New, Improved Obamacare Program Released On 35 Floppy Disks

[Michael]

In conclusion of our "formal" debate, if you want to actually change things, go forth and VOTE next time they ask you what type of government you want.?
That will solve all your problems, trust me. You see, I have lived at gunpoint in Europe (from occupiers) and I can assure you our State is considerably more benign than dictatorships or anarchy. You see, in those systems you DO NOT GET TO VOTE and select who shall wield the powers of enforcement.

What do you mean 'or anarchy'. You've never lived in an total 'anarchy' - however, much of your life is anarchic. All of your friendships are 'anarchic' (that is to say 'voluntary'). All of the goods and services you've legally purchased - that's anarchy. WIKIpedia, that's anarchy. I just gave a donation today - that's anarchy.

That aside, you still have not defined what the word "State" means.
You have not explained why highly capitalistic West Germany was so much more prosperous relative to highly socialistic East Germany, even though these people shared a history, culture, language, food, etc... I can tell you, it wasn't because West Germans were 'more greedy' and it wasn't because East Germans were 'more corrupt'. Both people acted within their respective systems for pretty much the same ideals. Both wanted societies to have plenty to eat, good healthcare, good education, holidays and to be wealthy. In the end, East Germans were nearly starving while West Germans were driving Mercedes. When the wall fell, it was the West buying the East. This is the price that's paid for acting immorally.

Which is why I've stated on numerous instances - I'm more than happy to see you freely live in your State with all of your socialism: Public regulations up the ying-yang, Public Schools, Public Hospitals, Public roads, Public Housing, Public welfare, (list of United States federal agencies) Public Public Public Public.... Go for it. Then those of us who instead believe in civil liberty and freedom, can live by the original ideals that founded the nation: sound money, law, property rights and voluntary trade - and after a couple generations we'll begin the process of buying back the rest from you. You'll basically be starving to death - so, it's win-win if you stop and think about it. Your great grandchildren get stuck with your medical bills - and you get to have ObamaCare as safe as Public Housing and as useful as Public High Schooling and after some time, we buy it back fair-and-square off your starving great grandchildren.

If you are in such a tiny minority, what are you complaining about? Apparently most people disagree with you and in a democracy the majority rules. What is your problem with that and what are you going to do about it? Stomp your foot some more? Maybe buy a gun?

What do you mean stomp my foot? I made it clear, the best option is to raise your children to think logically (as in understand basic logic) and engage in your community in ways that are valuable to them - then, try to have as little to do with the State as is possible.

We on "my side" have resigned ourselves to stepping back and allowing the Authoritarians on the Left and Right destroy what's left of the prosperity of the 'Nation'. That's what most people "vote"* for - so that's what we're going to get. We'll lose more civil rights, become less prosperous, people will stand around confused, they'll vote for a the demagogue who promises them the most (like free Healthcare) and down we go. It'll take awhile, but ObamaCare (and I do hope that name sticks) will be as safe as Public Housing and as 'helpful' as a Public Education where 47% of the graduating class can't read or write. Believe me, the LAST place you're going to want to be treated in the USA, is going to be a public hospital. Just imagine once the mandatory 'quotas' come in - I mean, those functionally illiterate public school graduates 'deserve' a job - a living wage. That's only 'fair' - right? They have their "State Certified" qualification. Can't argue with that now can we? They'll be the ones trying to remember which is your left and which is your right leg. They'll be the one asking you to read a few of the squiggles before they administer you, your happy happy medicine. AND just imagine when the Public Sector Unions come into the hospitals in a big way! Holy...... Shit...... Not only will the hospital not be able to fire a butcher (which is already difficult) - but YOU won't be able to opt out of one doing your surgery. Believe me - you're going to get 'Free' ObamaCare all right - and so much more than you could have ever wished. The State is going to take real good care of you.

Take a real good look at Public Slum Housing Projects.
Take a real good look at Public Union Public Schools that graduate students with a 47% functionally illiteracy rate.
Combine these together - this is your Public Hospital in 15 - 25 years.


Thank of it as the price you have to pay for choosing Force when you could have freely went with voluntarism. You'll see.


As for me personally, I spend my time focused on peaceful parenting and medical research. There's much more important things to be focused on than the State. Much MUCH more important.



* Vote
It should be noted, in a free society with sound money - money IS your vote. A real vote. And unlike a lever that says Left pull here, Right pull here (oh looky you voted in an Authoritarian) money gives you the ability to express how much you want to 'vote' for something and increase your 'say' by paying more for it. Of course, such a system only works when we have sound money - which we don't, we have fiat (State force-backed) currency. Thus, this "vote" too has been corrupted by the Authoritarian State. Again, the price we pay for resorting to violence. You're not a free Citizen, you're highly regulated Tax Cattle. You get let out of your pen once in awhile to waddle down to the Left/Right lever. You're "Free" to pull it left or right. Then back in your pen you go. You had your day out, now get back to work. Those 'free' ObamaCares don't pay for themselves now do they.
*cracks whip*
See? Isn't that nice. Welcome to life in "The Land of the Free". Welcome to Amerikkka.

