jerome scuggs' weekly "shit hits the fan" politics thread

[milosh]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXY_8cJlGMc&NR=1

[Fluffz]

i hate how state healthcare pays for the fat fucks getting heart attacks left and right. Dont get me wrong, state run infrastructure over private run infastructure, its just the current system cant work any longer. People are getting older and older and doctors turn from butchers into high payed specialists.

i have a Neighbour who smokes, is fat and eats his grilled pork every (seriously) day. He is a fucking idiot, worked at the local newspaper as that guy that calls people to get some ads (sorry if anyone does that, its honorable work after all). Than that guy had 2 heart attacks. He cant work anymore and just bought a new car and had a lot of constructing done at his house. THAT IS MY MONEY YOU BASTARD. He is probably going to live another 30 years with his new heart. Probably getting more money than the guy that has his job now.

Same with pensions(sp?). A guy that never marries, never gets a child can work more and get higher pensions. Like wtf. I struggle to get a child trough life that is able to maybe pay what i cost later in life and that guy who never did anything like that gets twice the money?! Fuk that of course i use condoms bitch, i dont trust you for shit.

The socialist argument is that it doesnt matter how much the goverment spends as long as it is invested into infrastructure. Well i start to doubt it. Our living standard is too high we start to want more than we can afford and more than we need while at the same time we got lazy. If we were to go into a recession now it would be a healthy one and systems would hopefully get redesigned.

[Jerome Scuggs]

i hate how state healthcare pays for the fat fucks getting heart attacks left and right. Dont get me wrong, state run infrastructure over private run infastructure, its just the current system cant work any longer. People are getting older and older and doctors turn from butchers into high payed specialists.

i have a Neighbour who smokes, is fat and eats his grilled pork every (seriously) day. He is a fucking idiot, worked at the local newspaper as that guy that calls people to get some ads (sorry if anyone does that, its honorable work after all). Than that guy had 2 heart attacks. He cant work anymore and just bought a new car and had a lot of constructing done at his house. THAT IS MY MONEY YOU BASTARD. He is probably going to live another 30 years with his new heart. Probably getting more money than the guy that has his job now.

Same with pensions(sp?). A guy that never marries, never gets a child can work more and get higher pensions. Like wtf. I struggle to get a child trough life that is able to maybe pay what i cost later in life and that guy who never did anything like that gets twice the money?! Fuk that of course i use condoms bitch, i dont trust you for shit.

The socialist argument is that it doesnt matter how much the goverment spends as long as it is invested into infrastructure. Well i start to doubt it. Our living standard is too high we start to want more than we can afford and more than we need while at the same time we got lazy. If we were to go into a recession now it would be a healthy one and systems would hopefully get redesigned.

you sort of just discovered a critical flaw in socialism that won F.A. Hayek the nobel peace prize in economics.

gj

[Jerome Scuggs]

Although this was a joke Jerome it would be difficult for me to allow this to lie unchallenged. Not only does it show a profound misunderstanding of political economics, but it smacks of the cocky neo-liberalist, 'we know best' attitudes, typical of conservative America.

Let me first say that you're widely exaggerating the problem of water scarcity. The problem is largely a cause of increases in population (demand) as opposed to a environmental factors (supply). Water specialists say these increases in demand can easily be met by advances in filtration technologies. Indeed, 70% of the worlds surface is covered in water, 95% salt water.

And then to say that this temporary shortage of water could then accentuate the damage caused by the collapse of the sub-prime mortage sector in America and, consequently, Europe, is at best speculatory and at worst completely unfounded.

Your rash conclusion that this combined effect may also weaken the economies of Britain and the rest of Europe to the point of privatisation is also completely absurd. Call it bitter patriotism, but the NHS will be here as long as we are called British. Unlike you we do not bow to infallible, neo-con demi gods named Mr. Bush who provide a system which only caters for the healthy and rich.

That's my piece.

would you dote on your system as much if they weren't watching you on surveillance videos?

[Fluffz]

no1 questions the efficiency of comercial healthcare, its just not very human. My argument is that we cannot afford this humanity with the current attitude. We cant have all, our Cars, our Vacations, our Houses, our 35 Hour Week, our Flatscreen and on top of that afford to be human. We have to cut something down.

So do i want to work 40 hours a week just to have a flatscreen in my 2 bed hospital room or 50 bucks extra when i a 70 years old? not realy. Im not saying scrap the system, i say rethink it. People that want all that extra attention must pay more. My neighbour just shouldnt get his huge pension at duno like 45 years just because he eats fat only.
Cool like i am one of my hobbies is downhill longboarding. Since we have no tracks i do it on casual streets at night. Whenever something happens to me i do not have to pay a cent, what kind of system is that.

Nothing of that however is an argument against a state run healthcare system, you do not understand my point. I should always be willing/forced to work hard enough to secure a basic healthcare that is the same for everyone. Not because its efficient but because it is human. Where to draw the line? i duno.

[Jerome Scuggs]

no1 questions the efficiency of comercial healthcare, its just not very human.

what do you mean? do aliens run private hospitals? or is "mountains of bureaucratic paperwork" a hallmark of human compassion?

edit: this is mainly for metalheadz, but:

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/36065
http://reason.com/blog/show/125112.html
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/122473.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...ed-825414.html
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...ars/article.do
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...its/article.do
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...NHS/article.do
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...t-surgery.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-000-drug.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...ek-456782.html

and, finally:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...nds/article.do

[Fluffz]

thats not what i mean, thank you for trying.

