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?

 

Qwark said:
DonFerrari said:

Why not right kkkkk.

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

This is where the mutual destruction theory puts it validity on check and balance of powers.

Do you trust people with gun? I don't, but when everyone could have a gun, one is less likely to pick his and go against someone because everyone else could them target him. Even though Texas have 2 gun per citizen we don't have shootings every hour... while in my dear country where guns are forbidden, we have several murders with guns about every hour.



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
DonFerrari said: 
Nymeria said:

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.

1 - A. Economics of scale and examples in countries such as Japan, Australia, Canada, Norway, Germany, United Kingdom, New Zealand that have done so. The United States is a massive market and should be able to negotiate on par with our neighbors Canada. Every day Americans cross the northern border for cheaper medicine.

B. We already have this option for the elderly in the US.  It is called "medicare" and people love it.  After you get to a certain age the government steps in to help with medical expenses. This is covered by taxing people.  For example, when my mom got sick last year here medicare saved her from using a large portion of her retirement savings.

I am not lying, I see precedent in dozens of comparable countries and within my country of how the competing systems work.  If the moral argument of taking care of people doesn't convince you, it is simply good economics to not abandon large portions of populace to poverty.  This creates a criminal class and massive prisons that tax payers pay for.  Social safety nets preserve the middle class which is the best driver of economies by increasing the velocity of money.

I'm a capitalist in 90% of society, it is actual my life in my work.  I think there are base aspects that the government should supply collectively through taxation. Examples: Infrastructure, Law Enforcement, Education, Fire Fighting, Healthcare, National Defense, Nature Preservation.  These serve the interest of all, and yes some benefit more than others, but it raises the tide for the whole.

2 - Your basis seems to stem from thinking I want the US to be Brasil. Now, I respect and admire aspects of your culture, but I look to Australia or Canada as closer examples want to emulate.  They are "sibling nations" in terms of history and culture in how I view policies. Canada is a nice place that didn't decay due to their healthcare or gun laws. It has challenges like any country, but I think they handle these issues in particular better than us.

If you feel Brasil being more like the US system would improve life for people I could understand that as we have different histories, cultures, and economies.  I'm not going to tell a Brasilian how their country should be because I don't live in it and understand it the way they do.  It is possible for different systems to work better in various parts of the world.



Nymeria said:
DonFerrari said: 

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.

1 - A. Economics of scale and examples in countries such as Japan, Australia, Canada, Norway, Germany, United Kingdom, New Zealand that have done so. The United States is a massive market and should be able to negotiate on par with our neighbors Canada. Every day Americans cross the northern border for cheaper medicine.

B. We already have this option for the elderly in the US.  It is called "medicare" and people love it.  After you get to a certain age the government steps in to help with medical expenses. This is covered by taxing people.  For example, when my mom got sick last year here medicare saved her from using a large portion of her retirement savings.

I am not lying, I see precedent in dozens of comparable countries and within my country of how the competing systems work.  If the moral argument of taking care of people doesn't convince you, it is simply good economics to not abandon large portions of populace to poverty.  This creates a criminal class and massive prisons that tax payers pay for.  Social safety nets preserve the middle class which is the best driver of economies by increasing the velocity of money.

I'm a capitalist in 90% of society, it is actual my life in my work.  I think there are base aspects that the government should supply collectively through taxation. Examples: Infrastructure, Law Enforcement, Education, Fire Fighting, Healthcare, National Defense, Nature Preservation.  These serve the interest of all, and yes some benefit more than others, but it raises the tide for the whole.

2 - Your basis seems to stem from thinking I want the US to be Brasil. Now, I respect and admire aspects of your culture, but I look to Australia or Canada as closer examples want to emulate.  They are "sibling nations" in terms of history and culture in how I view policies. Canada is a nice place that didn't decay due to their healthcare or gun laws. It has challenges like any country, but I think they handle these issues in particular better than us.

