that was my old forum, i don't own it anymore and when i did, i did not dabble with adult links in any way (to boost pr, etc). it was supposed to be a clean news forum with no adult links. i have not owned that domain for years. i guess the current owner made it a porn site. i guess the current owner realized the links to this forum and is taking advantage, hhmmmm. i didn't phrase my previous post correctly, i thought you were refering to adult links linking to my profile. i don't know how to add links to forums like the way i thought you expressed yourself. i know a little more than the basics of vbulletin, i don't know how to add re-directed links to adult sites that connect to my profile. (ohh what happened to the days of WIGOB, WIGOF, WIGOS, WIGOP, WIGOM....)
are you saying the developing of human care in evolution processes is a slight to self-defence? in some angles it is a blight to an economy based on numbers, but when yoy factor the need of things it surpasses the economic issues. look, you need to provide health for a person no matter what. if you are human, what are you objecting about? are you mad that a republican didn't push this? "Most of the "civilised" world states that their citizens do not have the right to self-defence" do you think this statement is valid BRUm? self-defence and universal health care are not the same. you should have the right to not worry about your health somewhat, right? what else is the government going to do? (the government looks for angles to help the american people some how some way) this is an angle and it happens that it helps people actually, wow. what are you bitching about? BRUm, this angle is different for americans because of the basis of freedom, unlike other nations. agreed? free americans deserve to get proper health care for what they go through. non-americans or americans, getting care for your life is something to be praised. that is just human appreciation, bottom line. you claim that healthcare is a blight to personal freedom, but in england you have always been under rule since civilization was created. how do you know that personal freedoms is compromised to people that have always been under civilized rule? BRUm, you said "Nothing agitates me more than people who pass judgement on things they have no experience with" the U.S. has no experience with healthcare, that is true. how are americans going to get experience with healthcare to impliment it here unless some of the experience of health care in countries like england is known, there are not many people that have that experience. BRUm, you are assumming that my comments are judgement and i do not have experience with universal health care, yes that is obvious. BRUm, what are you talking about? that this is technically accurate. what is your point? how is a country going to get experience about universal health care or are you just blaming me, an american with no universal health care experience, you got me BRUm, i do not have experience with universal health care, that is obvious, what is your point? how does one get experience from an experience when that person has no access for that experience where that person is? from what our president expressed to us, this stuff is something we can get for ourselves and not worry about in the future, in a big picture. we will stay healthy a human goal, simple. it is "a huge blight on our economy" because your country has not figured out how to make it profitable, that is just a matter of time. how is being healthy a blight on your personal freedom?
No I'm saying that using the argument that countries are civilised because they provide universal health-care is ignorant. My point about self-defence is that countries such as my own which provide tax funded health-care, which you claim is civilised, does not allow The People to defend themselves. Rendering "civilised" a meaningless term. Ummm.. because you say so, right? You should know by now that parties mean absolutely nothing to me. Don't try to categorise me and my beliefs. I'm objecting about the costs that come with it, something you haven't given much thought about. Regarding Republicans, have you even read about Romneycare? Your tribal group-think is redundant. Of course it's valid. I live in a nation ruled by elitists who punish us for defending our lives "God" created in his image. You should research more about foreign nations before committing yourself to debating with others. If someone breaks into my house and harms himself I am libel. This is going to be the third time I'm reminding you to read up on the definition of a "right". The founders of the greatest nation on earth did not state that The People have a right to "not have to think about health-care", so no I disagree with you. We have the right to seek health-care but no right to demand others' money and labour in order to secure it. What's hard to understand about this? Unless you're a supporter of some collectivist ideology like fascism or socialism you can't expect to own others' rewards from labour. Don't come here and open a debate then ask what I'm "bitching about", otherwise you'll be left to debate with yourself. Notice how no-one else has contributed to any proper discussion we've had? *sigh* you really should know more about your country and its founders. The government's role is not to help American people, it's to uphold and guarantee the rights of We The People defined by the founders - they knew how tyrannical establishments are by nature! When you delegate your decisions to a centralised group convenience replaces individual authority. "Those who sacrifice security for liberty deserve neither" - Ben. Franklin I don't disagree, it's just the way you expect to receive it. You should drop the references to hugely subjective terms like "civilisation". I won't begin to address most of your question because your question is too general. Just because a people allow ruling class through a social contract either forged under the monopoly of violence or collective agreement does not jeopardise its legitimacy of freedom. What do you mean no experience? Americans have first hand experience of a corporate-establishment directed insurance scheme (or should I say scam?). Forget the linear and 2 dimensional thinking the government enjoys and the media enforces: it's not a simple case of "you have universal heath care or no health care". I've read parts of Obamacare's bill and there's nothing healthy about experiencing forced spending with violates the 14th amendment. Refer to be previous point. You're thinking is too simplistic. You should rally those around you and demand the government to withdraw its monolithic hand from your health and your business. This is what I'm talking about. You're making decisions based on poor judgement. You ask me what my point is that you have no experience with state-dictated health care, then you make oxymoronic statements like this: You're missing the point of socialised health. It's not supposed to be profitable. Another quote reinforcing my previous claim. Where did I ever state that my fellow man's health infringes on freedom? How do you think they get the health care? Asking me this shows how you've completely missed the most of the meaning behind my statements. This is the last time I'll post on this specific question. Health has little do with it, read the communist manifesto. Centralisation and central planning of health-care and education ultimately leaves power in the hands of distant "officials". I have no issue with peoples' health, I just cannot understand why people think it's ok for big brother to steal - let's not pussyfoot around, taxation without consent is theft - money from my pocket to fund others' wants and needs. Whether this is moral or not is another issue and fit for another thread. The bottom line is: government should not dictate morality! Am I the only one upholding principles these days?
