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?

Nymeria said:
DonFerrari said:

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.

1 - I certainly believe that you pay more. It may be from weaker bargain position or from government regulation, taxes, excess of demand, warranted demand, protection for doctors who can request excessive wages, insurance for bad practice due to crazy sues, etc.

But as I said. If one could opt out to not pay taxes that cover the public health if he so decides that would already make me a happy kupo.

2 - You are not picking the point. I'm not talking about the health problems due to drugs. I'm saying that if USA can't prevent cannabis, heroine, cocaine and the other dozen of illegal drugs to enter the country or to be produced locally how do you think it would be able to control guns entering or being sold illegally?

palou said:
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.

 

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.

No one in a powerful position should be trusted, simple as that. You may accept it, but you also need to keep vigilant and not trust of their motives.

"if working well" a company would be more profitable without supervisors, managers, CEO, etc because it would save on wages, but it don't work like that. Similar to X+Y with two positive numbers won't ever be lower than X.



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 - 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.

1 - I certainly believe that you pay more. It may be from weaker bargain position or from government regulation, taxes, excess of demand, warranted demand, protection for doctors who can request excessive wages, insurance for bad practice due to crazy sues, etc.

But as I said. If one could opt out to not pay taxes that cover the public health if he so decides that would already make me a happy kupo.

2 - You are not picking the point. I'm not talking about the health problems due to drugs. I'm saying that if USA can't prevent cannabis, heroine, cocaine and the other dozen of illegal drugs to enter the country or to be produced locally how do you think it would be able to control guns entering or being sold illegally?

The question is if something being legal or illegal is if it makes a society better.  Cocaine was legal, and it caused real problems so we decided even if people used it illegally it was better to fight it than accept it.  This was tried was alcohol and failed miserably.  It has been an ongoing issue with cannabis and I think it being illegal has done more harm than good.

With guns the question is if buying an AR-15 is illegal or not makes the society better.  We see these shootings and people suggest either to leave them legal, make them illegal, or make acquiring them harder.  Would people still get a hold of them even if they were illegal? Yes, but by that line of thinking laws are useless so why do we bother with coercion tactics at all?  It's that the ill those illegal guns would cause would be less than the current situation.  Australia still has issues, but since it became illegal to get something like an AR-15 mass shootings have dropped.  If they felt the cost was too great or didn't work why haven't they proposed going back to laws they had before?



Nymeria said:
DonFerrari said:

1 - I certainly believe that you pay more. It may be from weaker bargain position or from government regulation, taxes, excess of demand, warranted demand, protection for doctors who can request excessive wages, insurance for bad practice due to crazy sues, etc.

But as I said. If one could opt out to not pay taxes that cover the public health if he so decides that would already make me a happy kupo.

2 - You are not picking the point. I'm not talking about the health problems due to drugs. I'm saying that if USA can't prevent cannabis, heroine, cocaine and the other dozen of illegal drugs to enter the country or to be produced locally how do you think it would be able to control guns entering or being sold illegally?

The question is if something being legal or illegal is if it makes a society better.  Cocaine was legal, and it caused real problems so we decided even if people used it illegally it was better to fight it than accept it.  This was tried was alcohol and failed miserably.  It has been an ongoing issue with cannabis and I think it being illegal has done more harm than good.

With guns the question is if buying an AR-15 is illegal or not makes the society better.  We see these shootings and people suggest either to leave them legal, make them illegal, or make acquiring them harder.  Would people still get a hold of them even if they were illegal? Yes, but by that line of thinking laws are useless so why do we bother with coercion tactics at all?  It's that the ill those illegal guns would cause would be less than the current situation.  Australia still has issues, but since it became illegal to get something like an AR-15 mass shootings have dropped.  If they felt the cost was too great or didn't work why haven't they proposed going back to laws they had before?

1) That wasn't my question. My question was in the capacity to making it illegal keep it far from hand. For me all drugs should be legal, but if anyone harm another due to the use of drugs the penalties should be severe, and of course fight on education to prevent people from getting to it, but that is beside the point.

2) Brazil guns are illegal, still we have drug dealers with rocket launchers kkk... but going back to USA, the point is that different than from Australia you wouldn't be able to really prevent people from buying it, so it would not only make the black market bigger, but the population would have less means of defense and criminals more eager to commit crimes using those guns. But sure again for me, guns should be legal and no one would really have to own one besides for sport on shooting range.



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."

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!

I agree :)

I'm from UK (England) too, you said exactly what I was thinking :D



I have (or have/had in the household): ZX-81, Commidore 64, Amega, Sega Master System, Super Nintendo, Sega Megadrive, Gameboy, Playstation, Nintendo 64, Windows 95, Gameboy Colour, Windows 98, Sega Dreamcast, Gameboy Advance, PS2, Gamecube, Xbox, Windows XP, Nintendo DS, Xbox 360, Wii, PS3, Windows Vista, iPhone, Windows 7, 3DS, Wii U, PS4, Windows 10 & PSVR. Plus, I will be getting the New Nintendo Switch sometime in 2019 :D

and I Don't have: Magnovox Odyssey, Any Atari's, Any Macintosh computers, Nes, Sega Gamegear, Virtual Boy, Sega Saturn, N-gage, Xbox One, PSP, PSVita & Andoid Phone. Plus any non-main-stream consoles/platforms I haven't mentioned.

DonFerrari said:
 

 

 

No one in a powerful position should be trusted, simple as that. You may accept it, but you also need to keep vigilant and not trust of their motives.

"if working well" a company would be more profitable without supervisors, managers, CEO, etc because it would save on wages, but it don't work like that. Similar to X+Y with two positive numbers won't ever be lower than X.