If you feel Brasil being more like the US system would improve life for people I could understand that as we have different histories, cultures, and economies.  I'm not going to tell a Brasilian how their country should be because I don't live in it and understand it the way they do.  It is possible for different systems to work better in various parts of the world.

1 - So you have digged on the cost of the healthcare, law and tax structure, wages and all between the countries to come to the conclusion that X+Y is less than X?

I have nothing against government providing basic healthcare, as long as it is voluntary and not through taxation. The same argument you are making on scale can be made through association or massive health plans. Like instead of the federal government taxing corporations, people, etc and destinating a ever floating amount to healthcare you have a very specific and independent accountability for the healthcare... so if 200M people in USA doesn't want to either use the private sector through individual consult or plan they can sign up to a collective safety net.

The biggest problem with taxes and government budgeting is that they create taxes saying how they'll use the money but it usually is diverted to other places... and sure economy of scale can be beneficial on making cost lesser, but when you have the government holding that power and corrupt politician that means inflated costs all around.

As I said, I'm against government involvement as much as possible and prefer the options of private education and health, but those are two areas were I concede that due to people being bad at planning it is acceptable that the government make the safety net.

2 - Nymeria, unfortunatelly on the case of gun control USA would be closer to Brazil than to Australia and UK... both countries are island and in the case of UK very small in size and Australia low on people, so it's easier to control the access to weapon.

If USA can't control access to drugs in any efficient scale why do you think they would be successful on doing it for guns?



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."

I'm happy with the healthcare, even though I think the government should invest more into it.

I'm really happy with the gun control.
The closest we ever got to a school massacre in Sweden was a guy with a sword and a Darth Vader mask. And I think he only got like 2-3 people. And that's like the most extreme case, that almost never happens.



I LOVE ICELAND!

DonFerrari said: 

1 - So you have digged on the cost of the healthcare, law and tax structure, wages and all between the countries to come to the conclusion that X+Y is less than X?

I have nothing against government providing basic healthcare, as long as it is voluntary and not through taxation. The same argument you are making on scale can be made through association or massive health plans. Like instead of the federal government taxing corporations, people, etc and destinating a ever floating amount to healthcare you have a very specific and independent accountability for the healthcare... so if 200M people in USA doesn't want to either use the private sector through individual consult or plan they can sign up to a collective safety net.

The biggest problem with taxes and government budgeting is that they create taxes saying how they'll use the money but it usually is diverted to other places... and sure economy of scale can be beneficial on making cost lesser, but when you have the government holding that power and corrupt politician that means inflated costs all around.

As I said, I'm against government involvement as much as possible and prefer the options of private education and health, but those are two areas were I concede that due to people being bad at planning it is acceptable that the government make the safety net.

2 - Nymeria, unfortunatelly on the case of gun control USA would be closer to Brazil than to Australia and UK... both countries are island and in the case of UK very small in size and Australia low on people, so it's easier to control the access to weapon.

If USA can't control access to drugs in any efficient scale why do you think they would be successful on doing it for guns?

1. Yes. The data is freely available. We spend double per person compared to nations of comparable care. Even projections made by both sides have stated medicare for all would be less of a burden on the economy than the current system.  We would save an estimated 100-300 billion a year depending on study you consult.

If people want private healthcare I am open to a compromise of a mixed system where medicare exists for majority, not just the elderly.  

This argument is based on a poor government which is an issue that infects every aspect of public life.  We see corruption in defense spending on a massive scale.  Do we privatize defense? No. Our focus should be on improving and holding people accountable rather than shifting the trust to private sector which has as bad or worse track record with corruption.

I think we are reaching a middle ground and understand how personal views can shape broader topics.

2. I'll compare the US to the EU then in terms of size and population if a singular country doesn't suffice.  I think we can learn from them in terms of what they do better or worse than us.  The US is a great place to live, I think it could be better and has become better over the past 200 years for more and more of its people.  the second amendment was around when most people couldn't vote, when many were in chains or segregated or discriminated against.   Our positive changes have come from protests and changing hearts and minds, not from forcing a government out an installing a new one.