The government makes you crazy, it should keep you healthy as payback, it's the least we should all get. - long live socialised health! - healthy people make better decisions.
Year long waiting lists for treatment, rushed "care" to rid beds, gigantic taxation for an unworkable idea, tax payer funded abortion, medicinal shortages from centralised fiscal planning and access to drugs selected by politicians. Hoorah for our gods in suits! Theft is ok if it's government approved in the name of common good... That's exactly why the state should keep its nose out. So best let them take care of you? Stockholm syndrome anyone? "Oh, oh oh but Cuba has the best health-care in the world" the commies say with a smug nasally wimper. "Ah, well that's ok then! They're under a murderous dictatorship and have no rights, but as long as they have their "health care", all's good!".
do you consider england not civilized based on not being allowed to defend yourself? so are you throwing away all of the other elements that make england a civilized country? having universal health care does not make a country civilized, it is civil to provide heath care because we want to be healthy, usually. i know you have issues about how universal heath care is administered now. i will say this now. universal health care is not perfect now. it needs adjusting, but the concept of universal health care is humanistic, progressive and should be noted as something that advanced human beings, whether they are in civilizations or not, should provide for their people like sanitation and indoor plumbing. no, because it is the right thing to do. it's a quality of human beings, "to help your fellow man". and now with the advancements in medicine and convenience this is something we can provide in wide scale amounts. we can and we should. so you don't have party bias towards this topic, check. to me it does not matter how universal health care was brought to the national level but that it was brought to the national level. i have heard about romneycare. i have given thought to the cost of universal health care but i think it is necessary and i think it should be likened to objecting to paying taxes for law enforcement. so i think the act of paying for universal health care is a moot point. obiviously there will be concerns about the amount of tax you pay for universal health care but that is a smaller issue, in comparision. i couldn't find anything on google about most of the civilized world not allowing it's people to defend themselves. the right to defend one's self is allowed in america. that libel comment from you does sound ridiculous, that sucks BRUm. but you said if he "harms himself", not if you harm him. there is a difference. so are you saying that you are not allowed to defend yourself from someone that is attacking you directly? based on your comments about england they restrict the extent of self-defence, are you confusing that with the ability to defend your property? in america you can kill an intruder in your house or on the land that you own and not be libel. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/right i'm am saying that in our advanced world this should be a right for everybody and that this right does not need to be defined by the founding fathers. it is a new advancement, an advancement that the founding fathers did not achieve during their time. "We have the right to seek health-care but no right to demand others' money and labour in order to secure it. What's hard to understand about this?" this should (notice that i use the word should) be a moot point based on the advanced level of humanity now and being human. "you can't expect to own others' rewards from labour." what is the relevance of this statement with this topic? "Don't come here and open a debate then ask what I'm "bitching about", otherwise you'll be left to debate with yourself. Notice how no-one else has contributed to any proper discussion we've had?" i was hoping for more clarity and more detail about your comments, "We have "universal healthcare" here and it's a huge blight on our economy and personal freedom." is quite a vague, opinionated comment and is open for questioning (i asked myself how and why you would make this comment). some contributers to conversations would be content with adding comments like this one that can be elaborated on, i know i enjoy putting comments up like this also. but i also know it is a comment that can be elaborated on: for better understanding, an introductary comment for an in-depth conversation, etc. "The government's role is not to help American people, it's to uphold and guarantee the rights of We The People defined by the founders" isn't upholding and guaranteeing the rights of people considered forms of helping? "When you delegate your decisions to a centralised group convenience replaces individual authority." isn't that what you are doing when you give the government the role of upholding and guaranteeing the rights of people? the founding fathers knew that there would be a need to improve upon what they created, that is why there are amendments to the constitution. i think you are tying to clump this