Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-15-2008, 09:36 PM
 
Location: Your mind
2,935 posts, read 4,990,458 times
Reputation: 604

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by dunkel25 View Post
It's not nearly an exaggeration...I wish it were. What happens when I refuse to pay taxes because I disagree with how the tax money is spent? I am arrested at gunpoint and thrown in jail.

When I do not have control over the fruits of my labor, I am not free. If the government can come take money away from me to give to someone else, I do not have freedom. What freedom is left when I do not even control my own labor? It is unfortunate when bad things happen to people, but it is more unfortunate when people feel justified in stealing from others to cover their own shortcomings.
By that reckoning there will never be true "freedom" unless we live in an anarchic, stateless society with no compulsorily-supported government at all, in which case capitalism as we know it will cease to exist and be replaced by rule by those with the most power and guns, in which case you would have very little control over the "fruits of your labor" at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-15-2008, 09:46 PM
 
Location: Your mind
2,935 posts, read 4,990,458 times
Reputation: 604
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf View Post
I raised the point, and it was hardly a scream. I simply felt that rating France as the best at "preventable deaths", while ignoring the 2003 public health disaster there, was an indication of irresponsible (or certainly less than disinterested) research. I still do.

For the umpteenth time: our own country, given its vast expanses and geographical diversity, its varied and partially unidentified population, and urban areas much more heavily populated than many of the countries compared in the study, does quite well at providing a high level of medical care. It is also the source of the highest number of Nobel Prize winners in medicine, and by far the leader in reserarch, development, and advances in therapy, treatment, and diagnosis in most fields of medicine.

Is America perfect? No. Does American public health policy need improvement? Of course. But comparing our country to smaller, more homogeneous, less populous, and culturally different nations is of limited value in the conversation, except for those who do little besides bash America -- while enjoying its excellent medical care and quality of life.
Was the study done in 2003? If not, it would make sense to "ignore" the incident if it fell outside of the time frame in order to coincide with the study's criteria... I doubt that the researchers intentionally manipulated the criteria to make France look better than it should... I'm not conspiratorial like that.

And, while it's true that it's difficult to make international comparisons given the varying demographics, poverty, etc., "difficult" does not mean "impossible," and most of the research I've seen has pointed to factors other than the ones you mention (lack of universal health insurance, inequities in care, less emphasis on prevention) as likely reasons for the discrepancy... given that they're researchers and not politicians, I'm inclined to believe that they took the varying sizes and diversities of the different countries into account before making those claims. You can go on and on and on about how it's impossible to compare healthcare systems by looking at their apparent results, but remember that the next time you, or someone around you, makes the unqualified and unsubstantiated claim that the US has "the best healthcare in the world."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2008, 09:52 PM
 
1,080 posts, read 1,708,192 times
Reputation: 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishmonger View Post
By that reckoning there will never be true "freedom" unless we live in an anarchic, stateless society with no compulsorily-supported government at all, in which case capitalism as we know it will cease to exist and be replaced by rule by those with the most power and guns, in which case you would have very little control over the "fruits of your labor" at all.
How reactionary of you.

Here's a clue...we can have order and freedom at the same time. We had no real income tax in our country for over 100 years and managed to do just fine. Yes, a lot of people probably suffered and died due to lack of government programs (), but somehow we survived as a country.

The role of the government is to protect me from you and you from me...I don't think that mandate includes stealing money from me to buy someone an air conditioner. Call me crazy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2008, 10:01 PM
 
Location: Your mind
2,935 posts, read 4,990,458 times
Reputation: 604
There has always been compulsory taxation in this country, it just rested more on the shoulders of the poor (tarrifs, excises) than it does now. The goofy eye roll face directed at the extreme and widespread poverty that existed in this country from the Great Depression backwards says a lot. "Yeah, maybe there would be more poverty and maybe more people would be homeless and die earlier but it's way more important that the government doesn't spend my taxes on anything except for the millitary and police (and firemen, but only in the case of arson, of course) in order to fit my ideological conception of what the perfect state should do and not do, according to that awesome book Atlas Shrugged (any book with more than 1,000 pages HAS to be right) that I read that explained to me how everyone who has less than me is probably evil + lazy and wants to mooch off of me, this being the defining characteristic of those not endowed with awesome superior human worth, aka the "Looters" and "Moochers"."

Also, "The only role of the government is to prevent people from stealing from or physically hurting one another" is a very convenient political philosophy for those for whom being stolen from is the only potential economic calamity they're likely to ever have a chance of facing. Not so convenient for everyone else...

Last edited by fishmonger; 01-15-2008 at 10:22 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2008, 07:01 AM
 
1,080 posts, read 1,708,192 times
Reputation: 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishmonger View Post
There has always been compulsory taxation in this country, it just rested more on the shoulders of the poor (tarrifs, excises) than it does now. The goofy eye roll face directed at the extreme and widespread poverty that existed in this country from the Great Depression backwards says a lot. "Yeah, maybe there would be more poverty and maybe more people would be homeless and die earlier but it's way more important that the government doesn't spend my taxes on anything except for the millitary and police (and firemen, but only in the case of arson, of course) in order to fit my ideological conception of what the perfect state should do and not do, according to that awesome book Atlas Shrugged (any book with more than 1,000 pages HAS to be right) that I read that explained to me how everyone who has less than me is probably evil + lazy and wants to mooch off of me, this being the defining characteristic of those not endowed with awesome superior human worth, aka the "Looters" and "Moochers"."

Also, "The only role of the government is to prevent people from stealing from or physically hurting one another" is a very convenient political philosophy for those for whom being stolen from is the only potential economic calamity they're likely to ever have a chance of facing. Not so convenient for everyone else...
Atlas Shrugged was a good book.