 

[Michael]

Gene testing firm 23andMe halts marketing

US genetic testing firm 23andMe, which is backed by Google, has stopped marketing its at-home kit, a company spokeswoman has said. It halted television, radio and online advertising for its $99 (£60) personal genome analysis product last week. The move follows a warning letter filed by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) last month. The spit test is supposed to provide details about a person's health risks based on gene variants they carry.

The FDA ordered 23andMe to "immediately discontinue" its Saliva Collection Kit and Personal Genome Service (PGS) because it had failed to provide adequate information to support the claims made in the company's marketing. In a blog post last week, the company's co-founder Anne Wojcicki responded to the FDA letter. "We have worked extensively with our lab partner to make sure that the results we return are accurate," she wrote. "We stand behind the data that we return to customers - but we recognize that the FDA needs to be convinced of the quality of our data as well." She said 23andMe had been speaking to the FDA since 2008 and had submitted an application for clearance in July 2012, following on with another submission in August. Ms Wojcicki added: "This is new territory for both 23andMe and the FDA. This makes the regulatory process with the FDA important because the work we are doing with the agency will help lay the groundwork for what other companies in this new industry do in the future."

FDA said it was particularly concerned about the potential health consequences of false positive or false negative assessments by the PGS for genetic risk related to breast cancer and to adverse drug responses. It said consumers might make important health decisions based on inaccurate information. Likewise, a false negative could result in a failure to recognise and act on an actual risk.

Here's a great example of the immorality of our illustrious Nanny State.

Yet another example of the FDA regulating the healthcare industry (in this case a company attempting to build a product that people can use to get some idea regarding their genetic background health risks) nearly out of business.
- Firstly, what right does some unelected bureaucrat have to get between me making a voluntary trade with 23andMe?
- Secondly, if I feel I've been 'deceived' by the company - then I can take this to a jury of my peers and seek retribution. This is a simple matter of law and fraud. There is no NEED for the State EVEN if I were being deceived. Fraud is illegal - which is why we have a little something called "Law" and "Property Rights".

The FDA says 'consumers' (aka: highly regualted tax cattle) might [maybe, possibly, could one day, who knows but it just maybe might happen to happen, may, 1 in 10,000,000 chance might effect the way a Tax Cattle were to] make important health decisions based on inaccurate information.
AND???
*GAAAAAAAAAAASP!!!!!!!!!!!*
Hurrry - close the gate!!! A couple lard-arsed Tax-Cattle were thinking for themselves!?! Oh nooooos!!!! The world will end and hell will open up and swallow us all!!!!!!!!!!

Jesus H Christ, day in and day out we hear this claptrap. We have to harm the people, to help the people. We're talking about adult Citizens in the "Land of the Free" (pfff what a joke that's turned out to be) not being allowed to take a simple freakn saliva test. How pathetic. If the test came up with a hit, most people would just go see their care provider. Some may not - but guess what, that's part of being a free being. Making your own choices in life.

Another great example of State 'regulation' stifling competition. What SHOULD happen in a FREE market: is 23andMe makes a product and other's attempt to compete in the same market space so that the best product is delivered at the most affordable price. Oh course, we can't have the fat-arse Tax Cattle thinking for itself. Nope, wouldn't want that.


To some degree, maybe you people do need told what you can and can not do? Maybe you are too f*cking stupid to think for yourselves? Maybe we do need to 'regulate' you - for your own good of course? It's not like we're going to a Public Hospital - that's for you. Not us - that's for you. What do you think? Are you too f*cking stupid to think for yourselves? Do you want me to do the thinking for you? Will that make you happier? You lose some more Civil Liberties but hey, you get the benefit of being led around by the nose like boring fat Tax Cattle, milked of your labor, bred like livestock, dumbed down and your calves sold off to slaughter for the milk and meat to the Chinese.
Seems like a fair trade.
I mean, thinking can hurt if you're not used to it. Yes, leave that to the "Professionals". Our role is to think. Your role is to be told what you can and can not do. We'll call it "Regulations" and we'll give you a Left/Right Lever you can pull on a few times every few years. How's that sound? Pretty good?

Enjoy your ObamaCare.

 

[Write4U]

But it will be everybody who is willing to pull that lever, regardless of their physical circumstances. It is called respect and respecting the rights of others which we do not naturally, because, without "imposed limits" everyone does as he/she pleases with no liability or consequence.
Ask the Native Americans what happens to freedom when you play host to lawless immigrants. The exercise of Freedom is something to be very closely monitored or Greed will abuse Freedom to the detriment of all. There is no condition in the universe which is unrestricted, every system has its boundaries and limits which define the system and define the interactions within the system. It is called determinism, free will does not exist.

Man is the only animal that is capable of damaging the entire ecosystem of this planet and must be restrained from doing so, by mutual consent and monitoring adherence to lawful regulation.

 

[iceaura]

You're going to compare Switzerland with the USA? They don't even use the Euro, they use the Swiss Franc. They're a small mono-cultural nation with a population less than New York city.

Uh, Switzerland is one of the most famously multicultural (and militarized, and taxed, and banking run) societies in the world - not just that it's not mono-cultural, but that it's famous for its multicultural setup. That "Concorde Swisse" is one of the touchstone facts of European politics. There are four official languages in Switzerland, none of them are "Swiss", and that leaves something like one person in ten speaking yet another language at home. You need to be trilingual in Switzerland to wait tables in a restaurant.

