<malenoidathotmail....@giganews.com> wrote: > acar <acarm...@mail.com> wrote in news:78aee8dc-8d00-4ac8-b22f- > > Are you confusing the center > > with the extreme left?
> Statism is not at the extreme left, anarchy and not the state lies at the > extremes. In between the extremes are degrees of state control,
There is a balance at the center.
> this > translates to lack of freedom.
Which is as it should be. Laws.
> The welfare state is a socialist form of > statism designed to increase social fairness and thus reduce envy, in > other words it is politicized envy-pandering.
What does that and your statements below have todo with te U.S.?
> I am not against this insofar as it is based in envy, I am against it > primarily because it is not based in philosophical or political principle > but in mere psychology raised to the level of a political creed. And > anyway, those whose envy is being pandered to arenīt worth the bother > except insofar as this produces dependence upon the state and the > assurance that the envy-panderers are re-elected next time around.
> Envy, however, is irrational, it becomes a form of gluttony, it has > seemingly unlimited energy, and the more it is fed the stronger it > becomes.
> On Nov 7, 11:35 pm, Sergeant Malenoid > <malenoidathotmail....@giganews.com> wrote: >> acar <acarm...@mail.com> wrote in news:78aee8dc-8d00-4ac8-b22f- .. >> > Are you confusing the center >> > with the extreme left? .. >> Statism is not at the extreme left, anarchy and not the state lies at >> the extremes. In between the extremes are degrees of state control, .. > There is a balance at the center.
Relevant to what?
>> this translates to lack of freedom. .. > Which is as it should be. Laws.
Laws based in principle? Or laws based in pandering to the envy of others?
>> The welfare state is a socialist form of >> statism designed to increase social fairness and thus reduce envy, in >> other words it is politicized envy-pandering. .. > What does that and your statements below have todo with te U.S.?
It has to do with any welfare state, which would include the U.S., where they use the government as a means of redistributing wealth, garnered through taxation, to those who have a valid legal claim on it. If those laws, which are based on envy-pandering, are removed, then the legal claim loses its validity.
<malenoidathotmail....@giganews.com> wrote: > acar<acarm...@mail.com> wrote innews:4b97b0c5-1f4d-4ff0-a448-757f715b9622@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com: > .. > >> Statism is not at the extreme left, anarchy and not the state lies at > >> the extremes. In between the extremes are degrees of state control, > .. > > There is a balance at the center.
> Relevant to what?
Equidistance
> >> this translates to lack of freedom. > .. > > Which is as it should be. Laws.
> Laws based in principle? Or laws based in pandering to the envy of > others?
Laws put together by elected representatives of the people. As long as the elections are free and legitimate it doesn't matter whether the laws are good, bad or indifferent. Impeach, wait for the next elections, or endure. There is no good system of governement. We have the best of all the bad ones.
> >> The welfare state is a socialist form of > >> statism designed to increase social fairness and thus reduce envy, in > >> other words it is politicized envy-pandering. > .. > > What does that and your statements below have todo with te U.S.?
> It has to do with any welfare state, which would include the U.S., where > they use the government as a means of redistributing wealth,
But redistributing wealth is a straw man. Lotteries, insurance and organization dues redistribute wealth. So do charitable organizations, whether or not you call them benevolent. Trades redistribute wealth if there is a profit involved.
> garnered > through taxation, to those who have a valid legal claim on it. If those > laws, which are based on envy-pandering, are removed, then the legal > claim loses its validity.
Principles are man made. The only natural principles are those described by physical laws and mathematics. When Ms. Rand attempts to be objective about those, she drowns in a quagmire of subjectivity. That in itself is not the problem. It is an inherent trait of the human identity. The problem is that she doesn't know it. She believes that she can always be objective and asks everybody else to be always objective as well. In the planet Earth, it's not going to happen. If all she asks is for us to do our best, knowing that we can not do it all the time, then she is admitting to "original sin" and contradicting herself.
This sort of headline epitomises the perversity of the ideological delusion suffered by the numpties on this NG. The USA is facing in its so-called 'health system' the most serious crisis since the great depression or the civil war, and the twats here turn it into an attack on the British.
> This sort of headline epitomises the perversity of the ideological > delusion suffered by the numpties on this NG.
Numpties???
The health care systems in the UK and other countries are held out as standards by which we should compare our own. It is only right that such examples be scrutinized and any weaknesses, if any (as well as strengths, if any) closely examined. I don't know if you have personally made glowing recommendations of The English System of Public Health Care, but even if you haven't, others have, and so the system will be thoroughly investigated.
> The USA is facing in its so-called 'health system' the most serious > crisis since the great depression or the civil war, and the twats here > turn it into an attack on the British.
Crisis? How is it a crisis? I have heard this word bandied about with so much promiscuous abandon, it has lost all meaning.
Through the Civil War and on up through the Great Depression, very few people had health insurance of any sort. What few did have policies, they were generally catastrophic care -- they kicked in only when you were so sick or injured you had to be hospitalized.
Now, so many Americans have health insurance that is so good that 83% of us are satisfied and don't want what we have changed. That is why Obama had to do adamantly assure us that we would not have to change our policy or our doctor if we were happy with them. We are.
Where is the crisis? We have never lived longer, healthier lives. We've eliminated Smallpox and we're "this close" to eliminating Polio. Many cancers are now routinely curable, as are many formally fatal diseases.
And no matter how good it is today, tomorrow it will be better.
Where is the crisis? Don't keep it a secret. Tell us.
-- Tomm Catt In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.
> The USA is facing in its so-called 'health system' the most serious > crisis since the great depression or the civil war, and the twats here > turn it into an attack on the British.
