injured you had to be hospitalized.
>
> Now, so many Americans have health insurance that is so good that 83% of
> us are satisfied and don't want what we have changed. That is why Obama
> had to do adamantly assure us that we would not have to change our
> policy or our doctor if we were happy with them. We are.
>
> Where is the crisis? We have never lived longer, healthier lives. We've
> eliminated Smallpox and we're "this close" to eliminating Polio. Many
> cancers are now routinely curable, as are many formally fatal diseases.
>
> And no matter how good it is today, tomorrow it will be better.
>
> Where is the crisis? Don't keep it a secret. Tell us.
>
> --
> Tomm Catt
Another nice one, by Tomm Catt.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Matt Barrow
>
>
> Through the Civil War and on up through the Great Depression, very few
> people had health insurance of any sort.
Actually, through WWII. It came in during the war years production rules on
wage caps.
> What few did have policies,
> they were generally catastrophic care -- they kicked in only when you
> were so sick or injured you had to be hospitalized.
Correct. Preventive coverage didn't come into play until the 1980's.
Considering what insurance IS, what we have today is NOT insurance. The
analogy of automobile coverage is too worn out to repeat, but covering
maintenance is not insurance, it's prepaid expenses with no relationaship to
actuarial data.
> Where is the crisis? We have never lived longer, healthier lives. We've
> eliminated Smallpox and we're "this close" to eliminating Polio. Many
> cancers are now routinely curable, as are many formally fatal diseases.
>
> And no matter how good it is today, tomorrow it will be better.
If we don't let Congress send us back to pre-insustrail revolution days.
>
> Where is the crisis? Don't keep it a secret. Tell us.
Indeed.
Matt Barrow
Larkspur, CO