Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6405|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


Oh, so some control is good and necessary. Please obiwan, explain to me how any of the controls that you like aren't entirely arbitrary?
Well, most of the controls implemented in countries with socialized healthcare serve the purpose of limiting unhealthy behaviors.  This saves costs for everyone.  I wouldn't call that arbitrary.
Why is socialized health care better than an insurance based pay as you go system?
I think the fact that we pay more for healthcare than anyone else in the world is enough evidence as to why socialization is better.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5358|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


Well, most of the controls implemented in countries with socialized healthcare serve the purpose of limiting unhealthy behaviors.  This saves costs for everyone.  I wouldn't call that arbitrary.
Why is socialized health care better than an insurance based pay as you go system?
I think the fact that we pay more for healthcare than anyone else in the world is enough evidence as to why socialization is better.
We have better and more innovative health care than anyone else. We just have a really unhealthy population that offsets it.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|6681|Disaster Free Zone

JohnG@lt wrote:

Spark wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


What about it? Why did sending children to public schools become the be all/end all of educating children? Hell, kids probably come out of public schools dumber than they would if they just sat at home in front of the tv all day. We aren't doing them any favors shunting them off to these factories of mediocrity while mommy and daddy go off to work all day. There's a stunning correlation between the rise of public schools and the death of original thought.
come on galt, i'm trying to get a slightly more in-depth response than that.

eh. i won't derail this threads, pm's inbound.
No, it's fine. It should be voluntary. I shouldn't have property taxes extorted out of me to pay for education. If people want to have kids, they should pay out of their own pocket to educate them. If the kids parents fail at life and refuse to pay up, it's no skin off my back, we always need cashiers at McDonalds.
Be awesome helpful when they can't read, write or count to work those cashiers.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5358|London, England

DrunkFace wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Spark wrote:


come on galt, i'm trying to get a slightly more in-depth response than that.

eh. i won't derail this threads, pm's inbound.
No, it's fine. It should be voluntary. I shouldn't have property taxes extorted out of me to pay for education. If people want to have kids, they should pay out of their own pocket to educate them. If the kids parents fail at life and refuse to pay up, it's no skin off my back, we always need cashiers at McDonalds.
Be awesome helpful when they can't read, write or count to work those cashiers.
Really? Why is it the governments job to replace parenting?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|6681|Disaster Free Zone

JohnG@lt wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


No, it's fine. It should be voluntary. I shouldn't have property taxes extorted out of me to pay for education. If people want to have kids, they should pay out of their own pocket to educate them. If the kids parents fail at life and refuse to pay up, it's no skin off my back, we always need cashiers at McDonalds.
Be awesome helpful when they can't read, write or count to work those cashiers.
Really? Why is it the governments job to replace parenting?
Because 95% of people are fucking stupid, which means 95% of parents are fucking stupid, which means to create a potential productive generation you need to remove the parents from parenting.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5358|London, England

DrunkFace wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:


Be awesome helpful when they can't read, write or count to work those cashiers.
Really? Why is it the governments job to replace parenting?
Because 95% of people are fucking stupid, which means 95% of parents are fucking stupid, which means to create a potential productive generation you need to remove the parents from parenting.
Oh ok, so just stick it in, shoot your load, and your responsibilities have ended? If that's your position, why don't you screen out potential sperm donors with a low IQ to raise your chances of creating this master race? Pop some birth control into the water supply, and if that doesn't work, castrate any sperm donor with undesirable genetics.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|6681|Disaster Free Zone

JohnG@lt wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


Really? Why is it the governments job to replace parenting?
Because 95% of people are fucking stupid, which means 95% of parents are fucking stupid, which means to create a potential productive generation you need to remove the parents from parenting.
Oh ok, so just stick it in, shoot your load, and your responsibilities have ended? If that's your position, why don't you screen out potential sperm donors with a low IQ to raise your chances of creating this master race? Pop some birth control into the water supply, and if that doesn't work, castrate any sperm donor with undesirable genetics.
huh?

I can see how that has anything to do with what I said

You don't have to look far geographically (Africa, Asia) or historically (pre 1800) to see how leaving education to parents just does not work.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5358|London, England

DrunkFace wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:


Because 95% of people are fucking stupid, which means 95% of parents are fucking stupid, which means to create a potential productive generation you need to remove the parents from parenting.
Oh ok, so just stick it in, shoot your load, and your responsibilities have ended? If that's your position, why don't you screen out potential sperm donors with a low IQ to raise your chances of creating this master race? Pop some birth control into the water supply, and if that doesn't work, castrate any sperm donor with undesirable genetics.
huh?