[Jerome Scuggs]

thats obviously not what i mean.

From your edit, to be "Human" means to be exactly like everyone else. It means that all humans have the exact same preferences - that every human is completely satisfied with the exact same level of healthcare. It means that all humans have the exact same abilities - that no human, ever, could work hard yet still be "human".

In short, I won't argue that in your world, perhaps a "human" system might work. But this is reality, where millions of humans have millions of views about millions of things and do millions of different jobs to achieve millions of different goals.

So it's hard to find a "universal" slant on anything. You admit this in your own post, where you suggest that you would have to be forced to obey your own system. At the point where your system is coercive, it won't work, no matter how you try to justify it. It won't work. Humans don't like to be coerced - this is probably not true of all humans, but probably more true that what you propose.

[Troll King]

Jerome, you're better than having to resort to arguing semantics, especially when the word "human" can legitimately be used as an adjective to mean "susceptible to or representative of the sympathies and frailties of human nature". You've presented several arguments about this topic before; stooping to argue word choice, especially when he's using it correctly, is beneath you.

[Fluffz]

Didnt some other guy get a nobel price for something like: a system works best if it works for you AND everybody else? At least there was a film about that guy, i can only hope that was based on a real story.

Unlike you i do think most people accept to pay for weaker ones, guess thats how carma works. Just because it is hard to find this universal attempt doesnt mean we do not have to try.

[MetalHeadz]

From your edit, to be "Human" means to be exactly like everyone else. It means that all humans have the exact same preferences - that every human is completely satisfied with the exact same level of healthcare. It means that all humans have the exact same abilities - that no human, ever, could work hard yet still be "human".

But this is a philosophical misrepresentation of the ideology a national health system has. You state that a system which was designed for the purpose of social equality causes inequality to arise through the equal treatment of unequal people. But infact the core premise of national healthcare is that it treats the worst off best: leveling the social playing field. 'Nothing is more unequal than unequals treated equally'.


Moreover, the argument of the 'free market creates a better quality service' is only applicable to the fortunate few who can afford health insurance. The US has an appalling healthcare system, far lower than Cuba for example, in relation to it's GDP per capita.

But I digress. It is, is it not, a national perogative to help the sickest, poorest people in the most deprived areas (without trying to sound too much like Miss. World?) What else should a government do? Fight wars? Build nuclear reactors? No. The health of the people, and indeed their education, are the direct responsibilities of the state at the deficit of anything else, if need be. It is quite frankly appalling that the American government still hold on to such an obselete, backward and paradoxically flawed system.

[MetalHeadz]

Critiques of articles to come later.

[Izor]

slowly this forum is starting to evolve and see my point of view...seems people are finally starting to get outside

EDIT: Yes, fluffz, "Mr Bush" is entirely the reason why our healthcare system is how it is

[Jerome Scuggs]

But this is a philosophical misrepresentation of the ideology a national health system has. You state that a system which was designed for the purpose of social equality causes inequality to arise through the equal treatment of unequal people. But infact the core premise of national healthcare is that it treats the worst off best: leveling the social playing field. 'Nothing is more unequal than unequals treated equally'.


Moreover, the argument of the 'free market creates a better quality service' is only applicable to the fortunate few who can afford health insurance. The US has an appalling healthcare system, far lower than Cuba for example, in relation to it's GDP per capita.

But I digress. It is, is it not, a national perogative to help the sickest, poorest people in the most deprived areas (without trying to sound too much like Miss. World?) What else should a government do? Fight wars? Build nuclear reactors? No. The health of the people, and indeed their education, are the direct responsibilities of the state at the deficit of anything else, if need be. It is quite frankly appalling that the American government still hold on to such an obselete, backward and paradoxically flawed system.

Aside from critiquing your ideology, which i'd have to spend alot of time untangling, I'll just say that it's not a question of competing designs but a question of design versus spontaneity. Trying to construct and 'plan' an infrastructure as opposed to letting an industry spontaneously develop and adapt to consumer's needs will always fail - because when you attempt to transfer an ideology based on illusory fallacies ("social justice", "common welfare", etc) - when it's transferred to actual law, you fail to deliver on what you promise at the point where you coerce people. That coercion is one of the many non-economic factors that cripple a nationalized industry, even before the economic factors come into play.

An example of this can be found within your own post. According to you, the Health Service must be maintained at any cost - yet your own politicians, as per the news links, have turned away many a patient from the "full" treatment they "deserve".

This shows a critical flaw in the ideology: even if you can get a majority to agree that "Something needs to be done", what specifically must be done? When you ask that question, almost every individual will have a different answer. And when politicians try to push their ideas forward, they must compromise their plans to get acceptance with the majority.

The United States doesn't have a free market. The rate of uninsured people corresponds very nicely to the amount of regulation on the books about health insurance - both are on the rise, and have been for a very, very long time. The fact that our Healthcare is so shitty is because, quite frankly, a "mixed" economy is even worse than full-blown nationalized industry.

It's very noble to believe that as humans, we now understand enough about our world and society that we can begin to "shape" and "design" aspects of society that we see fit. But that sort of arrogance leads to the sort of unintended consequences that are at the very root of a very serious problem which, even worse than ignoring, you defend by taking some sort of moral high road. It's pretty irresponsible, in my eyes.

[pascone]

didn't really read much of this...

get a job = get health coverage. what's the problem