There was a study done some years ago that showed a vast majority of black people in the US reporting that racism had not adversely affected their life. However, a majority, if somewhat smaller than the other, thought that racism does adversely affect the lives of other black people.
This shows there can be quite a discrepancy between reality and perception. While it may be true that "perception = reality" in the world of politics, out here in the real world, it can be, and generally is, a recipe for disaster.
The constant criticism of the American health insurance industry (it started out as criticism of the health /care/ industry until it became clear that Americans have an extremely high regard for the American health care system) is just an effort to have us make decisions based on perception -- which would lead us to support the system advocated by the ones doing the criticizing -- rather than on reality -- which would lead us to have nothing whatsoever to do with such a monstrous system.
In fairness, there is also a report that removing the barrier to interstate competition advocated by some (such as me) may not have a very significant affect. There are pros and cons which may lead to a slight downward pressure for policy prices or to a slight upward pressure or it could be a wash.
On 10 Nov, 05:09, Tomm Carr <TommC...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Now, so many Americans have health insurance that is so good that 83% of > us are satisfied and don't want what we have changed. That is why Obama > had to do adamantly assure us that we would not have to change our > policy or our doctor if we were happy with them. We are.
> Where is the crisis?
Paying for the care of an aging population
> We have never lived longer, healthier lives. We've > eliminated Smallpox
The World Health Organisation eliminated smallpox,
On Nov 10, 5:09 am, Tomm Carr <TommC...@gmail.com> wrote:
> chazwin wrote:
> > This sort of headline epitomises the perversity of the ideological > > delusion suffered by the numpties on this NG.
> Numpties???
> The health care systems in the UK and other countries are held out as > standards by which we should compare our own. It is only right that such > examples be scrutinized and any weaknesses, if any (as well as > strengths, if any) closely examined. I don't know if you have personally > made glowing recommendations of The English System of Public Health > Care, but even if you haven't, others have, and so the system will be > thoroughly investigated.
Indeed I have. The NHS cured me of cancer last year. I have since enjoyed the most careful consideration, after care and follow-up treatment possible. The NHS is the world's largest public body, second only to the Chinese army. Due to its size there are bound to be problems identified by the various news agencies with their own agendas, not because big means clumsy, but because big just means that statistically minor problems are bound to come to the surface by numbers alone. A surgery might run for 100 years without a problem, but when there are 100,000 such surgeries.. well you see what I mean.
> > The USA is facing in its so-called 'health system' the most serious > > crisis since the great depression or the civil war, and the twats here > > turn it into an attack on the British.
> Crisis? How is it a crisis? I have heard this word bandied about with so > much promiscuous abandon, it has lost all meaning.
It's only a crisis if you consider yourself an American citizen; part of the citizen body together under the flag. I guess you are so wound up by self interest that you can't see the wood for the fact that you have hidden inside the crack in your own personal tree.
> Through the Civil War and on up through the Great Depression, very few > people had health insurance of any sort. What few did have policies, > they were generally catastrophic care -- they kicked in only when you > were so sick or injured you had to be hospitalized.
> Now, so many Americans have health insurance that is so good that 83% of > us are satisfied and don't want what we have changed. That is why Obama > had to do adamantly assure us that we would not have to change our > policy or our doctor if we were happy with them. We are.
> Where is the crisis? We have never lived longer, healthier lives. We've > eliminated Smallpox and we're "this close" to eliminating Polio. Many > cancers are now routinely curable, as are many formally fatal diseases.
> And no matter how good it is today, tomorrow it will be better.
> Where is the crisis? Don't keep it a secret. Tell us.
> -- > Tomm Catt > In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In > practice, there is.
> > The USA is facing in its so-called 'health system' the most serious > > crisis since the great depression or the civil war, and the twats here > > turn it into an attack on the British.
> Crisis? How is it a crisis? I have heard this word bandied about with so > much promiscuous abandon, it has lost all meaning.
> Through the Civil War and on up through the Great Depression, very few > people had health insurance of any sort. What few did have policies, > they were generally catastrophic care -- they kicked in only when you > were so sick or injured you had to be hospitalized.
> Now, so many Americans have health insurance that is so good that 83% of > us are satisfied and don't want what we have changed. That is why Obama > had to do adamantly assure us that we would not have to change our > policy or our doctor if we were happy with them. We are.
> Where is the crisis? We have never lived longer, healthier lives. We've > eliminated Smallpox and we're "this close" to eliminating Polio. Many > cancers are now routinely curable, as are many formally fatal diseases.
> And no matter how good it is today, tomorrow it will be better.
> Where is the crisis? Don't keep it a secret. Tell us.
On Nov 10, 12:09 am, Tomm Carr <TommC...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Through the Civil War and on up through the Great Depression, very few > people had health insurance of any sort.
Actually, through WWII. It came in during the war years production rules on wage caps.
> What few did have policies, > they were generally catastrophic care -- they kicked in only when you > were so sick or injured you had to be hospitalized.
Correct. Preventive coverage didn't come into play until the 1980's.
Considering what insurance IS, what we have today is NOT insurance. The analogy of automobile coverage is too worn out to repeat, but covering maintenance is not insurance, it's prepaid expenses with no relationaship to actuarial data.
> Where is the crisis? We have never lived longer, healthier lives. We've > eliminated Smallpox and we're "this close" to eliminating Polio. Many > cancers are now routinely curable, as are many formally fatal diseases.
> And no matter how good it is today, tomorrow it will be better.
If we don't let Congress send us back to pre-insustrail revolution days.
> Where is the crisis? Don't keep it a secret. Tell us.
|
