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?

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 explains why it's so expensive here in the US where private insurance rules, and so cheap in countries like the UK, Brazil, Sweden, Norway, and many others.

2- That explains why all those other countries have so much freedom, despite no second amendment.  

2B - If revolvers aren't good enough, then what makes other weapons good enough?  The government spends over $600,000,000,000 a year on the military.  That includes top secret technologies that make even the best civilian weapons look like a revolver.  



Around the Network
DonFerrari said:
Nymeria said:

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?

1 - It would negatively affect insurance, pharmaceuticals, medical device manufacturers, and yes, the doctors and nurses salaries as costs would be cut.

I would pay more than I do now to avoid the spectre of fear our system has.  If I lose insurance I am a lost cause for insurance companies and would spend tens of thousands of dollars every year because I was born with conditions I had no control over and despite my best efforts with exercise, diet and medication.  I think it makes us lesser as a country when every year we allow people to be destroyed or die because they are poor and have health issues.  It saves the economy money even based on the detractors projections and it is a moral stance to take care of others.

2 - No, but then should we cease weapons allowed at the time the second amendment was created? Because if not, I want a nuke because the government has tons of them.  I've never met even the most fervent supporter of second amendment that would agree with that.



the-pi-guy 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 explains why it's so expensive here in the US where private insurance rules, and so cheap in countries like the UK, Brazil, Sweden, Norway, and many others.

2- That explains why all those other countries have so much freedom, despite no second amendment.  

2B - If revolvers aren't good enough, then what makes other weapons good enough?  The government spends over $600,000,000,000 a year on the military.  That includes top secret technologies that make even the best civilian weapons look like a revolver.  

1 - Government involvement in the market as a whole help a lot in increasing the costs. And in Brazil compared to our GDP the private healthcare is quite expensive, 1h appointment on a regular doctor cost about 1/2 a minimum month wage, health plan for a 30y old citizen around 1/3 of the minimum month wage while a senior plan about 4 times a minimum month wage... does that sound cheap to you? Or putting in USA money, single consult about 960USD healthcare plan to young people 8k/year and for seniors 100k/year. Is that cheap for you in comparison?

2 - Brazil freedom is very low, and go there and convince your fellow citizen on abolishing 2nd amendment... while you do that look that in Brazil we have guns forbidden and our most peaceful capital (big city) is more violent than your most violent one.

The worse weapon government can develop like nuclear and bioweapon isn't much advisable to use against its own citizen since it could destroy its own country, so repression could be by using tank, assault rifle and drones... besides the first, the other 2 citizen can have access to.

Nymeria said:
DonFerrari said:

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?

1 - It would negatively affect insurance, pharmaceuticals, medical device manufacturers, and yes, the doctors and nurses salaries as costs would be cut.

I would pay more than I do now to avoid the spectre of fear our system has.  If I lose insurance I am a lost cause for insurance companies and would spend tens of thousands of dollars every year because I was born with conditions I had no control over and despite my best efforts with exercise, diet and medication.  I think it makes us lesser as a country when every year we allow people to be destroyed or die because they are poor and have health issues.  It saves the economy money even based on the detractors projections and it is a moral stance to take care of others.

2 - No, but then should we cease weapons allowed at the time the second amendment was created? Because if not, I want a nuke because the government has tons of them.  I've never met even the most fervent supporter of second amendment that would agree with that.

1 - Why do you think all those costs would go down? I don't know of a single stance in Brazil where the costs for the government to do was lower than for private sector even when government offer a much worse solution. Just as an example, on something that cost is quite simple to figure out....

A child school in Brazil... you can have one for under 100 USD/month on private school, yet the public equivalent cost the government over 300/month and one of them doesn't have strikes and can still make some profit.

You are only lying to yourself, if you are willing to pay more just because it may happen that in the near future you would cost more than you pay, then someone that isn't costing to the system is paying for you without using, and that isn't moral, even more when it's forced burden upon others.

2 - Go there and develop your nuke if you so much want. Or well when it get sold on your gun store buy it. Or read the above response on why a citizen wouldn't need a nuke to oppress against its own citizen.



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."

«How do you feel about healthcare in your country?
How do you feel about gun control in your country?»

I live in Norway. Love it.
Prison system is also focused on healing instead of punishment, this video shows the Norwegian prison:
https://youtu.be/01mTKDaKa6Q

Some norwegians think it’s too mild, but what kind of prisoner would you rather have as a neighbor after their sentence? A norwegian one, or a US one?



