I had to laugh when I saw President TrumpGod, during a photo session/ media appearance with Australian Prime Minister Turnbull, praise the Australian "universal" public health services called Medicare. What President TrumpGod obviously doesn't know is that Turnbull is from our Conservative political party, who hate Medicare. Turnbull is a "professional politician" now, and he disguised his reaction to President TrumpGod's praise of Medicare well, but I could see his discomfort. Medicare is the creation of those godless Socialists, the Australian Labor Party.
Turnbull's party cannot get rid of Medicare, that would be political suicide, but whenever they are in power they try to "wind it back", impose fees, reduce benefits etc. Then when the ALP get into government they act to improve Medicare. The Medicare system has overwhelming support from medical professionals, eg the AMA, the organisation that represents doctors, the ANA that represents Nurses etc.
So I found it laughable when President TrumpGod praised our Medicare system, a creation of the Socialists, that has a general "Medicare levy" that all taxpayers pay, AND has had an extra levy on high income earners.
Just another demonstration of the ignorance of Trump

"Manwe and Yanik believe in social darwinism, that the poor should die if they are not fit enough to survive."

Not quite. I just don't believe in slavery/forced servitude. Medical services are just that, services. Like any other goods or services, there is a supply and demand for them. Demand is high, supply is low. This causes the price to be high, because the service is a scarce resource. Forcing me to subsidize other peoples' acquisitions of it just because it is costly is a flawed argument. How about we force everyone to contribute to a fund to buy me a swimming pool in my backyard? Those are pricey too. Why is taking from me to pay for one acceptable, but taking from you to pay for the other not? Mob rule? They are both inappropriate actions for a government founded on freedom and liberty to take. I'm all for private charities and assisting the poor in obtaining health services. But, it should be done in a voluntary manner, not forced.

Many countries seem blighted by partisan politics and the petty squabbling that passes for political debate. Some are particularly suffering from a lack of unbiased news media.

@manwe, if it counts as forced servitude for you to pay a little bit for someone to get the huge (albeit indirect) benefit of remaining alive, I can think of no greater example of social darwinism. Accept the label. You are no abolitionist.

Also, Manwe, nice strawman on the swimming pool example. Anyone who believes that the poor deserve to live surely wants to tax people like you to build them swimming pools. right.

perhaps we should have a blanket 40% tax on every person (no exceptions) then we can buy anything.

Ma we has never heard of a public good or of understand insurance. Don't want to live in civilization? Feel free to move to Somalia. It's a conservative paradise. Small government, no regulation, everyone has guns and you can force people to follow your religion You won't be missed

Basically, it is a libertarian argument, which like lost libertarian theories leave everyone worse off. Health care contribute significantly to the overall well being and economic vitality and also incredibly poorly suited to a "free market". As with environmental regulation or public provisions of roads a public health care system is a smart solution to a social problem. Of course if you value system is such that your content to watch others die on the basis of some vague ideology, then that won't appeal, but then that's a moral stance that isn't that far removed from ISIS thinking, frankly

a free market isn't free when those who have accumulated generations of wealth, power and prestige have almost complete control over the "free" market. The Libertarian fantasy would only every have a chance to succeed if everyone's status and wealth was stripped down to nothing and we started over. Ogion's Somalia example is perfect though. no thanks.

Voluntaryism DOES NOT WORK.

That libertarian bullshit needs to be taken out back and shot.

Luckily, Jeff, for most people libtertarian ideology tends to naturally die around the age of 26 -- also known as the age when most have to grow up and deal with the real world.

@ Jeff Kuta
so your solution is to stick a gun to peoples ribs and say fork over your money

CAPT Brad, STFU. Go create your own libertarian fantasyland somewhere else.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-05/make-pregnancy-expensive-again-a-woman-s-guide-to-the-new-health-bill

Let's get rid of poor people by making it more expensive to have them and their survival to adults. Soon all we will have are narcissistic rich brats that think their entitled to the government catering to their needs and above the law.

I'm back


@Hauta
"@manwe, if it counts as forced servitude for you to pay a little bit for someone to get the huge (albeit indirect) benefit of remaining alive,"

yes it actually does.