I can see how that has anything to do with what I said

You don't have to look far geographically (Africa, Asia) or historically (pre 1800) to see how leaving education to parents just does not work.
You don't see it, but it's there. So, if 95% of parents are unfit, doesn't that make them genetically unfit to reproduce as well? Maybe you should institute a test for potential parents and have the ones that fail sterilized.

When did I say it should simply be parents educating their children at home (aside from the fact that home schooled kids tend to do far better on standardized tests...)? I said it should be the parents responsibility to provide for their education. Millions of parents currently volunteer to send their kids to private schools every year. Why should they be forced to subsidize the education of others? Why should an 80 year old retiree that never had kids be forced to pay property taxes to fund a failing public school system? The teachers I was exposed to in elementary and middle school (both public) considered themselves nothing more than glorified babysitters. Is it better to continue overpaying these people or is it better for a group of parents to get together, pool some money, and hire private tutors to teach their kids?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6405|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


Why is socialized health care better than an insurance based pay as you go system?
I think the fact that we pay more for healthcare than anyone else in the world is enough evidence as to why socialization is better.
We have better and more innovative health care than anyone else. We just have a really unhealthy population that offsets it.
..which wouldn't be a problem if certain policies were in place to encourage healthier decisions.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5358|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


I think the fact that we pay more for healthcare than anyone else in the world is enough evidence as to why socialization is better.
We have better and more innovative health care than anyone else. We just have a really unhealthy population that offsets it.
..which wouldn't be a problem if certain policies were in place to encourage healthier decisions.
How about no? It's not a problem as it is. It's certainly not your problem.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6405|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


We have better and more innovative health care than anyone else. We just have a really unhealthy population that offsets it.
..which wouldn't be a problem if certain policies were in place to encourage healthier decisions.
How about no? It's not a problem as it is. It's certainly not your problem.
It is actually...  When a significant portion of people end up in the ER unable to pay because of health problems they often develop out of personal negligence, I have to subsidize those costs when I pay for care.

One way or another, I have to subsidize other people's costs in healthcare, so I'd rather do it with a system better designed to handle subsidization.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5358|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


..which wouldn't be a problem if certain policies were in place to encourage healthier decisions.
How about no? It's not a problem as it is. It's certainly not your problem.
It is actually...  When a significant portion of people end up in the ER unable to pay because of health problems they often develop out of personal negligence, I have to subsidize those costs when I pay for care.

One way or another, I have to subsidize other people's costs in healthcare, so I'd rather do it with a system better designed to handle subsidization.
Then the ER should be allowed to deny them care.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6405|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


How about no? It's not a problem as it is. It's certainly not your problem.
It is actually...  When a significant portion of people end up in the ER unable to pay because of health problems they often develop out of personal negligence, I have to subsidize those costs when I pay for care.

One way or another, I have to subsidize other people's costs in healthcare, so I'd rather do it with a system better designed to handle subsidization.
Then the ER should be allowed to deny them care.
And it won't be, because that's fucking barbaric and completely against the Hippocratic Oath.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5358|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


It is actually...  When a significant portion of people end up in the ER unable to pay because of health problems they often develop out of personal negligence, I have to subsidize those costs when I pay for care.

One way or another, I have to subsidize other people's costs in healthcare, so I'd rather do it with a system better designed to handle subsidization.
Then the ER should be allowed to deny them care.
And it won't be, because that's fucking barbaric and completely against the Hippocratic Oath.
Why is it barbaric? How is it against the Hippocratic Oath? It wasn't until a certain law was written in the 80s that hospitals were forced to take all comers regardless of ability to pay.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5358|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


It is actually...  When a significant portion of people end up in the ER unable to pay because of health problems they often develop out of personal negligence, I have to subsidize those costs when I pay for care.

One way or another, I have to subsidize other people's costs in healthcare, so I'd rather do it with a system better designed to handle subsidization.
Then the ER should be allowed to deny them care.
And it won't be, because that's fucking barbaric and completely against the Hippocratic Oath.
Why is it barbaric? How is it against the Hippocratic Oath? It wasn't until a certain law was written in the 80s that hospitals were forced to take all comers regardless of ability to pay.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6405|North Carolina
For some reason, I can see your posts from the reply view, but not from the normal view...  hmmm
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5358|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


It is actually...  When a significant portion of people end up in the ER unable to pay because of health problems they often develop out of personal negligence, I have to subsidize those costs when I pay for care.

One way or another, I have to subsidize other people's costs in healthcare, so I'd rather do it with a system better designed to handle subsidization.
Then the ER should be allowed to deny them care.
And it won't be, because that's fucking barbaric and completely against the Hippocratic Oath.
Why is that barbaric? Why is it against the Hippocratic Oath? It wasn't until the 80s that the government legislated that hospitals have to take all comers regardless of ability to pay.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|6681|Disaster Free Zone

JohnG@lt wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


Oh ok, so just stick it in, shoot your load, and your responsibilities have ended? If that's your position, why don't you screen out potential sperm donors with a low IQ to raise your chances of creating this master race? Pop some birth control into the water supply, and if that doesn't work, castrate any sperm donor with undesirable genetics.
huh?

