If the government's healthcare insurance is so good...

mallory knox said:
Cosmetic operations in general are denied if they're just for vanity of course. But in general no necessary prodecure for your well being is denied. You could be a tourist passing by and it wouldn't be denied. It's something to take pride in. It reflects respect for human life.

If you bribe a doctor to say you need it, then that's obviously a crime and will be treated as such if found out.

I wasn't being hostile towards you either.

I'm just saying you can be fearful of change, but this is long due and you're way behind everyone else in that sense and your people deserve that, so there's no point in postposponing what has to start, it is a positive thing, it has to start somewhere and somehow to de adjusted and improved along the way.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I agree that it does need to start somewhere, I just personally believe it needs to be very well thought out. As someone else stated somewhere (I think it was gloomy optimist), at such a large scale it needs to be thought out clearly. People are in need of it right now, and it's horrible for some, I'm not downplaying that, but if we rush into there is a very great probability that we will mess it up, in the future leaving many many more in need with a system that is clearly broken.

It's no simple task and shouldn't be treated as such, *in my opinion*
 
Satya said:
We have a progressive tax system. How is that proportional?

For that matter, why should people have to pay more taxes just because they can make more money? What is the incentive then to make more money?



I never said they were there by choice. I said they continue to be exploited by choice. They have lots of choices. They could go take the resources of the others around them. We do it, so why can't they?
Click to expand...

This thing you keep repeating is probably one of the most horrible thigns I have ever heard someone say. I sincerely hope you don't really mean it.
 
minority funk said:
Fair enough. I agree that it does need to start somewhere, I just personally believe it needs to be very well thought out. As someone else stated somewhere (I think it was gloomy optimist), at such a large scale it needs to be thought out clearly. People are in need of it right now, and it's horrible for some, I'm not downplaying that, but if we rush into there is a very great probability that we will mess it up, in the future leaving many many more in need with a system that is clearly broken.

It's no simple task and shouldn't be treated as such, *in my opinion*
Click to expand...

I agree completely with this, problem is that if you allow the reform bill to be watered down to the extent that it doesn't deal with all the problems then I think it will be impossible to improve upon it for at long time.

It would be much better in the US political climate to go too far and scale it back if needed than to not go far enough and extend it in the future.
 
mallory knox said:
If people in general have a better quality of life, then the country will be better. Not if a minority gets richer and richer.
Click to expand...

Interesting hypothesis. I wonder if their is a statistical way to prove it true.

The extreme selfishness of this thinking is astonishing.
Click to expand...
Is it really selfishness? Adam Smith argued that self interested competition in the free market would arguably benefit society as a whole by keeping prices low, while still building an incentive for a wide variety of goods. The government acts in self interest itself by seeking to secure its existence and power by expanding on its spending.

mallory knox said:
This thing you keep repeating is probably one of the most horrible thigns I have ever heard someone say. I sincerely hope you don't really mean it.
Click to expand...

Every individual is ultimately responsible for themselves. That isn't some heartless way of viewing the world, it is as it is. Individual humans form groups to increase their chances of survival through cooperation. Human groups then fight against other human groups for scarce resources.

Of course, once some individuals in a human group become more successful than the others, it inevitably comes to question whether they owe anything to the group for their success. After all, what an individual earns ultimately belongs to them, as that is the concept of personal property. Should the group coerce that individual into sharing the resources they have rightly earned for themselves? Is it not the group that owes the successful individual? Is the successful individual's continued success not the group's continued success?
 
Last edited:
Satya said:
Interesting hypothesis. I wonder if their is a statistical way to prove it true.

Is it really selfishness? Adam Smith argued that self interested competition in the free market would arguably benefit society as a whole by keeping prices low, while still building an incentive for a wide variety of goods. The government acts in self interest itself by seeking to secure its existence and power by expanding on its spending.



Every individual is ultimately responsible for themselves. That isn't some heartless way of viewing the world, it is as it is. Individual humans form groups to increase their chances of survival through cooperation. Human groups then fight against other human groups for scarce resources.

Of course, once some individuals in a human group become more successful than the others, it inevitably comes to question whether they owe anything to the group for their success. After all, what an individual earns ultimately belongs to them, as that is the concept of personal property. Should the group coerce that individual into sharing the resources they have rightly earned for themselves? Is it not the group that owes the successful individual? Is the successful individual's continued success not the group's continued success?
Click to expand...


YES, it's called QUALITY OF LIFE.

there is psysical slavery and there is mind slaving

Satya said:
That isn't what you said. Your argument is that quality of life improves the overall country. I want to know if that is true.
Click to expand...

Go to Iceland or Norway and you'll see for yourself.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Satya said:
That isn't what you said. Your argument is that quality of life improves the overall country. I want to know if that is true.



Neither Iceland nor Norway have anywhere near the GDP that America has.
Click to expand...

I've asked you this before, how is GDP the be all and end all?

You can have all the money in the world but it isn't worth anything if the air you breathe isn't clean, the water you drink isn't clean, the food you eat isn't healthy enough, you live in fear of hurricanes from warmer oceans, or you don't have the time off to enjoy it.
 
Last edited:
errrrrrrrrrm said:
I've asked you this before, how is GDP the be all and end all?
Click to expand...

It isn't. Inflation and Unemployment are equally important measures.

You can have all the money in the world but it isn't worth anything if the air you breathe isn't clean, the water you drink isn't clean, the food you eat isn't healthy enough, you live in fear of hurricanes from warmer oceans, or you don't have the time off to enjoy it.
Click to expand...

And if you are dead from starvation then you can't even enjoy your dirty air or water.
 
the factors that define it are: life expectancy, level of education, equality of access to the job market, levels of violence, health, economical stability, retirement, prospects for the general population.

i
 
Last edited:
mallory knox said:
the factors that define it are: life expectancy, level of education, equality of access to the job market, levels of violence, health, economical stability, retirement, prospects for the general population.
Click to expand...

Satya knows exactly what defines it, but responding will show the reference to GDP to be intellectual dishonesty
 
mallory knox said:
the factors that define it are: life expectancy, level of education, equality of access to the job market, levels of violence, health, economical stability, retirement, prospects for the general population..
Click to expand...

By that definition, GDP does not directly correspond to quality of life.
 
Satya said:
By that definition, GDP does not directly correspond to quality of life.
Click to expand...

by ANY definition used by ANYONE who has written ANYTHING on the suject GDP does not directly correspond to quality of life,

Satya said:
Are we back to ad hominem?
Click to expand...

you avoided by question of what YOU believe are factors in quality of life because

1. If you say 'yes, I believe the only factors in quality of life are economic' then it's a simple task to prove you wrong

2. If you say 'no, I think there are are more factors to quality of life than economic ones and they are a, b, c etc' then you have to admit your comment on GDP wasn't relevant and the only reason for saying it is to avoid the point made

Why don't you answer the question:

do you believe the only factors in the quality of people's lives are economic?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top