The drug issue is a separate one, but in my community it came from corrupt companies preying on people and over prescribing opioids which is destroying thousands of lives every year.  We could pass legislation making them harder to prescribe and could open clinics to rehabilitate people rather than punish them.  We could also allow cannabis to be legal moving resources away from a mild drug to allow focus on harder ones. Our current failings do not determine our future, we can do better as the policies of the past thirty years have clearly been a failure.



Around the Network
DonFerrari said:

1 - So you have digged on the cost of the healthcare, law and tax structure, wages and all between the countries to come to the conclusion that X+Y is less than X?

I have nothing against government providing basic healthcare, as long as it is voluntary and not through taxation. The same argument you are making on scale can be made through association or massive health plans. Like instead of the federal government taxing corporations, people, etc and destinating a ever floating amount to healthcare you have a very specific and independent accountability for the healthcare... so if 200M people in USA doesn't want to either use the private sector through individual consult or plan they can sign up to a collective safety net.

The biggest problem with taxes and government budgeting is that they create taxes saying how they'll use the money but it usually is diverted to other places... and sure economy of scale can be beneficial on making cost lesser, but when you have the government holding that power and corrupt politician that means inflated costs all around.

As I said, I'm against government involvement as much as possible and prefer the options of private education and health, but those are two areas were I concede that due to people being bad at planning it is acceptable that the government make the safety net.

 

I mean, yes, equivalent services are significantly cheaper in Single-payer systems, for the government, than they are for individual consumers in the US.

 

It's the concept of consumer-sided monopoly. Companies are *forced* to accept prices and conditions set by the government, as there is no other way to access the market, at all. In the same way that a producer-sided monopoly hikes prices, a consumer-sided monopoly plunges them. Having several competing private healthcare providers would not allow this.

 

"The biggest problem with taxes and government budgeting is that they create taxes saying how they'll use the money but it usually is diverted to other places... and sure economy of scale can be beneficial on making cost lesser, but when you have the government holding that power and corrupt politician that means inflated costs all around."

 


I can see that being a problem in Brazil, less so in fully developed democracies, with appropriate systems ensuring transparency. The expenses of individual politicians, and any meetings they might have with potential contractors are *very* closely guarded. Occasional "scandals" do appear, but there is a difference in scale which needs to be stated, here - the biggest one in Canada, for the last few years, was that several senators had used government funds to travel with business class, instead of economy class as they were supposed to. 



Bet with PeH: 

I win if Arms sells over 700 000 units worldwide by the end of 2017.

Bet with WagnerPaiva:

 

I win if Emmanuel Macron wins the french presidential election May 7th 2017.

Nymeria said:
DonFerrari said: 

1 - So you have digged on the cost of the healthcare, law and tax structure, wages and all between the countries to come to the conclusion that X+Y is less than X?

I have nothing against government providing basic healthcare, as long as it is voluntary and not through taxation. The same argument you are making on scale can be made through association or massive health plans. Like instead of the federal government taxing corporations, people, etc and destinating a ever floating amount to healthcare you have a very specific and independent accountability for the healthcare... so if 200M people in USA doesn't want to either use the private sector through individual consult or plan they can sign up to a collective safety net.

The biggest problem with taxes and government budgeting is that they create taxes saying how they'll use the money but it usually is diverted to other places... and sure economy of scale can be beneficial on making cost lesser, but when you have the government holding that power and corrupt politician that means inflated costs all around.

As I said, I'm against government involvement as much as possible and prefer the options of private education and health, but those are two areas were I concede that due to people being bad at planning it is acceptable that the government make the safety net.

2 - Nymeria, unfortunatelly on the case of gun control USA would be closer to Brazil than to Australia and UK... both countries are island and in the case of UK very small in size and Australia low on people, so it's easier to control the access to weapon.

If USA can't control access to drugs in any efficient scale why do you think they would be successful on doing it for guns?

