OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:

quote:

---

Besides, the Canadian system is based on what is essentially thievery.

Thievery? You certainly have little concept of the law.

---

Oh, I'm aware of it. In fact, it's worse than thievery. At least thievery is illegal and when thieves try to rob you, they risk their own health and well-being for their gains. Politicians are worse than thieves: They make it LEGAL to rob you.

The difference here is that the people who "can't afford" *ANY* health care whatsoever are clearly nonparticipants in the system. If they can't be bothered to actually scrape together the entry fee to participate, it's unreasonable to expect them to be counted.

Are they citizens or residents of the country? Yes? Then they certainly are a member of the population of tha country, and are certainly participants in the system. I love how you've going to such great lengths to disguise the fact that you're saying "Oh, those people don't count because they are poor. Here, take a look at what you can buy if you're one of the wealthiest people."

quote:

---

Take the Zaire example: Wealthy people living in Zaire leave the country for their treatment, because the health care system in Zaire is such that they cannot *GET* that treatment in Zaire, regardless of how much money they'd actually spend there.

Thank you for proving my point. You've just included the part of the population that can't afford health care when determining the state of Zaire's system. How come these people don't matter when it comes to the U.S.?

---

I didn't say that: I was pointing out exactly the same thing: That the healthcare system in Zaire obviously sucks, because anyone who feels like spending actual money on their own health....LEAVES THE COUNTRY! Obviously, they can't get what they want in Zaire. What does this have to do with the fact that many people in Zaire can't afford to do this? It doesn't change the fact that the system sucks, because obviously, anyone who cares to afford to get out does so.

Why would I be appalled? My share of any such treatments would amount to tens of dollars at most over the course of a year.

It's the principle of the matter! Give an inch, and they take a mile. Have you no sense of principle anymore? What is wrong with you people?!?

And here we see the continued usage of the "lazy people" argument.

You still can't demonstrate what is *WRONG* with the lazy people argument. Clearly, by their own problems, they demonstrate that they are stupid, lazy, and/or incompetent. Otherwise they'd have dealt with this on their own!

This is nothing more than paranoia on top of fear, uncertainty and doubt, coupled with your acceptance of spoonfed propaganda. You have no reason to be afraid of the vast majority of other humans.

The only difference between something that can go wrong, and something that can't possibly go wrong, is that when the latter goes wrong, it usually proves impossible to fix.

Apathy is the same thing as laziness.

Not really. I'm normally an industrious person, but there are some things I just don't give a rat's *** about. If they go wrong, I don't care. I have things I actually care about, and that ain't one of them. If it goes wrong, I let it go wrong. And hey, it's only a problem if you make it a problem.

That a person may be incompet and stupid is no reason to throw them to the wolves and let them die.

Throwing would imply that some sort of action was taken. This is not the case. If they make their own bed, let them lie in it. Maybe they'll reconsider. But that is not my problem.

I'm always amazed at how many smokescreens and red herrings people will throw up to try and direct attention away from the fact that they are willing to be responsible for the deaths of others through easily preventable causes.

You assume that we need every Last person we can get, and that the world is not overpopulated. We don't, and it is. If some people choose to voluntarily remove themselves from the herd through their own actions, why should I stop them? My resources are better bestowed upon those I feel are worthy of them. I'd rather give my money to somebody I feel is deserving of it, rather than some slacker who dug his own grave and deserves to lie in it.

Originally posted by Arryn:
Let me understand this. You prefer a higher crime rate, so long as you get to be involved with it and shoot back? Taken to a logical extreme, you'd prefer LOTS of crime, and Old West-style vigilante justice to a (utopian) society of no crime and no gun ownership?

Absolutely. Fight crime: Shoot back. It'd be nice to have a utopian society with "no crime" and no gun ownership, but I keep having nasty 1984 and Brave New World flashbacks whenever I think of that idea, and frankly, it gives me the willies. It's entirely contrary to human nature. Be real. At least life would be interesting.

Yes, I know about the old adage "an armed society is a polite society", but we're already a heavily-armed society ... that's anything but polite, and getting less so by the day.

That's because things have been downhill ever since duelling was Banned. Besides, the Swiss are well-armed. They don't have any problems. Clearly, there are other factors at work which promote the violence in America, and given that it exists, apparently independently of how heavily armed we are....would you rather be heavily armed, or would you rather that only criminals be heavily armed?

Oh, and before you accuse me of something, I own a now-Banned assault weapon, and I'm a damn good shot (used to be an expert marksman in the Army).

I approve.

But I'd much rather not *have* to keep an arsenal at home for fear of my fellow citizens.

What's wrong with having an arsenal at home? It never hurts to be prepared for when the revolution comes. A good gun is like a pair of comfortable pants. Never leave home without it.

Originally posted by Arryn:
Norfy, I'm surprised you haven't made the Darwinian argument against the social safety net of universal healthcare: the weak, the lazy, and the inept die off, preferably before they breed, and the gene pool gets cleansed. Or were you working up to this?

What, I haven't implied this sufficiently? How direct do you need me to be?