issue about universal healthcare into the basis of freedom, when it is just something to improve human beings so they can enjoy freedom. why we are not seeing eye-to-eye so far? because i am focusing more about the concept of universal health care when you are focusing more on the cost, to date. the things you are focusing on are things that can be refined and fine tune as we continue on, correct me if i'm wrong. i hope we can find more understanding to this. i hope that universal healthcare can be understood as something that relates to people, conceptually. universal health care is not predicated on civilization. "Nothing agitates me more than people who pass judgement on things they have no experience with." i explained myself in post #82 if this comment was directed to me. but if it is not then are we talking about american experience with this? and if we are (or not) i agree with you that universal health care in america can get experience from "insurance schemes". "I've read parts of Obamacare's bill and there's nothing healthy about experiencing forced spending with violates the 14th amendment" huh? isn't the part of the public debt in the 14th amendment specific to insurrections and rebellions? please elaborate: http://www.ushistory.org/documents/amendments.htm#amend14 did i miss something here? did you notice what happened here? i commented about the finer points of universal health care and you responded with a bigger picture. reversal of points of view. but lets get into it. do be foolish and think that there isn't a way to make a profit with this. whether it be kickbacks, things under the table, lobbying; there is a profit to be gotten from this. well, i considered this for universal health care in america. you are saying it is "a huge blight on our economy" and i am considering indirect ways of easing the burden to your economy, i did not elaborate on this when i made my statement about making a profit with this. what i'm trying to say is that you should not throw away the concept of universal health care entirely because of your current economic issues with it. with these "ways" of making a profit from universal health care, the burdens to your economy should ease up, like lowering the tax on this service and other expenses to your economy. "We have "universal healthcare" here and it's a huge blight on our economy and personal freedom." it's your statement my friend. are you saying that the universal health care as a system hinders your personal freedom? is that a convenience issue? my point is that these two topics, universal health care and personal freedom are not correlated, they are unrelated issues. are you drawing parallels to HMO's? then what are talking about here? health is a need. that's like saying what if you walk to work everyday, why do you pay taxes on highway maintenance? there is a possibility for non consent for paying this tax. what if a person gets universal health care and his healthy enough to help you in some sort of way? like if you follow the rules all your life you can say you don't need to pay the tax for law enforcement, but law enforcement stops the bad guys from harming you. see how this connects? universal health care benefits the whole group directly or indirectly. there are morality concerns when you talk about the health of a person. is it moral to deny health care for people when you can? no. is it moral to deny law enforcement for people? no. if your healthy you won't be crazy, right? hehehe
I'm sure 'if' BRum had to care for someone (I live in a socialised health system too), he would change his mind pretty quickly. The system still fails in many ways as it is but it's bloody fantastic to know that they are there for us when we're in need. When someone is sick they are sick. Many can't be bothered helping themselves, well not can't be bothered, simply can't, because they're often not thinking right. Just finding the gusto to help yourself is often too big a task! and that's only the flu! Get a whacking headache and try do some algebra. What about the many other ailments that last for much longer, or a lifetime? Kidney failure is a rising problem, stroke, heart attacks? Many of which is brought about by society itself. Sickness is the only time when we need the help of others, because doing anything for yourself is a chore.... To turn this; 'one thing we have is our health' into 'only the rich can afford to be healthy', when they're spending most of our money on all this unneccessary crap, is absolutely criminal IMHO. If we have to pay for all the other shit you expect us too then that's the minimum we should have in return. They're taking so much money off us in all kinds of tarriffs, fees & other shit, reaping billions of dollars out of our resources every year, all claimed at one stage to compensate for this and that, then people have the gall to complain how much it costs to look after the peons in a humane fashion!! - fuckin' crazy if you ask me!! Australians would chuck out any government that commited $32 billion for a fleet of planes (as we just have) if we didn't have security over the health of our people first, and rightly so IMHO.