"I can think of no greater example of social darwinism. Accept the label. You are no abolitionist."

really? are you kidding me? he's pro charity, you're pro government forcefully taking money. He's pro consensual transactions, you're pro rape.


"Also, Manwe, nice strawman on the swimming pool example. Anyone who believes that the poor deserve to live surely wants to tax people like you to build them swimming pools. right."

it wasn't a strawman, it was an ANALOGY, to elucidate on the ethics of the argument.


@Ogion:

"Ma we has never heard of a public good or of understand insurance."

and you don't understand sentence structure. also, YOU don't understand insurance, if you support Obamacare. if you want single payer, just say it. don't force insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions. it eliminates the "risk" part of insurance (AKA: THE ENTIRE FUCKING PART)

"Don't want to live in civilization? Feel free to move to Somalia. It's a conservative paradise. Small government, no regulation, everyone has guns and you can force people to follow your religion You won't be missed"

1. we never said we didn't like civilization
2. we don't support murderous regimes that roam the land
3. we like government for law and order
4. we don't like forcing people to follow a certain religion. that's theocratic fascism.


"Basically, it is a libertarian argument, which like lost libertarian theories leave everyone worse off."

i think you need to take an english class or something. christ this is awful.

"Health care contribute...

***CONTRIBUTES. NOT CONTRIBUTE. LEARN ENGLISH***

...significantly to the overall well being and economic vitality and also incredibly poorly suited to a "free market"."

how would you know? we've never seen a truly free market for healthcare in the modern era.

"As with environmental regulation or public provisions of roads a public health care system is a smart solution to a social problem."

nope. you're confusing rationales. environmental regulations are one part creating a product whose externalities affect others (i.e. climate change) so that must be regulated.

roads are a public good, although frankly, I wish they weren't. In Oklahoma our roads are torn up, gone to hell, and whatever taxes we pay to get them fixed, the GOVERNMENT pushes into other programs that it desires. The interstate highway program was an inevitability for someone to do it, but at the end of the day the government did it first. the only reason why it was done through the federal government and not by companies is because as soon as you cross state lines, you're going to be subject to various different regulations. still, roads post office and military and the original 3... and the post office is almost obsolete anyways

"Of course if you value system is such that your content to watch others die on the basis of some vague ideology, then that won't appeal, but then that's a moral stance that isn't that far removed from ISIS thinking, frankly"

no, we donate to charity. conservatives donate more than liberals, there's a book called "Who Really Cares" I suggest you read it.


@ishirkmywork
"a free market isn't free when those who have accumulated generations of wealth, power and prestige have almost complete control over the "free" market."

can they build companies? yes.

can they FORCE people to work in those companies? no.

can they set up a new walmart in a town and drive down prices compared to small businesses? yes.

do the people in those towns HAVE TO buy from the new superstore? no.


"The Libertarian fantasy would only every have a chance to succeed if everyone's status and wealth was stripped down to nothing and we started over."

and then over time new families begin to accumulate wealth and we get more inequality. if you want to force families you used to own slaves to pay more NOW, i suppose there's an argument there. although look up the stats, you'll be surprised how few did.

"Ogion's Somalia example is perfect though. no thanks."

no it's not. he tried to equivocate immoral anarchy to conservative paradise. if that's a fair comparison, then you all can go live in a soviet-esque state. have fun.

@Jeff Kuta
"Voluntaryism DOES NOT WORK."

only when liberals are involved. Conservatives are more likely to be involved in their community and to donate to charity. we have values. the breakdown of social fabric and the unrelenting attacks on religious institutions (and this is coming from an Atheist) is unbearable.

"That libertarian bullshit needs to be taken out back and shot."

yes! freedom is bad! socialism works! stalin did nothing wrong!!!


@ishirkmywork

"Luckily, Jeff, for most people libtertarian ideology tends to naturally die around the age of 26 -- also known as the age when most have to grow up and deal with the real world."

stereotyping.

besides, the basic ideas of a hard work ethic, take care of others in your community, **dont' steal from others even if it's through the government** don't "die" at 26.


