By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - How do you feel about X in your country?

the-pi-guy said:

A lot of discussions, regardless of topic, tend to be argued without their context.  What I mean by this is that on forums, users tend to come from all over.  We have different surroundings.  One person might be from the UK, another from US, another from Germany, Australia, etc.   All these countries have different political landscapes.  A lot of times we have people arguing about other countries politics without always understanding the political contexts in those countries.  

So what I want to do here is kind of turn it on it's side, and ask the various users how they feel about things in their own countries.

Some examples:

How do you feel about healthcare in your country?

How do you feel about gun control in your country?

 

And there's a lot more that we could delve into, but those are two pretty common examples.  So I figure we'll use them as a starting point.

United States

1. Healthcare: The quality is high, but the costs and logistics are a nightmare. My greatest fear is losing health insurance and spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to stay alive if I didn't find employment with same quality insurance.  If there would be a reason for me to move to a foreign country, this would be it. I fully endorse Medicare for All or Universal Healthcare.

2. I think where we draw the line on what guns or weapons make sense to own or not is the issue.  A pistol, shotgun, or rifle can be explained for defense, sporting, or hunting.  I don't understand need of a AK-47, M-16, or AR-15.  Clearly other shave a line or we could all buy nuclear warheads at the store, difference is where the line is drawn.



Around the Network

Funnily enougth the NHS is ranked 1st in the world two years running.



In Brazil the healthcare isn't the best, but still cost a lot of taxpayer money, so the government could make itself smaller and cheaper.

Gun control just prevent law abiding citizen to have guns and we know they won't ever be able to make it near impossible for criminals to get then, so they should allow anyone that isn't criminal or mentally ill to have a gun.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Gun laws in Belgium are strict but well thought out.

First, to own and buy a weapon, you must be a recognized hunter or hobby/sport shooter.
So you need to have a hunters permit or have passed an exam as sport shooter before you can purchase your own weapon.

Note that permissable weapons are devided in four categories: carbines, pistoles and revolvers, dubbleshot shotguns and blackpowder weapons (automatic rifles and combat shotguns are also banned for civilian use). You need to do an exam for every category of weapon you plan to own and or use (so just because you have a permit for a carbine does not mean you can buy a dubbleshot).

Once you have a permit, you can buy as many weapons as you like, but every gun must be registered after purchase with the police. Furthermore, there are permit renewals every 5 years (which is usually just a formality) and there are laws considering how to store weapons at home and what kind of storage capacity and safety measures are required depending on the amount of weapons you have.

That's Belgium's gun law in a nutshell.



Nymeria said:
the-pi-guy said:

A lot of discussions, regardless of topic, tend to be argued without their context.  What I mean by this is that on forums, users tend to come from all over.  We have different surroundings.  One person might be from the UK, another from US, another from Germany, Australia, etc.   All these countries have different political landscapes.  A lot of times we have people arguing about other countries politics without always understanding the political contexts in those countries.  

So what I want to do here is kind of turn it on it's side, and ask the various users how they feel about things in their own countries.

Some examples:

How do you feel about healthcare in your country?

How do you feel about gun control in your country?

 

And there's a lot more that we could delve into, but those are two pretty common examples.  So I figure we'll use them as a starting point.

United States

1. Healthcare: The quality is high, but the costs and logistics are a nightmare. My greatest fear is losing health insurance and spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to stay alive if I didn't find employment with same quality insurance.  If there would be a reason for me to move to a foreign country, this would be it. I fully endorse Medicare for All or Universal Healthcare.

2. I think where we draw the line on what guns or weapons make sense to own or not is the issue.  A pistol, shotgun, or rifle can be explained for defense, sporting, or hunting.  I don't understand need of a AK-47, M-16, or AR-15.  Clearly other shave a line or we could all buy nuclear warheads at the store, difference is where the line is drawn.

1 - It's cheaper to pay for your own medical care than to pay the government to do it, and people not being taxed could save that money

2 - Second amendment reason for creation is to fight the tyrannic government, so if they can have that gun so you should as well, unless you think it's possible for the population to defend against the government using only revolvers.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network

In Luxembourg:

Gun control: Very repressive, you even need a permit for a archery bow or dulled fantasy swords. However, this means armed attacks are exceedingly rare, and security agents are generally unarmed. I far prefer this to looser gun laws as any kinds of attacks are generally just fisticuffs or knifefights at worst.

Health care: A bit special here. You first have to pay in full up front, but you get part or all of your money back, exept on medicine where the percentage is already applied when bought with a presciption. On antibiotics for instance, 80% are paid back to you, painkillers and symptom soothers 40-60%, vitamins and food supplements are always full price even with a prescription.

For hospital stay and other kinds of chiurgic medicine (like dental), the national healthcare system provides a high standard, but for those who want more, there are private healthcare companies who you can subscribe to to get their services.



DonFerrari said:
Nymeria said:

United States

1. Healthcare: The quality is high, but the costs and logistics are a nightmare. My greatest fear is losing health insurance and spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to stay alive if I didn't find employment with same quality insurance.  If there would be a reason for me to move to a foreign country, this would be it. I fully endorse Medicare for All or Universal Healthcare.

2. I think where we draw the line on what guns or weapons make sense to own or not is the issue.  A pistol, shotgun, or rifle can be explained for defense, sporting, or hunting.  I don't understand need of a AK-47, M-16, or AR-15.  Clearly other shave a line or we could all buy nuclear warheads at the store, difference is where the line is drawn.