1. Yes. The data is freely available. We spend double per person compared to nations of comparable care. Even projections made by both sides have stated medicare for all would be less of a burden on the economy than the current system.  We would save an estimated 100-300 billion a year depending on study you consult.

If people want private healthcare I am open to a compromise of a mixed system where medicare exists for majority, not just the elderly.  

This argument is based on a poor government which is an issue that infects every aspect of public life.  We see corruption in defense spending on a massive scale.  Do we privatize defense? No. Our focus should be on improving and holding people accountable rather than shifting the trust to private sector which has as bad or worse track record with corruption.

I think we are reaching a middle ground and understand how personal views can shape broader topics.

2. I'll compare the US to the EU then in terms of size and population if a singular country doesn't suffice.  I think we can learn from them in terms of what they do better or worse than us.  The US is a great place to live, I think it could be better and has become better over the past 200 years for more and more of its people.  the second amendment was around when most people couldn't vote, when many were in chains or segregated or discriminated against.   Our positive changes have come from protests and changing hearts and minds, not from forcing a government out an installing a new one.

The drug issue is a separate one, but in my community it came from corrupt companies preying on people and over prescribing opioids which is destroying thousands of lives every year.  We could pass legislation making them harder to prescribe and could open clinics to rehabilitate people rather than punish them.  We could also allow cannabis to be legal moving resources away from a mild drug to allow focus on harder ones. Our current failings do not determine our future, we can do better as the policies of the past thirty years have clearly been a failure.

1 - We have available data on the expenditure, not on the cost structure (those aren't released data) to affirm the origin of the higher cost on USA healthcare.

Sure private company are corrupt, but if they don't have the government to protect they or to pay for politicians to help keep high margin, the price of their products go down hard.

2 - I'm not talking about legal drugs, I'm talking about USA fighting against Drugsm as they fought against alcohol before... their total incapacity to do that would lead credentials to their inability to prevent guns on the US. 

palou said:
DonFerrari said:

1 - So you have digged on the cost of the healthcare, law and tax structure, wages and all between the countries to come to the conclusion that X+Y is less than X?

I have nothing against government providing basic healthcare, as long as it is voluntary and not through taxation. The same argument you are making on scale can be made through association or massive health plans. Like instead of the federal government taxing corporations, people, etc and destinating a ever floating amount to healthcare you have a very specific and independent accountability for the healthcare... so if 200M people in USA doesn't want to either use the private sector through individual consult or plan they can sign up to a collective safety net.

The biggest problem with taxes and government budgeting is that they create taxes saying how they'll use the money but it usually is diverted to other places... and sure economy of scale can be beneficial on making cost lesser, but when you have the government holding that power and corrupt politician that means inflated costs all around.

As I said, I'm against government involvement as much as possible and prefer the options of private education and health, but those are two areas were I concede that due to people being bad at planning it is acceptable that the government make the safety net.

 

I mean, yes, equivalent services are significantly cheaper in Single-payer systems, for the government, than they are for individual consumers in the US.

It's the concept of consumer-sided monopoly. Companies are *forced* to accept prices and conditions set by the government, as there is no other way to access the market, at all. In the same way that a producer-sided monopoly hikes prices, a consumer-sided monopoly plunges them. Having several competing private healthcare providers would not allow this.

"The biggest problem with taxes and government budgeting is that they create taxes saying how they'll use the money but it usually is diverted to other places... and sure economy of scale can be beneficial on making cost lesser, but when you have the government holding that power and corrupt politician that means inflated costs all around."

I can see that being a problem in Brazil, less so in fully developed democracies, with appropriate systems ensuring transparency. The expenses of individual politicians, and any meetings they might have with potential contractors are *very* closely guarded. Occasional "scandals" do appear, but there is a difference in scale which needs to be stated, here - the biggest one in Canada, for the last few years, was that several senators had used government funds to travel with business class, instead of economy class as they were supposed to. 

The misconception of the first part is that the government isn't forcing companies to accept prices, the companies make the politicians arbitrate a very favorable price for them. Monopolies are very much a government thing that beneficial the companies that they like.