You really are phenomenally gifted at making errors of political and historical fact. You do far better than random chance at getting things wrong. Why is that, do you suppose?

 

[Write4U]

Michael, you wanted my definition of the word State.
Below is a list of definitions of the word "state" defined in the official English language.

state (stt)n.
1. A condition or mode of being, as with regard to circumstances: a state of confusion.
2. A condition of being in a stage or form, as of structure, growth, or development: the fetal state.
3. A mental or emotional condition: in a manic state.
4. Informal A condition of excitement or distress.
5. Physics The condition of a physical system with regard to phase, form, composition, or structure: Ice is the solid state of water.
6. Social position or rank.
7. Ceremony; pomp: foreign leaders dining in state at the White House.
8.
a. The supreme public power within a sovereign political entity.b. The sphere of supreme civil power within a given polity: matters of state.
9. A specific mode of government: the socialist state.
10. A body politic, especially one constituting a nation: the states of Eastern Europe.
11. One of the more or less internally autonomous territorial and political units composing a federation under a sovereign government: the 48 contiguous states of the Union.

adj.
1. Of or relating to a body politic or to an internally autonomous territorial or political unit constituting a federation under one government: a monarch dealing with state matters; the department that handles state security.

2. Owned and operated by a state: state universities.

tr.v. stat·ed, stat·ing, states
To set forth in words; declare.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/state

and in Government language,

Country, State, and Nation, Definining a State and an Independent Country
Let's start with what defines a State or an independent country. An independent State:

•Has space or territory which has internationally recognized boundaries (boundary disputes are OK).
•Has people who live there on an ongoing basis.
•Has economic activity and an organized economy. A country regulates foreign and domestic trade and issues money.
•Has the power of social engineering, such as education. (and now healthcare)
•Has a transportation system for moving goods and people.
•Has a government which provides public services and police power.
•Has sovereignty. No other State should have power over the country's territory.
•Has external recognition. A country has been "voted into the club" by other countries.
There are currently 196 independent countries or States around the world. Territories of countries or individual parts of a country are not countries in their own right.

http://geography.about.com/cs/politicalgeog/a/statenation.htm

The ones I highlighted in red are the definitions you hate, Michael, why? Because you have a common financial obligation to contribute to the State that will not allow you to go hungry or die on the street (from any cause ) regardless if you are rich or poor? You want to reserve the right to decide how you will die, but you do not have that right. Because your death is a financial burden on the system and therefore of "compelling" interest to the State. This is a good thing and should freely supported, and then closely monitored for efficiency and possible infiltration of too much influence from "special interests" groups.

Your use of the word State negatively because you believe it is a bad thing. The word State has neither good or bad connotations, it is strictly neutral in concept. The structure of the local political system (the Body Politic) defines the State. If the political system is corrupt, the State is oppressive and destructive. If the political system is benign, the State provides beneficial common services.

 

[Michael]

But it will be everybody who is willing to pull that lever, regardless of their physical circumstances. It is called respect and respecting the rights of others which we do not naturally, because, without "imposed limits" everyone does as he/she pleases with no liability or consequence.

This sentence doesn't make any sense. So, according to your "rational", 'respecting' others, is using force to impose 'limits' on them?

Sound money will 'impose' a limit.
Law will 'impose' a limit.
Private property rights will 'impose' a limit.
The non-aggression principle IS a moral 'limit'.
The free-market is a limit - it's not imposed. It is a limit. If you can not offer something of value, no one will trade with you - this limits your ability to access sound money, thus limiting your participation in society. Thus, you'll modify your behavior to offer value to society. That MAY include a self-imposed limit.

Ask the Native Americans what happens to freedom when you play host to lawless immigrants.

Why? Did you read Kant's definitions of government?

No one here is talking about 'Lawlessness'. Also, what happened to the Native Americans was "Legal" in the USA under the US Constitution. It was immoral, but it was legal. Americans 'voted' to force Native Americans to be legally defined as LESS then full human when compared with a White European American. This violated the Native Americans private property rights (which is why they had to be considered less than human - so that the 'Law' could be upheld while these people being simultaneously violated - they simply weren't fully 'human'). This happened in the USA - not some hypothetical "Anarchy", but in the very real USA.

The exercise of Freedom is something to be very closely monitored or Greed will abuse Freedom to the detriment of all.

You'll have to given an example. Freedom is NOT a free-for-all. Sound money, law, private property rights and a free-market all act to limit action. Nature itself will limit action. You're not about to go outside and flap your arms and start flying - there are natural limits. Voluntarism imposes limits through free-market trade. If you have nothing of value to offer society - you WILL be limited in action as you won't be able to access sound money.

There is no condition in the universe which is unrestricted, every system has its boundaries and limits which define the system and define the interactions within the system. It is called determinism, free will does not exist.

OK, I somewhat agree - except the part about 'free-will'. Consciousness is not well enough understood to say if humans have free-will or not. I'm of the mind we do. Although in many people, it's severely limited.

Man is the only animal that is capable of damaging the entire ecosystem of this planet and must be restrained from doing so, by mutual consent and monitoring adherence to lawful regulation.