I believe that excessive mistrust kills collective progress and leads to a generally miserable society.

 

It would be foolish to trust everyone in government blindly - however, that is simply not required, in a correctly structured institution. There are a *lot* of people that would be aware of any corruption that could occur, and *any* of them could, and I believe for some, would, be able to create a lawsuit for any such.

 

What concerns actual expenditure on political salaries, that's fairly insignificant on the scale of a country.



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.

Around the Network
palou said:
DonFerrari said:

 

 

No one in a powerful position should be trusted, simple as that. You may accept it, but you also need to keep vigilant and not trust of their motives.

"if working well" a company would be more profitable without supervisors, managers, CEO, etc because it would save on wages, but it don't work like that. Similar to X+Y with two positive numbers won't ever be lower than X.

I believe that excessive mistrust kills collective progress and leads to a generally miserable society.

It would be foolish to trust everyone in government blindly - however, that is simply not required, in a correctly structured institution. There are a *lot* of people that would be aware of any corruption that could occur, and *any* of them could, and I believe for some, would, be able to create a lawsuit for any such.

What concerns actual expenditure on political salaries, that's fairly insignificant on the scale of a country.

I don't really care about the specific salaries of political, but in Brazil case the rest of their cost is astronomic... but again government are good as long as they aren't big, and politician are acceptable as long as they don't hold to much power.



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: 

1) That wasn't my question. My question was in the capacity to making it illegal keep it far from hand. For me all drugs should be legal, but if anyone harm another due to the use of drugs the penalties should be severe, and of course fight on education to prevent people from getting to it, but that is beside the point.

2) Brazil guns are illegal, still we have drug dealers with rocket launchers kkk... but going back to USA, the point is that different than from Australia you wouldn't be able to really prevent people from buying it, so it would not only make the black market bigger, but the population would have less means of defense and criminals more eager to commit crimes using those guns. But sure again for me, guns should be legal and no one would really have to own one besides for sport on shooting range.

I think you pick your battles.  We incarcerate tens of thousands of people due to cannabis.  It's a minor drug that causes few issues if used. Compared to meth which is incredibly and deadly.  If we shifted our focus I think we'd be more effective as wouldn't be distracted.  Combating it wouldn't be done through punishment either, these people can be a far greater value to society if they can recover from addiction. Portugal had success in providing lower potent heroine to aid people in removing their dependence on the drug.

You keep going back to Brasil which always leaves us at a gap.  I don't see why it is a better example than Japan which has dramatically lower gun ownership and crime than the US.  These issues are multi faceted problems within societies.  Majority of low level crime comes from wealth inequality and lack of prospects. 



Nymeria said:
DonFerrari said: 

1) That wasn't my question. My question was in the capacity to making it illegal keep it far from hand. For me all drugs should be legal, but if anyone harm another due to the use of drugs the penalties should be severe, and of course fight on education to prevent people from getting to it, but that is beside the point.

2) Brazil guns are illegal, still we have drug dealers with rocket launchers kkk... but going back to USA, the point is that different than from Australia you wouldn't be able to really prevent people from buying it, so it would not only make the black market bigger, but the population would have less means of defense and criminals more eager to commit crimes using those guns. But sure again for me, guns should be legal and no one would really have to own one besides for sport on shooting range.

I think you pick your battles.  We incarcerate tens of thousands of people due to cannabis.  It's a minor drug that causes few issues if used. Compared to meth which is incredibly and deadly.  If we shifted our focus I think we'd be more effective as wouldn't be distracted.  Combating it wouldn't be done through punishment either, these people can be a far greater value to society if they can recover from addiction. Portugal had success in providing lower potent heroine to aid people in removing their dependence on the drug.

You keep going back to Brasil which always leaves us at a gap.  I don't see why it is a better example than Japan which has dramatically lower gun ownership and crime than the US.  These issues are multi faceted problems within societies.  Majority of low level crime comes from wealth inequality and lack of prospects. 

I go back to Brazil because USA is a continental size country with 300M population (akin to Brazil), while Japan is completely different. And both are failing at doing drug control.

Sure someone should pick its battle, but when USA is unable to fight against any and all illegal drugs and people abuse even on legal ones, why do you think they would be totally capable of controlling guns if they were made illegal? Because I'm not a gun lover, so if no one would be able to have a gun I would have no issue... but as long as there is a good probability that a criminal is capable of getting a gun I'm not all right with any government saying I can't have one.



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: 

I go back to Brazil because USA is a continental size country with 300M population (akin to Brazil), while Japan is completely different. And both are failing at doing drug control.

Sure someone should pick its battle, but when USA is unable to fight against any and all illegal drugs and people abuse even on legal ones, why do you think they would be totally capable of controlling guns if they were made illegal? Because I'm not a gun lover, so if no one would be able to have a gun I would have no issue... but as long as there is a good probability that a criminal is capable of getting a gun I'm not all right with any government saying I can't have one.

That's your criteria then. I disagree because I think history, culture, and economics play greater roles in shaping a society.  Canada is far closer to England culturally due to history and language than it is to Russia culturally despite climate, geographic size, and population density those two countries have.

I never said totally capable. I stated it would still have issues.  If you can buy rifles, shotguns, and pistols, just not military grade weapons and that means reduce gun deaths and mass shooting deaths by it is worth it to try.   I don't look at problems with a defeatist attitude that we cannot do address them, such a mindset means why bother attempting anything if failure is a possibility.  



DonFerrari said:

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.

1-  Why are you bringing up private healthcare?  

US pays twice as much as Brazil does, compared to GDP.  

2- 

There's also things like unmanned drones, and plenty of other things.  The military spends $12 million on a drone, so no those aren't things citizens can get easily.