You are only looking at one type of bad use of public money. Still, as put before, overhead is added cost so you can't say COST (not price) is lower when you have administrative cost from the government PLUS the cost of the service itself against only the price of the service.



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 I feel about X in my country? I feel he should really get back in the game or make his tv show come back



NND: 0047-7271-7918 | XBL: Nights illusion | PSN: GameNChick

DonFerrari said:
Nymeria said:

1. Yes. The data is freely available. We spend double per person compared to nations of comparable care. Even projections made by both sides have stated medicare for all would be less of a burden on the economy than the current system.  We would save an estimated 100-300 billion a year depending on study you consult.

If people want private healthcare I am open to a compromise of a mixed system where medicare exists for majority, not just the elderly.  

This argument is based on a poor government which is an issue that infects every aspect of public life.  We see corruption in defense spending on a massive scale.  Do we privatize defense? No. Our focus should be on improving and holding people accountable rather than shifting the trust to private sector which has as bad or worse track record with corruption.

I think we are reaching a middle ground and understand how personal views can shape broader topics.

2. I'll compare the US to the EU then in terms of size and population if a singular country doesn't suffice.  I think we can learn from them in terms of what they do better or worse than us.  The US is a great place to live, I think it could be better and has become better over the past 200 years for more and more of its people.  the second amendment was around when most people couldn't vote, when many were in chains or segregated or discriminated against.   Our positive changes have come from protests and changing hearts and minds, not from forcing a government out an installing a new one.

The drug issue is a separate one, but in my community it came from corrupt companies preying on people and over prescribing opioids which is destroying thousands of lives every year.  We could pass legislation making them harder to prescribe and could open clinics to rehabilitate people rather than punish them.  We could also allow cannabis to be legal moving resources away from a mild drug to allow focus on harder ones. Our current failings do not determine our future, we can do better as the policies of the past thirty years have clearly been a failure.

1 - We have available data on the expenditure, not on the cost structure (those aren't released data) to affirm the origin of the higher cost on USA healthcare.

Sure private company are corrupt, but if they don't have the government to protect they or to pay for politicians to help keep high margin, the price of their products go down hard.

2 - I'm not talking about legal drugs, I'm talking about USA fighting against Drugsm as they fought against alcohol before... their total incapacity to do that would lead credentials to their inability to prevent guns on the US. 

1 - Simply put 1:1 we pay more for everything. Something as simple as a hospital gown or an IV is far more expensive in the US than other countries. We do this because we have a weaker bargaining position.

Which is why I want money out of politics. I want the state to answer to the people, not the powerful.

2 - Legal opioids lead to spikes in heroine use in communities.  We didn't have the level of heroine use a decade ago, pretty clear correlation.  I stated we focus way too much on illegal cannabis, making it legal would shift focus to cocaine or meth which create real problems. I also stated rehabilitation over punishment because our failure means we should change tactics as continuing to do so and expecting different results is insanity.



DonFerrari said:

The misconception of the first part is that the government isn't forcing companies to accept prices, the companies make the politicians arbitrate a very favorable price for them. Monopolies are very much a government thing that beneficial the companies that they like.

You are only looking at one type of bad use of public money. Still, as put before, overhead is added cost so you can't say COST (not price) is lower when you have administrative cost from the government PLUS the cost of the service itself against only the price of the service.

I think we just seem to have a very different level of trust in the institutions that represent us.

In Canada, it's straight up illegal for a committee to take a contract when another producer also fills all the requirements, for cheaper. That creates its own problems, of course, but it's a good halt on corruption.

My point was, *if* it's working correctly, a single-payer system should most certainly drive down medical prices by a considerable amount. So it would certainly be a valid explanation for the price differential.

Last edited by palou - on 07 March 2018

Bet with PeH: 

I win if Arms sells over 700 000 units worldwide by the end of 2017.

Bet with WagnerPaiva:

 

I win if Emmanuel Macron wins the french presidential election May 7th 2017.