The US Government consumes the most energy of any single group of humans. The US Government is the largest polluter in the history of mankind. Compare Public Housing with Private Housing and it's quite evident that property is best cared for when it's owned.

 

[Michael]

Uh, Switzerland is one of the most famously multicultural (and militarized, and taxed, and banking run) societies in the world - not just that it's not mono-cultural, but that it's famous for its multicultural setup.

Firstly, Switzerland is highly Capitalistic relative to the socialistic countries imploding around it. That aside, while you mayh consider German, French and Italian languages as 'multicultural' - IMO it's Euro-centric. The USA is multicultural. Australia is multicultural. Switzerland is Swiss - which means being European. Many people of Switzerland can probably trace their families histories back hundreds of years. Being polyglot is great - but if you think the USA is anywhere near like Switzerland you're smoking crank. It's like comparing apples with rocks. It's a teeny little country with a patriarchal culture with strong German overtones. Do the Swiss have Public Housing slums with generational welfare? No? Gee, I wonder why? Do the Swiss have a minimum wage? No? Gee, I wonder why?

While I'm sure the country is wonderful to live in if you're a man and Swiss - we are not the Swiss.
They do not have a demographic anywhere near the USA. We're not Swiss. We're not Germany. We're not Japanese.
They do not have our history.

 

[Michael]

Michael, you wanted my definition of the word State.
Below is a list of definitions of the word "state" defined in the official English language.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/state

and in Government language,

http://geography.about.com/cs/politicalgeog/a/statenation.htm

The ones I highlighted in red are the definitions you hate, Michael, why? Because you have a common financial obligation to contribute to the State that will not allow you to go hungry or die on the street (from any cause ) regardless if you are rich or poor? You want to reserve the right to decide how you will die, but you do not have that right. Because your death is a financial burden on the system and therefore of "compelling" interest to the State. This is a good thing and should freely supported, and then closely monitored for efficiency and possible infiltration of too much influence from "special interests" groups.

Your use of the word State negatively because you believe it is a bad thing. The word State has neither good or bad connotations, it is strictly neutral in concept. The structure of the local political system (the Body Politic) defines the State. If the political system is corrupt, the State is oppressive and destructive. If the political system is benign, the State provides beneficial common services.

So, you wrote the word State means "The supreme public power within a sovereign political entity."

Thus, using your definition we can agree that the supreme public power (example: Abdullah of Saudi Arabia) within a sovereign political entity (example: Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) invested the Public morality police (mutaween) with the legal obligation to force 15 innocent school girls back into a burning building for violating the Public Law, and therefor being legally guilty of, leaving a building (burning of otherwise) without a head covering. There's nothing contradictory with your definition being used in this sentence - agreed?

SO, according to your own definition, you must now agree that ONLY the State has the legal obligation of initiating force against innocent citizens and nationals?
No other organization of humans in our society is able to legally INITIATE force against innocent people - Agreed?! It says in your definition "Supreme Public Power". Therefor there's nothing more 'Supreme' than the State. That's why the word Supreme is being used. All other groups (private) are in some manner NOT supreme in 'power' to the State. They are all inferior in 'power' to the State. The State is supreme.

You also wrote: A State has a government which provides public services and police power.
OK, I see nothing here that contradicts my earlier definition. Yes, the State's Government can 'provide public services'. In the case of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia one of those "Public Services" is a morality judicial code. Do you agree? And the mutaween are the "Police Power" that protects the public from seeing little girls without their hair covering. Again, you may not like the example, but there's nothing contradictory with your definition.

And, as a matter of historical fact, 15 real live innocent girls were actually pushed back into a burning building for not wearing head covering and literally burned alive. It's enough to make one sick. At the time I wanted to barf reading about it and imagining the horror those girls felt being forced back into that building. It's truly sickening.

One more time, I want to make sure we agree: there's nothing in your definition that runs contrary to the definition that I posted (which is the actual definition the US Government uses to legally define itself as the Government of the United States). The FACT is, again, only the State is legally obligated to INITIATE force against innocent people.

Yes, the State could provide a good or service (let's say a cup of coffee). But get this, IF people WANT a cup of coffee THEN why are you using the State to provide it? They'll pay for it themselves. There's no NEED to use force against the public when providing the public with a good or service people want. The free-market will ensure the goods and services are provided to the public IF they want those goods and services. That's the role of Profit IN society. When profit is being made - then this means people want that good or service. In the free-market people compete to meet this demand. This of course means we need a FREE MARKET and we need SOUND MONEY. Without a free-market or sound money, the profit signal doesn't function correctly OR people are 'regulated' out of competing. BUT, in a free-market, there is no need to turn to the State to provide goods and services people want. The ONLY reason anyone turns to the State is to harness it's special role in society - resorting to the initiation of force.

The example above of 23andMe is of the State (the FDA) initiating FORCE against a Private group of people trying to provide the market with healthcare. This is INSANE. We have LAW and fraud is against the Law. We do not need the FDA. If 23andMe commit fraud, they'll be soon out of business. Google probably doesn't LIKE losing money - so, the chances are they're trying to make the best product possible and their pamphlet/contact will tell you in what ways the information is limited. Now, as an adult, it's up to YOU to read the contract. If you don't understand it, don't buy it. Pretty simple.


The USA never had a problem with healthcare and 100 years ago Americans received relatively great healthcare at a low cost. The AMA helped to ruin healthcare by limiting competition. If we want cheap healthcare then we need MORE freedom, not LESS freedom. My Gods, it's like I'm living in George Orwell's 1984 with you people. Once more: We need MORE Civil Liberties not LESS civil liberties. Making yourself less free is NOT the path to prosperity OR good cheap high quality healthcare. With sound money, law, private property right and the NAP - the free market will ensure we all get access to cheap high quality healthcare. The doctors will be happier not having the overhead and regulation and the people will be much better served with good competitive insurance and/or healthcare goods and services.

But, alas, this isn't going to happen. We are NOT going to become freer. We are going to continue to hemorrhage civil liberties, we're going to lose all of our privacy to the State - - - and in 25 years the very last place you're going to want to seek medical treatment is at a Public Hospital. Just wait for the Public Unions and Quota Systems to get involved. May the Gods help you.... think of it as karma. You wanted the State, you're going to get it in spades.

 

[Michael]

The ones I highlighted in red are the definitions you hate, Michael, why? Because you have a common financial obligation to contribute to the State that will not allow you to go hungry or die on the street (from any cause ) regardless if you are rich or poor?

(a) I don't 'hate' a definition. That doesn't make any sense. I'm using the definition correctly. If this run counter to your understanding of the word State - maybe you need to step back and ask yourself why and how you came to think of the State incorrectly. To by honest, if the public actually understood what the word State means and it's implications - we'd probably have a lot less State and a much better society.
(b) No one starves to death in the USA and no one would starve to death. The State doesn't care for people - people care for people. Stop and think about your logic. The State is supposedly 'representative'. Therefor it can, in theory, only provide a service based on what the majority will. Thus, most people do not want to see people starve to death. Therefor, people will not allow other's to starve to death. It's pretty simple. There's no NEED of a State.

What about you? If you had the means, you wouldn't do something about the starving poor?

It should also be noted, in a free country, the numbers of 'starving poor' would be very minuscule. And the average wage wouldn't be 38K it's be closer to 380K. With that kind of dough, there'd be more than enough prosperity to share around. The fact is Progressivism is destroying our economy. And it is - we have 50 years of LBJ's version of "The Great Leap Backwards"/ The Great Society and living standards are actually LOWER!

Stop and think about the War on Drugs (Republican-wing of the Authoritarian Party) - the black community is decimated, the US now has the largest prison population pp in the world and drug use has neither increased or decreased. THAT is the State. One big FUBAR.

 

[Write4U]

In my post #565 I guess you missed the green highlight I added. In exchange for guaranteed healthcare for all and save expenditures, the State has shifted some funds towards that goal without adding an additional burden on the population.
This the subject matter. The rest is irrelevant to this discussion. It is semantic hate mongering.

A State is a created entity and it can be good or it can be bad, based on the principles and peoples who run the state.
You cite all the things that are wrong with foreign States. Where your facts are right no one is disagreeing. But it has nothing to do with the Federated state of the United States, which is founded on a principle of separation of powers and religion. Which makes it a pretty good State to live in. A lot of people think it is worth risking life and limb to get here and here you stand yelling about the evil State of the United States.
Give me a break. Seems the voluntary sign up for ACA is improving by the day and making a lot of people very happy, even some who's policy was cancelled and were able to replace the old inadequate policy with a better, cheaper policy. And it did not cost you a penny more than what you now contribute.
Stop whining about different States in the world and try to make ours work (if you live in the US). Seems you are gonna be stuck in one State or another. Might as well make the most of it and lead a safe and happy long life. A decent arrangement between State and its residents in a civilized country, if you ask me. As you so clearly indicated there are plenty States that are not as benign as the US.

 

[Grumpy]

Michael

Firstly, Switzerland is highly Capitalistic relative to the socialistic countries imploding around it.

The Scandinavian countries went straight through the last recession in good shape, it is the Capitalists that are imploding. And Sweden is no more Capitalist than any of it's neighbors. Only the almost pure Socialists like Greece are having problems, plus ALL of the almost pure Capitalist states. The Scandinavians have the balance right.

That aside, while you mayh consider German, French and Italian languages as 'multicultural' - IMO it's Euro-centric

But you are...intellectually challenged and you make up your own "facts" and "definitions". If it takes three languages to communicate it is the definition of multi-cultural. Whether you consider it Euro-centric or not is totally irrelevant and indicates prejudice on your part. The idea that America and it's government is better than other places is demonstratively false, though we should strive to be so. This means we should look at how others handle the problems governments face and accept the best methods REGARDLESS OF ORIGIN. Sweden(and many other countries)handle health care better than we do, that's a fact. They pay less for better outcomes and they cover everyone. We don't. So we should quit doing it the 'Murican way and start doing it the Swedish way EVEN IF IT IS SOCIALISM(actually, the ACA is a lot like the Swedish way). Anarchist Capitalism has given us the mess we have now, almost any other way would be better for the majority of Americans. Rich A_hole industrialists can help lead us to that better way or they will suffer the same fate as the "Let them eat cake" crowd did in France, or the Tzar did in Russia. History repeats itself if we don't learn those lessons.