Predicted 15+ million lifetime-sales for God of War:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=234612&page=1

Tmfwang said:
«How do you feel about healthcare in your country?
How do you feel about gun control in your country?»

I live in Norway. Love it.
Prison system is also focused on healing instead of punishment, this video shows the Norwegian prison:
https://youtu.be/01mTKDaKa6Q

Some norwegians think it’s too mild, but what kind of prisoner would you rather have as a neighbor after their sentence? A norwegian one, or a US one?

Depending on the criminal most people would say none.



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
Nymeria said:
 

DonFerrari said

Weapons allowed at the time the second amendment was created? Because if not, I want a nuke because the government has tons of them.  I've never met even the most fervent supporter of second amendment that would agree with that.

You dream to small you should want to have a MIRV. Since you can actually overthrow the government with that.



Please excuse my (probally) poor grammar

Qwark said:
Nymeria said:

DonFerrari said

Weapons allowed at the time the second amendment was created? Because if not, I want a nuke because the government has tons of them.  I've never met even the most fervent supporter of second amendment that would agree with that.

 

You dream to small you should want to have a MIRV. Since you can actually overthrow the government with that.

Why not right kkkkk.



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:
Qwark said:

DonFerrari said

Weapons allowed at the time the second amendment was created? Because if not, I want a nuke because the government has tons of them.  I've never met even the most fervent supporter of second amendment that would agree with that.

You dream to small you should want to have a MIRV. Since you can actually overthrow the government with that.

Why not right kkkkk.

Because even if I do not always thrust governments/ Trump with nuclear weapons, I trust citizens even less.



Please excuse my (probally) poor grammar

Ka-pi96 said:
How do you feel about healthcare in your country?
The NHS is really good. Not perfect, but it's still great not having to pay when going to the doctor. There's been a lot of controversy about it's finances lately (governments suck at budgeting things, what's new? ) but on a day to day basis I think it still works fine. I nor any of my family have ever had any real problems with it.

How do you feel about gun control in your country?
I've literally never seen a gun before here in the UK. So I think they're doing a great job on that front!

It works well for minor illnesses but if you've got cancer or heart disease and you've got the money then going private or flying to the united states for treatment improves your chances of survival by quite a bit. Having a government run healthcare service means poor people have access to health care but it also means the healthcare is mediocre because the goverment struggle's to fund it meaning the drugs, equipment and facillities are cheap and the surgeons and docters don't get paid that well so the most talented ones don't work for the NHS. This is why survival rates for cancer and heart disease in the UK are lagging behind most other developed countries.

Also The goverment pays the drug company's so poorly that they have barely enough money left for new drug research so there is no innovation and no competition either because the goverment has a monopoly. Competition drives up quality and increases innovation, that is why the new groundbreaking advancements in medical care will come from a privatised health service (United states).



Metroid33slayer said:
Ka-pi96 said:
How do you feel about healthcare in your country?
The NHS is really good. Not perfect, but it's still great not having to pay when going to the doctor. There's been a lot of controversy about it's finances lately (governments suck at budgeting things, what's new? ) but on a day to day basis I think it still works fine. I nor any of my family have ever had any real problems with it.

How do you feel about gun control in your country?
I've literally never seen a gun before here in the UK. So I think they're doing a great job on that front!

It works well for minor illnesses but if you've got cancer or heart disease and you've got the money then going private or flying to the united states for treatment improves your chances of survival by quite a bit. Having a government run healthcare service means poor people have access to health care but it also means the healthcare is mediocre because the goverment struggle's to fund it meaning the drugs, equipment and facillities are cheap and the surgeons and docters don't get paid that well so the most talented ones don't work for the NHS. This is why survival rates for cancer and heart disease in the UK are lagging behind most other developed countries.

Also The goverment pays the drug company's so poorly that they have barely enough money left for new drug research so there is no innovation and no competition either because the goverment has a monopoly. Competition drives up quality and increases innovation, that is why the new groundbreaking advancements in medical care will come from a privatised health service (United states).

Most other developed countries also have a public health care system though, so if the UK is lagging behind then that's not the reason why.

Oh and... most people don't have the money. And "not the best treatment money can buy" is still a whole lot better than "too bad, you're fucked because you have no money"...