Gah these posts are getting pretty lengthy mate, I think next time I'll just quote your main points. I'll just say before I begin that skimming through your counter-proposals, some of my points have been misunderstood. I'll have to try harder to clarify. This is not my consideration of civilised, per se, you claim that "civilised" countries are providing state health-care, my point was that while they may, to you, be taking one step forward in my eyes the term is an overestimation, as these places do not even allow self-defence which you'd think would contribute to a "civil" nation. Don't read so much into self-defence itself, it's just used to highlight the inaccuracy of the term "civilised". Be careful throwing "should" and "ought" around. There's no actual logic relating the need for health and taxpayers. You believe the state should provide home adequacies? That's a crazy idea. Almost as bad as the "Green party" here campaigning for "free" house insulation for everyone or the "Socialist party" pushing for "free" council houses for everyone, madness. You see where your point lies? Where do you draw the line? The precedent created by calling for collectivised health-care could then be used further down the line to try and justify "free" food and water. I can't stress enough how shocked I am that people don't have a problem with deciding how to spend others' money. Yet again, be careful. You think it's the right thing to do to rob from those with money and give to the poor. Do you accept this is not an objective truth? Listen, I'm more compassionate than most people. I fully understand what you're saying, although I cannot have a clear conscience, regardless of whether I think I'm doing humanity a favour or not, pointing my finger around, dictating what is 'right' or not. A nihilist and a devout theist have many disagreements, but makes one set of ideas more justified that the other? The true answer is nothing. You're correct, I have no party bias. I voted UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party) in the last general elections and often wear 'UK Libertarian Party' apparel. I'm a political atheist, all I want is individual freedom and empowerment. I cannot argue with your above points as they're based upon opinions I do not share. It boils down to whether you support a tyranny of "good intentions" or not. That's because, as I told you, your terms ("civilisation") are hugely subjective and mostly meaningless. I know that the Founding Father's agreed on the idea that every man's life is equally as important and life deserves defence. This is not the case here. I agree, what I posted previously is ridiculous, but true. Exactly. I'm well aware of the distinction and was when I wrote what I did. I'll reiterate: A criminal harming himself on your property includes the home owner's liability, so imagine the law's opinion of those who defend themselves. There have been countless cases of prosecution of home owner's defending themselves. In one case a home invader climbed through a window and injured himself on a knife left out, he successfully sued the home owner. Nope I'm not confusing anything. We have no rights to carry any weapon. If we defend ourselves to direct attack the law is more understanding, but the idea of "due care" is taken to a stupid extent here. That's because the Founding Father's didn't want to achieve this because it's a clear example of the tyranny of the majority. How about a new law that states you must donate with taxation for my pet to be treated? But it will never be a moot point to demand my rewards of labour to be kept. It has everything to do with it. Please, READ the constitution and the communist manifesto. The reward and gain from labour can be money, for example. You claim to have ownership of some of my money for the "common good of health". It's worrying that I have to keep elaborating on rights. This will be the last time I'll ask you to read material on capitalism, freedom and rights. The infringement on freedom stems from the fact that the monopolisation of material value is universally measured in currency. Therefore, to claim that every citizen has the "right" to health-care, regardless of their contribution to society, must mean the spending of labour gains without unanimous consent. We can debate semantics all day, surely you must grasp my point? It can be seen as "helping" but your justification of wealth distribution and upholding the rights guaranteed by the Constitution are completely different. No. The establishment must lawfully respect the individual liberty created by "God" and allow the prosecution of those who knowingly violate them. There is a vast difference between directly easing financial burdens and upholding principles. We're not agreeing because you're falling into the trap the vast majority of impressionable people are victim to. While you're happy to rely on the assumption that government has the right to peoples' money and its use, I'm not. I'm not focusing on just the cost of such an idea, that's quite ignorant as it must mean you're not properly understanding my points. There is no separation between the idea of universal health-care and its practical operations. Why on earth would you want to ignore reality and focus on a mere idea? That's like Lenin claiming opposition waste time debating the specifics of his actions while he focuses on the idea behind them. The concept of universal health care is flawed and does not work. To trivialise my questions makes you appear to have your head in the sand. It's not specifically directed at you, but does include your ideas. "I've read parts of Obamacare's bill and there's nothing healthy about experiencing forced spending with violates the 14th amendment" Apologies, I meant the Thirteenth Amendment. You're still missing my point. I don't know of your education but socialised health care is not intended to generate profit, in fact, as a "trust" they're mean to break even. I'd prefer if I had full control over my own money and labour, thanks. I don't want to pay for others and I should not be forced to; slavery. No, they're related. Personal freedom is challenged everywhere. If you cannot see this then my entire plethora of evidence and debating was in vain. I oppose Utilitarianism. In case you'll be arguing points based on this idea, I'll save you the time. Health may be a need, but I don't demand others to pay for my other needs. I don't agree with any unconsenting tax, just to be clear. I think the least the government can do is take the time to record consent of every tax. How God damn childlike and incapable do the fat cats think we are? No need to explain this to me, I understand, I just disagree. I abhor the notion of a "common good". So much injustice has been committed in its name. This made me chuckle. No, the law enforcement does no such thing. Be careful of your words. Law enforcement is to enforce the law after a crime has been committed. Self-defence and well-armed society stops the "bad guys" from harming you.