The rest of your screed is your usual idiotic drivel, not worthy of further comment. You don't even have a clue, it seems.

Grumpy

 

[joepistole]

You're going to compare Switzerland with the USA? They don't even use the Euro, they use the Swiss Franc. They're a small mono-cultural nation with a population less than New York city. They are ranked 4th in gun ownership in the world - perhaps you'd like to use this to make a comparison somehow with the USA?

According to the OECD:
In Switzerland, the average household net-adjusted disposable income is 30 060 USD a year

According to Numbo:
Consumer Prices in United States are 47.69% lower than in Switzerland
Consumer Prices Including Rent in United States are 46.35% lower than in Switzerland
Rent Prices in United States are 43.05% lower than in Switzerland
Restaurant Prices in United States are 51.88% lower than in Switzerland
Groceries Prices in United States are 47.31% lower than in Switzerland
Local Purchasing Power in United States is 0.26% lower than in Switzerland

Not surprisingly, you have your facts wrong again. The Swiss use the Swiss Franc, not the French Franc. Two, I don’t see how it is relevant that they don’t use the Euro. It just means the Swiss have their own central bank and are responsible for their monetary policies.

According to the OECD the Swiss per capita GDP is $53,733. The savings rate is just under 13%. So using those numbers, Swiss disposable income would be just under 7k per year.

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/country-statistical-profile-switzerland_20752288-table-che

Whatever your point is you start by getting your facts straight (i.e. correct).

 

[iceaura]

Firstly, Switzerland is highly Capitalistic relative to the socialistic countries imploding around it.

Not really. Italy and Germany, with the fascist traditions, would be more or less equivalently capitalistic; Liechtenstein would be more capitalistic; France would be the only neighbor clearly more socialistic than Switzerland. Of those countries only Italy is anywhere near "imploding".

That aside, while you mayh consider German, French and Italian languages as 'multicultural' - IMO it's Euro-centric.

So Europe is mono-cultural? Got to hand it to you, you can still startle.

- -- if you think the USA is anywhere near like Switzerland you're smoking crank.

I was simply pointing out that declaring Switzerland to be mono-cultural was - how to put this - exemplary of the basis of your political philosophy. Also, crank per se is not usually smoked - ice is smoked, crack is smoked, crank is normally snorted or injected or the like.

Do the Swiss have Public Housing slums with generational welfare? No? Gee, I wonder why?

Your wonderment is easily addressed via the intertubes - Switzerland has a long tradition of levying taxes on businesses and rich people to support communist housing cooperatives (http://www.chfcanada.coop/icahousing/pages/membersearch.asp?op=country&id=15 )

Do the Swiss have a minimum wage? No? Gee, I wonder why?

The Swiss have the tenth highest minimum wage on the planet, significantly higher than the US Federal, higher than any of their neighbors except France, from a collective bargaining agreement between labor and management that covers essentially the entire employed population,

and are going to the polls soon to vote on a proposal to guarantee not just a minimum wage but a very generous minimum annual income for all adult citizens, tax financed. The reasoning is it would save them a lot of money overall. (The same reasoning applies to the US, of course, but that cuts no ice with principled and firmly righteous folks like us. We're the folks who are willing to devote 7%-10% of their GDP to the task of denying poor people medical care they cannot afford.)

Y'know, most people who just post their off the cuff rants exhibiting their various delusions and mental kinks do hit fairly close to the physical facts at something approaching random odds. Your ability to be not just wrong, but so remarkably and consistently and flamboyantly wrong, is far beyond what mere chance would account for.

 

[Michael]

You're going to compare Switzerland with the USA? They don't even use the Euro, they use the Swiss Franc.

Not surprisingly, you have your facts wrong again. The Swiss use the Swiss Franc, not the French Franc.

:bugeye:

 

[Michael]

A State is a created entity and it can be good or it can be bad, based on the principles and peoples who run the state.

No, the State is inherently bad. Which is why, for Americans, it was limited. Well, it's no longer limited. When you can't wipe your arse without requiring to pass numerous Federal Regulations - that's not a 'Limited' State.

Once more: Only the State has the legal ability and obligation to initiate force against innocent people. That's is inherently bad.


Stop and think again about the morality police in KSA. While this seems somewhat insane in the USA (although we do have slightly similar organizations in good ole' Free USA) to the people of KSA it's perfectly normal to have morality police. But get this, WHY do they NEED to have the STATE provide morality police? They shouldn't have to. If the people of KSA want to enforce moral code - they are more than capable of doing so via voluntary action and inaction. The fact that the State is being used to enforce a moral code - is good evidence most people do NOT want morality police or do not understand the inherent oxymoron in the very notion of Morality State Police.

You cite all the things that are wrong with foreign States.

I'm using the foreighn States because you are not normalized to their culture - so you can clearly see the inherent immorality. If you were from KSA, you'd just as likely to be singing praises to the King and 'thank's God for the good service of the Morality Police - else we'd corrupt like you Westerners'.

Where your facts are right no one is disagreeing. But it has nothing to do with the Federated state of the United States, which is founded on a principle of separation of powers and religion.

I'm not sure if religion was such a major factor - however the separation of powers was intended to LIMIT the role of the State in our lives. Both federal and local. It's simply NOT limited. You're here in this thread along with nearly every member on the board arguing we need to INCREASE the power of the Federal Government.