@Jeff Kuta

"CAPT Brad, STFU. Go create your own libertarian fantasyland somewhere else."

Jeff Kuta, STFU. Go create your own socialist fantasyland somewhere else.

oh wait, that wasn't a real argument? you see, America ORIGINALLY was very libertarian. we had social issues which was the problem: slavery, sexism... all of that. but the founders never wanted this bullshit. so really it's YOU who are bastardizing this country. go to Europe, if you really want that.


@Randomizer

"https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-05/make-pregnancy-expensive-again-a-woman-s-guide-to-the-new-health-bill"

Yes. I am not going to pay YOU money, because you got knocked up. honestly, what ever happened to self responsibility?

"Let's get rid of poor people by making it more expensive to have them and their survival to adults."

i'm not paying because you had sex. your view is warped. you think it's NATURAL for a kid to be cheap and affordable. KIDS ARE EXPENSIVE, and if you have sex, you're risking economic disaster. i'm fine teaching that in schools, but i'm not fine forcing people to subsidize idiocy.

"Soon all we will have are narcissistic rich brats that think their entitled to the government catering to their needs and above the law."

1. don't worry, the liberals are here to make sure we narcissistic whiny bitches who think they're entitle to other people's labor. wait, isn't that called slavery? oh yeah, i forgot that Democrats sided with the south. oh well

2. we don't want the rich to have their needs "catered to" by the government. we don't want the government to be doing much at ALL.


your mentality is that the government is either there to help the poor, or the government is there to help the rich. we say it shouldn't discriminate, it should only secure rights and liberties (but liberals don't know what liberties are)

you see it's not a "special government given advantage" for the government NOT TO TAKE YOUR MONEY IN THE FIRST PLACE.

stop acting like it's natural to have a large fraction of your income stolen from you. that is not a beginning point, that is a manipulation.

@Manwe

they attack in packs, but it doesn't make their ideology any stronger (or smarter apparently)

Ha Manwe, what a self serving piece of nonsense, your pool rubbish. Let's take immunisation as an example instead. Taxpayers fund research into new vaccines, both directly when governments fund research, and indirectly when pharmaceutical companies claim tax deductions for research, trials etc. Without going into lengthy explanation of immunisation & the "herd effect", you probably never contracted Polio, nor are your children likely to ( I am making some assumptions ) There, my friend, is a definable health benefit that millions, hundreds of millions of people enjoy because taxpayers pay taxes. ( and with a lot of medical research, people donated as well as pay their taxes )
You, or yours get bitten by a venomous snake, I'll bet you're glad there are treatments available, so as well as thank taxpayers for helping develop and distribute antidotes, we also might want to thank the medical researchers who chose to do relatively low paid research instead of choosing to specialise in plastic surgery on Hollywood actors.

@Manwe

"Ha Manwe, what a self serving piece of nonsense, your pool rubbish."

insulting. pretentious. poorly written. is that MajorMitchell I hear?

"Let's take immunisation as an example instead."

you mean something with a DIRECT EXTERNALITY? because if you compare that to healthcare, with NO DIRECT EXTERNALITIES it's not going to end well for you.

"Taxpayers fund research into new vaccines, both directly when governments fund research, and indirectly when pharmaceutical companies claim tax deductions for research, trials etc."

and biotechs, but yes i understand this.

"Without going into lengthy explanation of immunisation & the "herd effect", you probably never contracted Polio, nor are your children likely to ( I am making some assumptions ) There, my friend, is a definable health benefit that millions, hundreds of millions of people enjoy because taxpayers pay taxes. ( and with a lot of medical research, people donated as well as pay their taxes )"

yes, but most research on drugs is done through 3 industries: universities, pharmaceutical companies, and biotechs, the latter 2 making up the bulk of the research. they make innovative drugs and vaccines and sell it on market.

"You, or yours get bitten by a venomous snake, I'll bet you're glad there are treatments available, so as well as thank taxpayers for helping develop and distribute antidotes, we also might want to thank the medical researchers who chose to do relatively low paid research instead of choosing to specialise in plastic surgery on Hollywood actors."

actually, let's take snakebite treatment. it's VERY BAD. the USA doesn't have a problem with snakebites like the rest of the world does, so our private sector doesn't actually invest that much time in it.

but surely the socialized countries are working hard for anti-venom?

nope, it's research funding is always low because these nations are skinned for cash, and hundreds of thousands die every year because there's so many problems synthesizing antivenoms.

of course many people think the solution is more funding, but if these places had a strong capitalist competitive market, this wouldn't be a problem. instead they're stuck with socialized medicine that doesn't have the time or energy to worry about 200,000 people dying yearly.

so what's the solution in the meantime? MORE government intervention, taking money from taxpayers? or maybe, if there's a disease problem, and a demand to fix it, supply will rise to compensate, this solving the problem... interesting. it's almost like economics. do you know what economics are? and not the kind with the prefix "socialist"

i think you misunderstand, i like tax breaks for incentivizing work in a specific field. i'm all for that. taking MORE money from the taxpayer? less so

@Capt Brad ( although I wonder why I bother with such an obtuse blockhead ) I'm glad that my Federal government is about to increase by $350 million the health services, particularly mental health services to ADF ( Australian Defence Forces) veterans. I support it politically, and presumably will financially by paying my taxes and not engaging in tax minimisation schemes.
But I could apply your convoluted "logic" and simply say, these people knew what they were signing up for when they joined up, and if they have problems from serving in Afghanistan then they need to suck it up, grow a pair and look after themselves.
Simple fact is, more members of the ADF who served in Afghanistan have committed suicide after they returned home than have been killed whilst serving in Afghanistan.
I don't know them personally, or the spouses and children they leave behind, why should I give a flying F*** ? They made their choice to join the ADF and knew the risks, their spouses chose to marry them knowing the risks, so using Capt Brad's selfish ideology, why should taxpayers spend one single dollar helping them ?
My beliefs drive me to a different position..that is, as a Nation, as communities within our Nation, and as individuals, all Australians should contribute taxes, and whatever else is needed to help our ADF veterans return to "normal civilian life".
And it goes beyond just ADF veterans, to all Australians who need help, the people and children in remote areas as an example, should have access to the taxpayer & " philanthropic" supported Royal Flying Doctor Service..and decent free public education. What's the "Libertarian" position ? Injured, sick Australians in remote areas should either grow their own wings and fly to a hospital in a capital city, or die ? After all they made a choice to live in a remote area, or if they were born their, chose not to move to the cities, they knew the risks.

@MajorMitchell

"@Capt Brad ( although I wonder why I bother with such an obtuse blockhead )"

ad hominem.

"I'm glad that my Federal government is about to increase by $350 million the health services, particularly mental health services to ADF ( Australian Defence Forces) veterans."

yes, people who serve this country with their lives should get rewards. although i wouldn't celebrate taking from the people.

"I support it politically, and presumably will financially by paying my taxes and not engaging in tax minimisation schemes."

you mean government laws that allow for tax minimization? yes those GOVERNMENT LAWS are really bad.

"But I could apply your convoluted "logic" and simply say, these people knew what they were signing up for when they joined up, and if they have problems from serving in Afghanistan then they need to suck it up, grow a pair and look after themselves."

are you really attacking Brad for being anti-military? just in case anyone was wondering what your basis in reality was: it's small

"Simple fact is, more members of the ADF who served in Afghanistan have committed suicide after they returned home than have been killed whilst serving in Afghanistan."

which is something we prevent. can you really not tell the difference between the special circumstances of the military and the average civilian?

"I don't know them personally, or the spouses and children they leave behind, why should I give a flying F*** ?"

ahhh i see the dilemma. you're delusional. while i only pay for people who are a part of my community, i also pay for the people who PROTECT my community

"They made their choice to join the ADF and knew the risks, their spouses chose to marry them knowing the risks, so using Capt Brad's selfish ideology, why should taxpayers spend one single dollar helping them ?"

i've already replied to this. see above

"My beliefs drive me to a different position..that is, as a Nation, as communities within our Nation, and as individuals, all Australians should contribute taxes, and whatever else is needed to help our ADF veterans return to "normal civilian life"."

i agree with that for America as well. veterans. not normal populous.

"And it goes beyond just ADF veterans, to all Australians who need help, the people and children in remote areas as an example, should have access to the taxpayer & " philanthropic" supported Royal Flying Doctor Service.."

why? they haven't affected my community in any way! we should look out for our own, not some people far away from us. why i should support some american up in new york, but ignore the kids in Africa? stick to your communities.

"and decent free public education."

older populations were more educated than mine, and they only used Municipalities and COMMUNITIES to fund school. sooooo i agree?

"What's the "Libertarian" position ? Injured, sick Australians in remote areas should either grow their own wings and fly to a hospital in a capital city, or die ? After all they made a choice to live in a remote area, or if they were born their, chose not to move to the cities, they knew the risks."

well may i just point out, that if they live in a remote area, then how do you propose we treat them? build hospitals every square mile? if you choose to live on your own, then there's going to be some danger associated with that. if you get injured and need to go to the hospital, you're going to have to drive a LONG way to get to a medical facility. once there they can treat you, but you're going to have to pay for their service.

i mean... it's not even a "libertarian position" it's just... reality. if you live far away from hospitals, it is harder to get treatment.

am i the only one getting this here?

@Yanik, "really? are you kidding me? he's pro charity, you're pro government forcefully taking money."

Where does charity fit into your scheme? Is it that private charity is good because somehow it doesn't create a moral hazard and make people lazy but public charity (via government programs) is bad? Or it that private charity that is close to home is good because you can determine who gets it, e.g., good clean white fellow-Christians who are temporarily down on their luck? Screw the rest!

"Where does charity fit into your scheme?"

scheme? i just mean a good community. and it's the entire basis for it. even though i live in a city, i am constantly working and helping people in poverty around me. i think it's a good thing to do, and that's something we should teach kids more and more.

"Is it that private charity is good because somehow it doesn't create a moral hazard and make people lazy but public charity (via government programs) is bad?"

charity: "the voluntary giving of help, typically in the form of money, to those in need."

i'm not sure what you mean by "private charity" but in any case, "public charity" as you defined it through government programs is FORCEFULLY TAKEN. it is NOt something you voluntarily do, it is required by law: if you do not do this, you can go to JAIL. if you do not pay us money into this charity you GO TO JAIL.

if this is "public charity" for you, then you need first a dictionary, and second an ethicist.

"Or it that private charity that is close to home is good because you can determine who gets it, e.g., good clean white fellow-Christians who are temporarily down on their luck? Screw the rest!""

as someone who works a lot helping people in my city, i resent this entirely. it's the typical "oh they must be racist so we should FORCEFULLY TAKE THEIR MONEY"

i don't discriminate with the work i do, in fact in north tulsa most of the population i work with is african american. most of these people have mental problems, and need help. inefficient government is no solution, and forceful taking of money is no solution.

don't ever accuse me of racism again, and expect me to take you seriously. every christians i know is more tolerant than the average liberal i see in college. the indoctrination against white christians is fucking horrible

as i've said before on this forum, read the book "Who Really Cares"

it's liberals who don't donate to charity, it's conservatives who actually care

Why is it YOUR money, James?

Because I am an individual, who has worked hard and used his own labor, and with a consensual agreement with another individual, we agreed update a rate i would be paid. The money otself represents labor, stored in the form of a note, that our federal reserve uses as a medium for a fair and consistent means of identifying and transferring said labor

You do not have a right to MY labor jamiet. THAT is slavery

Does the money have intrinsic worth, or does it just hold exchange value because the federal reserve, and behind that, the state, supports its exchange value?

Oh I'm sorry, was your middle school level arguing tactic of subjectivity just torn apart?


Maybe try giving me an efficient way of creating a single payer system, and then we could have a real discussion. Right now it's entirely a joke... And you with your idiotic comments aren't going to change anyone's mind

It is a simple matter of utility. It's easier for me to use this note than simply bartering, so I choose to do so. The federal reserve may guarantee that his note can be used for taxes, but beyond that usefulness, it's really my own personal choice

This*