And, emotional apppeals aside, you have failed to give a single compelling argument for its my responsibility to supply you with an air conditioner. If you have a hard time during a heat wave, I hate it for you, but it is not my fault, so why should I be responsible for fixing it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2008, 07:50 AM
 
19,198 posts, read 31,406,452 times
Reputation: 4013
Quote:
Originally Posted by dunkel25 View Post
Atlas Shrugged was a good book.
Atlas Shrugged was a good book that has been grossly misinterpreted by some to imply a license to self-absorbed, anti-social, egomania.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2008, 08:33 AM
 
Location: Your mind
2,935 posts, read 4,990,458 times
Reputation: 604
Quote:
Originally Posted by dunkel25 View Post
Atlas Shrugged was a good book.

And, emotional apppeals aside, you have failed to give a single compelling argument for its my responsibility to supply you with an air conditioner. If you have a hard time during a heat wave, I hate it for you, but it is not my fault, so why should I be responsible for fixing it?
It's not your fault if someone robs another person, or if Kansas's National Guard invades and occupies Nebraska... why should you be expected to help protect the one person from getting robbed or Nebraska from being absorbed into Kansas to become Kanbraska? It's not your fault, so why care? Why should you be expected to help?

Another weird conservative arguing trick is to always construe the person arguing in favor of social programs as wanting to partake in them themselves, aka "Why should I have to supply YOU with an air conditioner?" You shouldn't have to supply ME, personally, with anything. It's a straw man. "Why should I be expected to pitch in to help keep elderly poor people I don't know from dying from a heat wave" doesn't have the same obvious, commonsense ring to it though.

Last edited by fishmonger; 01-16-2008 at 09:00 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2008, 09:03 AM
 
1,080 posts, read 1,708,192 times
Reputation: 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishmonger View Post
It's not your fault if someone robs another person, or if Kansas's National Guard invades and occupies Nebraska... why should you be expected to help protect the one person from getting robbed or Nebraska from being absorbed into Kansas to become Kanbraska? It's not your fault, so why care? Why should you be expected to help?
Because the legitimate purpose of government is to protect its citizens from that kind of thing. A heat wave is not a foreign invader.

Quote:
Another weird conservative arguing trick is to always construe the person arguing in favor of social programs as wanting to partake in them themselves, aka "Why should I have to supply YOU with an air conditioner?" You shouldn't have to supply ME, personally, with anything. It's a straw man.
lol,i don't care if its you, the guy down the street, or my aunt marge, its still not right.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2008, 09:22 AM
 
Location: Your mind
2,935 posts, read 4,990,458 times
Reputation: 604
Quote:
Originally Posted by dunkel25 View Post
Because the legitimate purpose of government is to protect its citizens from that kind of thing. A heat wave is not a foreign invader.
According to God, Jesus, Muhammad, Ghandi, Buddha, Ben Franklin, "the Force," Aristotle, Socrates, Jack Handy, the Torah, Confucius, J.K. Rowling, the Egyptian Sun-God Ra, Oprah, Dr. Phil, George Orwell, Abraham Lincoln, Robert E. Lee, Moses, the Pope, the Queen of England, Barney, the Teletubbies, Teddy Roosevelt, Mother Theresa, or Albert Einstein,

or according to primarily Ayn Rand, Ron Paul, and the Mises Institute? Why would a freeze-over devised by radical Eskimo separatists be any more your responsibility to help defend people against than a heat wave devised by nature? Would you support helping defend people against a heat wave if you thought it was caused by Satan (or the Thetans), therefore being an "act of aggression?" If the Eskimos attacked wouldn't people still have the same "responsibility to suck it up and buy a heater, I'm not going to help you, you should have anticipated the attack?"

Quote:
lol,i don't care if its you, the guy down the street, or my aunt marge, its still not right.
According to your spirit guide?

Last edited by fishmonger; 01-16-2008 at 09:31 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2008, 09:41 AM
 
Location: Near Manito
20,170 posts, read 24,264,523 times
Reputation: 15285
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishmonger View Post
Was the study done in 2003? If not, it would make sense to "ignore" the incident if it fell outside of the time frame in order to coincide with the study's criteria... I doubt that the researchers intentionally manipulated the criteria to make France look better than it should... I'm not conspiratorial like that.
If you have looked at the OP, you will note that the study was released this year, and specifically addressed a two-year period, 2002-2003. It also conveniently ignored deaths of people over age 75, which would exclude a large number of the deaths in France during the summer of 2003 from consideration. Conspiratorial? You decide. From the tone of one of the two (!) researchers involved (again, I refer to the article), I would infer that anti-American bias played a significant role.

Quote:
And, while it's true that it's difficult to make international comparisons given the varying demographics, poverty, etc., "difficult" does not mean "impossible," and most of the research I've seen has pointed to factors other than the ones you mention (lack of universal health insurance, inequities in care, less emphasis on prevention) as likely reasons for the discrepancy... given that they're researchers and not politicians, I'm inclined to believe that they took the varying sizes and diversities of the different countries into account before making those claims. You can go on and on and on about how it's impossible to compare healthcare systems by looking at their apparent results, but remember that the next time you, or someone around you, makes the unqualified and unsubstantiated claim that the US has "the best healthcare in the world."
You may incline as you wish. I would need to see a more detailed analysis before I accepted your view of the unbiased nature of the report -- or any report -- prepared by Europeans and comparing Europe to America, in the currently toxic anti-American climate there. As far as "going on and on" is concerned, there is no one "around me". I am alone here at the keyboard. But I can assure you that I have never made the claim that "America has the best healthcare in the world". Given the abundance of variables involved, such a claim would be impossible to substantiate -- just as reporting that "America has the 19th best healthcare system" is, on the face of it, an absurd statement...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:38 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top