At one point you said something to the effect we need to lose Civil Liberties to be 'Free'. You're arguing it's better for the nation if we become less prosperous as a nation. This is insane. It's literally Orwellian double-speak. Which would be interesting if one weren't actually forced to live with the consequences.

One more time, you're arguing "we" (those of us stamped 'American') have to lose our Civil Liberties and by definition become less prosperous - to gain freedom.
Ever hear of doublespeak? It's when language deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Here, I'll show you where you fit in:
War is peace.
Freedom is slavery [loss of civil liberties]
Ignorance is strength.

Seems the voluntary sign up for ACA is improving by the day and making a lot of people very happy, even some who's policy was cancelled and were able to replace the old inadequate policy with a better, cheaper policy. And it did not cost you a penny more than what you now contribute.

(a) It's not voluntary, the State will issue a fine if you do not sign up. You've lost the freedom to live your life without State coercion.

Stop whining about different States in the world and try to make ours work (if you live in the US). Seems you are gonna be stuck in one State or another. Might as well make the most of it and lead a safe and happy long life. A decent arrangement between State and its residents in a civilized country, if you ask me. As you so clearly indicated there are plenty States that are not as benign as the US.

Why should I 'stop whining'. And when did the application of logic become 'whining'? You may not like the conclusion deduction draws - but too bad. Deal with it.


At least we agree on what the word 'State' means.

I'd also like to know your rational for why West Germans were prosperous and East Germans were less prosperous (significantly so). This is in response to your notion we just need to elect the right people. East and West Germany shared geographical location, language, culture, food, holidays, traditions, family values - both people wanted good healthcare, nice food, lots of vacation time - yet East Germans were nearly starving by the end. Their State needed to physically erect barriers to prevent people from 'escaping' their socialist paradise. Why do you think that was the case?

 

[Michael]

The Scandinavian countries went straight through the last recession in good shape, it is the Capitalists that are imploding. And Sweden is no more Capitalist than any of it's neighbors. Only the almost pure Socialists like Greece are having problems, plus ALL of the almost pure Capitalist states. The Scandinavians have the balance right.

My God you live in 100% pure squiggle-induced delusion. Ever read SnowCrash? You may find it illuminating:

I'm curious, why is it that as socialism increases (see: Greece, France, Italy, Spain), national prosperity decreases?

Index of Economic Freedom 2013

rank	country	score
3	Australia	82.6
5	Switzerland	81
9	Denmark	76.1
10	United States	76
16	Fineland	74
17	The Neitherlands	73
18	Swedan	72.9
19	Germany	72.8
48	Spain	46
61	France	64.1
82	Italy	60.9
117	Greece	55.4

(a) The 'Capitalist' countries are not 'imploding'.
(b) The GFC was an example of socialism, not free-markets. The financial markets are more than just 'regulated' they are rigged. We are FORCED to pay a transaction tax on our labor in USD, other countries have their Tax Cattle and they are likewise forced to do the same. This means if you're a well-connected rich banker, you can play with the State's fiat currency, gamble, lose, win, whatever - and the State will be there to bail you out (see: Top 1% racking in ALL the gains in GDP while the bottom 99% lose ground, see: Fed pumping in $100 BILLION PER MONTH blowing up the realestate market, stock market and bonds) through BOND sales that our children (many of whom weren't even born yet) will be forced to pay on once they become a worker / Tax Cattle on the State-run Tax Farm.

The treasury 'officials' (official arse-holes) and PMs and POTUS work in a revolving door from their respective State Governments right into Finance (see: War criminal Tony Blare and his role at JP Morgan).

 

[Michael]

The Swiss have the tenth highest minimum wage on the planet, significantly higher than the US Federal, higher than any of their neighbors except France, from a collective bargaining agreement between labor and management that covers essentially the entire employed population,

So you agree the Switzerland has NO minimum wage written into law. Yes, it does have collective bargaining agreements between individuals and employers. I have no problem with this so long as the employer is a private company. That way when the unions ask for too much, the company can go bust (see: Detroit City and GM). As for Public unions - they are abominations (See: Detroit City and the 13th month free Public "Servant" pay check and 47% functional illiterate Public School graduates). There is no free lunch. Eventually cities go bankrupt. And, if the Government is despicable enough, eventually States themselves fall.

So, yes, Switzerland has a high minimum due to being more capitalistic. See, when you actually have economic freedom (they're ranked 5th in the world), the number of 'workers' goes down because free people are free to try to open up competing businesses and to start up new business models - thus the demand for works increases and wages go up. When you have a lot regulation, and a shitty public school system designed to mass produce factory-worker cogs, the number of workers go up and the price for their labor goes down. Simple supply and demand. Who'd want to open a healthcare business in the USA? Even Google probably thinks it's a waste of time. When you actually do get a product out there people WANT - the FDA shuts you down.


Also, no Italy and Germany 'with their fascist traditions' are not more-or-less similarly capitalistic. Germany is ranked in the top 20 along with the Scandinavian countries and Italy is ranked 82. You do know the Germany has a religious tax? Do you want a religious tax in the USA? You do know the German Chancellor has called 'multiculturalism' a failure?
(See: Angela Merkel: German multiculturalism has 'utterly failed')

The settlers LEFT Europe for a reason. Sadly it seems their descendants have forgotten what that reason was.


Aside:
I noticed you still have not answered the 5 questions I posted in the ethics thread regarding the coffee shop owner, worker and customer.
You also postulated something about not being able to freely crap in a large city - I've asked for your clarification so I can reply. It took me all of about 5 minutes to come up with one solution. Taking a shit and retaining your civil liberties isn't as hard you may think.
Oh, and as for your ad hominem's - they make you look like a troll.



Oh, I'm curious, why is it, do you think socialism is such a failure relative to capitalism? Economically speaking I mean.

 

[Michael]

Some advice to Generation Why? and their millennials kid sisters and brothers, take a page out of your grandparents playbook: Don't trust anyone over 60.

Forbes: Millennials Are Opting Out Of Obamacare Because It's Not Insurance

The problem with this plan is that it hoses young, relatively poor people like me right when we least need high bills for services they’re not using. And it helps older, relatively rich people who should be able to afford the care they need. If America’s downtrodden and struggling young people are smart, they’ll opt out. Then it’ll be up to the federal government to fine them enough to make up for the shortfall

This last bit here - that's us LOSING our Civil Liberties. You can't become more prosperous by losing your civil liberties. By definition you must become LESS prosperous.
While I'm somewhat shocked I'd have to say this (not really, but, you get the point): The path to affordable high quality healthcare is NOT through losing our civil liberties - but by having them RETURNED to us.

 

[Michael]

Harvard University's Institute of Politics

ZeroHedge: A stunning 57% of 18-29 year olds disapprove of Obamacare. As we noted before, this is a critical breakdown in making the Affordable Care Act 'affordable' but it seems less healthy customer are more likely to persevere through the techical obstacle to gain coverage than younger, healthier "customers" who feel less need for insurance (never mind the "easy" women and keg-standing men). The poll gets worse with 40% expecting the quality of their coverage to worsen, and as Bloomberg reports, even more troubling for the White House, almost half in that age group say they’re unlikely to enroll in insurance through a government exchange, even if eligible.​

 

[Michael]

Swedish students unveil invisible helmet

[video=youtube;iQ874aF_BXg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQ874aF_BXg[/video]


*GASP*
Look at all those people riding bikes without helmets. It must make you Progressive AND Conservative Authoritarians shit all over yourselves. How dare they have the right, as adults, to choose NOT to wear a helmet! Don't they read the stats? Didn't they listen to the announcer say a few hundred unnecessary head injuries occur because people don't wear helmets. Well, we in the Authoritarian Party will have to put a stop to this right now!

(note: In AU I've been stopped for once not wearing a helmet, berated a million times for not wearing a helmet while biking less than 5 km/hr on private property where it's up to me - as an adult, to decide, and even yelled at by a police officer for not holding my handle bars while cycling IN THE PARK with no one around on a sidewalk - yeah, he yelled from the road at a stop light "HANDS ON BARS!!!").

See, all you people are talking about how you'd like to go live in Europe, in a Scandinavian country - I actually don't think the Swedish would want you there. You'd f*ck it up. They don't want you there. You'd literally destroy their country as soon as you had a chance to. You simply don't want people to have basic Civil Liberties. You don't want adults to be treated as adults. Instead you want your political betters in the Authoritarian Party to tell you what to do and how to do it. Worse still, you won't let anyone else do what they want to do - you hate free people as ADULTS making their own decisions. I mean, the god damn FDA won't even allow "Free" Americans to take a god damn saliva test because 'you might be too f*cking stupid to know what a false positive is, or make a bad healthcare choice due to your Public School ineptitude and inability to fully read and comprehend the language on the insert - best you leave the thinking to us at the FDA, we're your Nanny). It also reminds me of Japan, when you'll see beer and cigarette vending machines on the side of the road - no way in hell the Authoritarian Party would allow that in the USSA. No F-ing Way. Now pull you magic lever Left or Right and get back in your Tax Pen.


So? The reason I posted this is because this is a GREAT EXAMPLE of Scandinavian freedom leading to a free-market healthcare product - made by young adults: an invisible helmet. This would never BE invented if people didn't have the freedom to not wear a helmet. And the people inventing and selling the helmet AT A PROFIT - care about people. Really care. They care enough to think up this invention. Profit isn't a bad thing. Preventing competition - that IS a bad thing. It's called Crony Capitalism and is the basis of our Fascist economy here in the USA.



I know it's hard to believe FREEDOM leads to cheap healthcare - but it would. If we had a true FREE-MARKET in healthcare goods and services then insurance would be affordable (and sane) and all sorts of new degrees, qualifications, goods and services would arise, ones no one would ever think of and never will because we don't live in a free world. Instead we're Tax Cattle on a Farm with substandard overpriced healthcare. I say substandard relative to what we could have have - had we never resorted to State Force. An example is cancer, millions of people a year dying of cancer. You probably think 'well, that's the best we can do'. It'snot. In a free-market, maybe there'd be no worry at all about cancer. It'd be easily treatable. We don't know, because, thanks to the State Regulated market - we get the healthcare equivalent of functional illiteracy.