1 - It's cheaper to pay for your own medical care than to pay the government to do it, and people not being taxed could save that money

2 - Second amendment reason for creation is to fight the tyrannic government, so if they can have that gun so you should as well, unless you think it's possible for the population to defend against the government using only revolvers.

1 - That simply is not true. The US spends nearly twice what comparable nations do on healthcare.  Healthcare is profit motivated rather than a right that is served by the society.   The same medication I use in the US can be acquired in Canada for 70% less. Ask yourself why Americans want a different system, but no other country wants our system.

2 - I don't think the way a tyrannical government in the US would come into being would be swayed by 9MM or M-16s.  It's much easier to just keep us arguing and apathetic while they reap benefits than effort to forcible enslave us.  If they did want to roll up in tanks and the army didn't question it we are screwed.  People owning AR-15s is not what causes the US government to not go forward with an authoritarian state.



Nymeria said:
DonFerrari said:

1 - It's cheaper to pay for your own medical care than to pay the government to do it, and people not being taxed could save that money

2 - Second amendment reason for creation is to fight the tyrannic government, so if they can have that gun so you should as well, unless you think it's possible for the population to defend against the government using only revolvers.

1 - That simply is not true. The US spends nearly twice what comparable nations do on healthcare.  Healthcare is profit motivated rather than a right that is served by the society.   The same medication I use in the US can be acquired in Canada for 70% less. Ask yourself why Americans want a different system, but no other country wants our system.

2 - I don't think the way a tyrannical government in the US would come into being would be swayed by 9MM or M-16s.  It's much easier to just keep us arguing and apathetic while they reap benefits than effort to forcible enslave us.  If they did want to roll up in tanks and the army didn't question it we are screwed.  People owning AR-15s is not what causes the US government to not go forward with an authoritarian state.

1 - So you think that paying a overhead with its administrative cost is less expensive than paying straight? You do now that X+Y is greater than Y if both are positive numbers right?

A lot of people are simply ill informed and will ask for things they don't comprehend, so yes there will be people asking for "free stuff" and more government.

2 - I didn't say that population having ARs is what prevents a tyrannical government, I said that is what the second amendment is based upon, to fight your own government, so if they can have access to gun the population can as well.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari said:
Nymeria said:

1 - That simply is not true. The US spends nearly twice what comparable nations do on healthcare.  Healthcare is profit motivated rather than a right that is served by the society.   The same medication I use in the US can be acquired in Canada for 70% less. Ask yourself why Americans want a different system, but no other country wants our system.

2 - I don't think the way a tyrannical government in the US would come into being would be swayed by 9MM or M-16s.  It's much easier to just keep us arguing and apathetic while they reap benefits than effort to forcible enslave us.  If they did want to roll up in tanks and the army didn't question it we are screwed.  People owning AR-15s is not what causes the US government to not go forward with an authoritarian state.

1 - So you think that paying a overhead with its administrative cost is less expensive than paying straight? You do now that X+Y is greater than Y if both are positive numbers right?

A lot of people are simply ill informed and will ask for things they don't comprehend, so yes there will be people asking for "free stuff" and more government.

2 - I didn't say that population having ARs is what prevents a tyrannical government, I said that is what the second amendment is based upon, to fight your own government, so if they can have access to gun the population can as well.

1 - There is plenty of data that shows when you negotiate in mass you get lower prices on products such as medicine.  I also think when profit is removed from the equation you aren't subsidizing an insurance industry it reduces costs.  If you can show me a comparable nation to the US that spends more on healthcare I'd be interested to see it.

I never said it was free. It is an allocation of resources investing in your citizenry so they don't go bankrupt, or have to beg on GoFundMe or are significantly economically impacted by an illness or accident.  I'd even gladly spend more in taxes than I do in insurance, co-pays and deductibles simply to remove the fear in my life and so many others that our system brings.

2 - Are you saying if the government has a weapon then the second amendment makes it a right of every American to purchase said weapon?



Nymeria said:
DonFerrari said:

1 - So you think that paying a overhead with its administrative cost is less expensive than paying straight? You do now that X+Y is greater than Y if both are positive numbers right?

A lot of people are simply ill informed and will ask for things they don't comprehend, so yes there will be people asking for "free stuff" and more government.

2 - I didn't say that population having ARs is what prevents a tyrannical government, I said that is what the second amendment is based upon, to fight your own government, so if they can have access to gun the population can as well.

1 - There is plenty of data that shows when you negotiate in mass you get lower prices on products such as medicine.  I also think when profit is removed from the equation you aren't subsidizing an insurance industry it reduces costs.  If you can show me a comparable nation to the US that spends more on healthcare I'd be interested to see it.

I never said it was free. It is an allocation of resources investing in your citizenry so they don't go bankrupt, or have to beg on GoFundMe or are significantly economically impacted by an illness or accident.  I'd even gladly spend more in taxes than I do in insurance, co-pays and deductibles simply to remove the fear in my life and so many others that our system brings.

2 - Are you saying if the government has a weapon then the second amendment makes it a right of every American to purchase said weapon?

1 - Mass negotiation is different than the full government administration on healthcare. The government may not be doing profit like corporations, but employees will still make money comparable to private sector, if not they would move to there, and plus the overhead of the government doing it itself.

You would pay more taxes because you prefer the government to administrate your money instead of yourself??? Them never complain how bad it administrate it and put resources on the wrong place.

2 - That is the justification of it when made. Was there any weapon restricted under 2nd amendment when it was created?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."