I can see how that has anything to do with what I said

You don't have to look far geographically (Africa, Asia) or historically (pre 1800) to see how leaving education to parents just does not work.
You don't see it, but it's there. So, if 95% of parents are unfit, doesn't that make them genetically unfit to reproduce as well? Maybe you should institute a test for potential parents and have the ones that fail sterilized.

When did I say it should simply be parents educating their children at home (aside from the fact that home schooled kids tend to do far better on standardized tests...)? I said it should be the parents responsibility to provide for their education. Millions of parents currently volunteer to send their kids to private schools every year. Why should they be forced to subsidize the education of others? Why should an 80 year old retiree that never had kids be forced to pay property taxes to fund a failing public school system? The teachers I was exposed to in elementary and middle school (both public) considered themselves nothing more than glorified babysitters. Is it better to continue overpaying these people or is it better for a group of parents to get together, pool some money, and hire private tutors to teach their kids?
Obviously is different in the US, but private education is subsidised by the government here. Why is a junky who's destined to die before retirement forced to pay into social security, why is the home bound forced to pay for roads, parks and waterway upkeep they will never use. Why does the fit and healthy person have to pay for the fat, sick or old who require medical attention every day. Why do the affluent who live in relative tranquillity have to pay for police to patrol criminal hot spots. Why do the pacifists have to pay for wars they care nothing about. Why do honest consumers have to pay extra to offset thieves. Why do law abiding citizens have to pay for the courts, lawyers and incarceration of criminals. Why religious people have to pay for scientific research. Why does anyone have to pay for some geek to figure out the origins of the universe?
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|6681|Disaster Free Zone

JohnG@lt wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


Oh ok, so just stick it in, shoot your load, and your responsibilities have ended? If that's your position, why don't you screen out potential sperm donors with a low IQ to raise your chances of creating this master race? Pop some birth control into the water supply, and if that doesn't work, castrate any sperm donor with undesirable genetics.
huh?

I can see how that has anything to do with what I said

You don't have to look far geographically (Africa, Asia) or historically (pre 1800) to see how leaving education to parents just does not work.
You don't see it, but it's there. So, if 95% of parents are unfit, doesn't that make them genetically unfit to reproduce as well? Maybe you should institute a test for potential parents and have the ones that fail sterilized.

When did I say it should simply be parents educating their children at home (aside from the fact that home schooled kids tend to do far better on standardized tests...)? I said it should be the parents responsibility to provide for their education. Millions of parents currently volunteer to send their kids to private schools every year. Why should they be forced to subsidize the education of others? Why should an 80 year old retiree that never had kids be forced to pay property taxes to fund a failing public school system? The teachers I was exposed to in elementary and middle school (both public) considered themselves nothing more than glorified babysitters. Is it better to continue overpaying these people or is it better for a group of parents to get together, pool some money, and hire private tutors to teach their kids?
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|6681|Disaster Free Zone

JohnG@lt wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


Oh ok, so just stick it in, shoot your load, and your responsibilities have ended? If that's your position, why don't you screen out potential sperm donors with a low IQ to raise your chances of creating this master race? Pop some birth control into the water supply, and if that doesn't work, castrate any sperm donor with undesirable genetics.
huh?

I can see how that has anything to do with what I said

You don't have to look far geographically (Africa, Asia) or historically (pre 1800) to see how leaving education to parents just does not work.
You don't see it, but it's there. So, if 95% of parents are unfit, doesn't that make them genetically unfit to reproduce as well? Maybe you should institute a test for potential parents and have the ones that fail sterilized.

When did I say it should simply be parents educating their children at home (aside from the fact that home schooled kids tend to do far better on standardized tests...)? I said it should be the parents responsibility to provide for their education. Millions of parents currently volunteer to send their kids to private schools every year. Why should they be forced to subsidize the education of others? Why should an 80 year old retiree that never had kids be forced to pay property taxes to fund a failing public school system? The teachers I was exposed to in elementary and middle school (both public) considered themselves nothing more than glorified babysitters. Is it better to continue overpaying these people or is it better for a group of parents to get together, pool some money, and hire private tutors to teach their kids?
I did have a nice long post to reply... but that got 'lost'. Enough to say you pay for shit you don't care about, don't use, don't want and don't know about all the time. The cost of education and health imo are very justifiable expenses and I can see the benefits of both every single day.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard