Health Care In US & UK,Differences Between Left-Right Views On It & Taxes,Capitalism VS Socialism,Abuse Of Power

[KanryDrago]

Just now, Luna Bliss said:

I must go work on my RL yard before it gets too hot...is starting to look like I'm having a Lovecraft event...

Are you dropping hints you have a tentacle fetish?

[Phorumities]

39 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

How should we help those who are disabled, or how should we fund the building of roads and such?

The thing is, most people are selfish and have trouble looking beyond their own needs, and so some force is needed. Hell even I get upset when I have to write a check for my estimated quarterly tax payment...I'm thinking I need this money for myself and wonder where it might be going to, or if I'd approve who it goes to.

the common refrain of socialists everywhere is that some people are just too greedy and it is governments responsibility to force the well off to share their excess with those that are less well off.

if this is wrong explain how it is wrong

 

Edited July 18, 2018 by Phorumities
fixed a word

[Klytyna]

16 minutes ago, KanryDrago said:

The current uk stats claim for example 16% of working age adults are disabled. Does that seem credible to anyone

Actually, yes because "over 11 million people with a limiting long term illness, impairment or disability" includes "most commonly-reported impairments are those that affect mobility, lifting or carrying", and not everyone with a bad back or arthritic hips etc., a) claims any benefit or b) is entitled to any.

15 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Oh you mean so one side or the other can brag that they created more jobs than the other?

Not really, no... It's more about lying about just how many people right wing un-ecconomics had put out of work...

Empress Thatcher the Mad originally got into power running on a "1.5 million unemployed is too many" ticket, then when in power she put in policies that rapidly forced unemployment up by almost 200 %. People called the unemployed "Maggies Millions".

In 2004... tony the Traitor, stated during Prime Minister's Question Time, that there were 1 million people registered unemployed and in reciept of benefit, and 500,000 "in training for work".

Daily Mail reading Tory voters assumed this mean only 1 million people didn't have jobs and that HALF of those were on training schemes that would get them a job in a couple of months tops.

The Daily Mail readers, were of course, WRONG.

What it actually meant was...

1,000,000 people with no jobs getting Jobseekers Allowance

PLUS

500,000 people with no jobs receiving Income Support (exactly the same amount per week as Jobseekers allowance) & £15 a week "training allowance" (for bus fares etc.), who DID NOT count as officially "Unemployed"

PLUS

An undisclosed number of jobless people who received nothing at all, and DID NOT count as officially "Unemployed"

PLUS 

A significant number of people who had been transfered to the disability register from the unemployed register, for minor complaints BY the Department for Work & Pensions, because "disabled" people "on the sick" DID NOT count as officially "Unemployed"

PLUS...

A large Govt. subcontractor, who were being paid £100 a week per "not  OFFICIALLY unemployed" trainee to provide low cost, worthless make believe training for 13-26 weeks, as a way to hide the real unemployment figures.

26 minutes ago, Phorumities said:

as Margaret Thatcher once said, socialism is wonderful until you run out of other peoples money

Yes, but she also claimed that not owning your own home by age 26 meant you'd failed at Life, and she made a habit of stealing other peoples money (basically everyones) to finance tax cuts for her rich sponsors and voter bribes, via VAT, and selling off national assets at 10 cents on the dollar to her rich sponsors.

She was so insane, that eventually HER OWN PARTY rebeled against her and removed her from office for fear that she was making the Tories "un-electable" forever.

Once they had deposed her, they managed to buy their way to victory for another 8 years, before being ousted by Tony the Traitor, and his pale pink tinged with blue "New Liar Party" for more than a decade...

Reality is that Thatcher was so unpopular, that 60-70% of the electorate would cheerfully have voted for a tax hike to finance public street parties to celebrate Thatcher being burnt at the stake...

 

 

[Klytyna]

11 minutes ago, Phorumities said:

the common refrain of socialists everywhere

And the common refrain of "Libertarians" ?

"Gawd danged Fedral Gubment! They be deprivin meh of mah c*nstitutional rite to shoot the mail man wid mah .30-06 for trespassin on the dirt front of mah trailer home when he delivers mah food stamps! I gonna vote me Republicrat dis lection cos I dunt want no libtard commie Demopublicans taxin mah treble rollover lottery win wot is sure to come up any day now cos i been usin mah food stamps to buy a bunch o tickets every week since Raygun left the Witehaus..."
 

[Phorumities]

7 minutes ago, Klytyna said:

And the common refrain of "Libertarians" ?

"Gawd danged Fedral Gubment! They be deprivin meh of mah c*nstitutional rite to shoot the mail man wid mah .30-06 for trespassin on the dirt front of mah trailer home when he delivers mah food stamps! I gonna vote me Republicrat dis lection cos I dunt want no libtard commie Demopublicans taxin mah treble rollover lottery win wot is sure to come up any day now cos i been usin mah food stamps to buy a bunch o tickets every week since Raygun left the Witehaus..."
 

actually the common refrain of libertarians is that the best government is the one that governs the least.

i personally would vote for any party that promised to do absolutely nothing if they came to power... at least that way things wouldn't get any worse

[Phil Deakins]

2 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

I was reading a website referenced on another thread, and some of the comments explained the reason the NHS in the UK is having problems is because the Tories are underfunding it. It seems the conservatives are trying to trash the system so they can privatize it. Is this true? Is this an example of the 1% trying to control too much so they can profit more?

No it's not true. All parties here spend our taxes on unnecessary things. And all parties don't consider the NHS as a top priority - except during elecyion times, of course. No party would dare to privatise it. They may use private businesses to supply some services. They probably do that now. But the NHS is safe from privatisation. It sound like you've read a very biased article - probably Labour party allegance.

A few weeks ago, the Conservatives announced that they'd be putting an extra £20 billion into the NHS when we're out of the EU.

The Labour party may very well put more money into it, but they only do it by borrowing more. All parties here borrow, and the national debt is horrendous, but the Labour party seem to have been the biggest borrowers of the two though the decades.

 

[Klytyna]

6 minutes ago, Phorumities said:

i personally would vote for any party that promised to do absolutely nothing if they came to power... at least that way things wouldn't get any worse

Which is why, 2 and a 1/4 centuries ago, a bunch of Old money New England Landed Gentry hired some pseudo-intellectual urbanites to devise a governmental system that guaranteed that who ever won an election would be unable to deliver on any of the campaign promises that helped them win, because the OTHER half of the government would be in enemy hands...

A system designed to ensure the system did nothing, thus preserving their agrairian landlords dream of a country made up of tenant farmers living the "little hovel on the prairee" lifestyle while paying most of their earnings to Squire Washington, Squire Jackson, Squire Madison etc.

A country with no standing army for defense, no towns or cities worth talking about, no urbanisation, no industrialisation and certainly no democracy.

A system that had already failed to prevent these things before it had even been written...

Unfortunately, Stagnation does not equal Safety.

The Libertarian Dream was dead before it was born. And you should be thankful for that.

Imagine a Murica with no roads, no police, no schools, no hospitals, no military.

A Murica so impoverished by the Libertarian Heresy that even Canada could kick your ass...  
 

[Phil Deakins]

I'm astonished. I posted the above post after reading only the original post. I was surprised when my reply appeared on page 3, so I read the whole thread. Nobody, but nobody, made any attempt to answer the OP's question - until me, that is. It looks like everyone who posted wants have a political argument, and ignore the question completely.

In view of what happened in 'the other thread', I'm absolutely amazed.

[Phorumities]

3 hours ago, Klytyna said:

Which is why, 2 and a 1/4 centuries ago, a bunch of Old money New England Landed Gentry hired some pseudo-intellectual urbanites to devise a governmental system that guaranteed that who ever won an election would be unable to deliver on any of the campaign promises that helped them win, because the OTHER half of the government would be in enemy hands...

A system designed to ensure the system did nothing, thus preserving their agrairian landlords dream of a country made up of tenant farmers living the "little hovel on the prairee" lifestyle while paying most of their earnings to Squire Washington, Squire Jackson, Squire Madison etc.

A country with no standing army for defense, no towns or cities worth talking about, no urbanisation, no industrialisation and certainly no democracy.

A system that had already failed to prevent these things before it had even been written...

Unfortunately, Stagnation does not equal Safety.

The Libertarian Dream was dead before it was born. And you should be thankful for that.

Imagine a Murica with no roads, no police, no schools, no hospitals, no military.

A Murica so impoverished by the Libertarian Heresy that even Canada could kick your ass...  
 

America was founded on the principles of certain inalienable rights, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is government's responsibility to protect and defend those rights.

Happiness was never guaranteed, neither was success, and nowhere did it even hint that it was the government's duty or responsibility to declare that some people had too much and it was their job to confiscate any excess and give it to those that didn't have enough.

 

[Phorumities]

3 hours ago, Phil Deakins said:

No it's not true. All parties here spend our taxes on unnecessary things. And all parties don't consider the NHS as a top priority - except during elecyion times, of course. No party would dare to privatise it. They may use private businesses to supply some services. They probably do that now. But the NHS is safe from privatisation. It sound like you've read a very biased article - probably Labour party allegance.

A few weeks ago, the Conservatives announced that they'd be putting an extra £20 billion into the NHS when we're out of the EU.

The Labour party may very well put more money into it, but they only do it by borrowing more. All parties here borrow, and the national debt is horrendous, but the Labour party seem to have been the biggest borrowers of the two though the decades.

 

So it's okay to keep spending money we don't have to prop up failing socialist ideals? How big can the debt become before it all comes crashing down?

Sure people can keep yammering on about making the rich pay more, they still aren't paying their fair share, but what happens when the rich are bled white and there's nothing more to take?

There has to be an end at some point.

Unfortunately it will end as it always ends, in misery, death, and destruction

 

 

[Phorumities]

5 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

Why do you always interject your political views into various topics then?

It seems that when you can't flesh out your argument well, as in the other thread, you report it as off-topic.  I would bet my life it was you who did that.

You lose sweetie. I never report threads as being off topic. Off topic threads are the only ones I find that are really worth posting to.

The only "problem" in the forums is that I keep poking the hive mind with a stick and the drones don't like it. 

 

[Madelaine McMasters]

9 minutes ago, Phorumities said:

So it's okay to keep spending money we don't have to prop up failing socialist ideals? How big can the debt become before it all comes crashing down?

Sure people can keep yammering on about making the rich pay more, they still aren't paying their fair share, but what happens when the rich are bled white and there's nothing more to take?

There has to be an end at some point.

Unfortunately it will end as it always ends, in misery, death, and destruction

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/09/the-happiest-countries-in-the-world-also-pay-a-lot-in-taxes.html

http://datastories.com/gallery/happiness-index

Edited July 18, 2018 by Madelaine McMasters

[Coffee Pancake]

3 minutes ago, Phorumities said:

You lose sweetie. I never report threads as being off topic. Off topic threads are the only ones I find that are really worth posting to.

The only "problem" in the forums is that I keep poking the hive mind with a stick and the drones don't like it. 

 

Then you're on the wrong forum.

[Phil Deakins]

42 minutes ago, Phorumities said:

How big can the debt become before it all comes crashing down?

It's not ok in my book to keep on borrowing. Both parties here have continually dug that hole, and the hole is very very deep. The best that either party offers is to cut the rate at which the hole gets deeper.

The NHS, which is what this thread is about, has suffered, and still suffers, because neither party has it as a top priority - except when the elections come round, as I said before. At those times they all con the people by giving assurances that they immediately slide down the priority scale as soon as they get elected.

The NHS suffers through a lack of adequate funding.

[Coffee Pancake]

The NHS is a bottomless pit, so no matter how much money gets put in there will always be hunger pains, it will always be possible to provide better and faster care and the goal posts for what defines that are constantly moving further away. The end result is the NHS constantly improves in real terms but moans about it the whole time.

From a political perspective the NHS is too important to fail, so it's easy to make a lot of noise about improving it or imposing ideological perspectives on how it should be run.

[Phorumities]

3 hours ago, Phil Deakins said:

It's not ok in my book to keep on borrowing. Both parties here have continually dug that hole, and the hole is very very deep. The best that either party offers is to cut the rate at which the hole gets deeper.

The NHS, which is what this thread is about, has suffered, and still suffers, because neither party has it as a top priority - except when the elections come round, as I said before. At those times they all con the people by giving assurances that they immediately slide down the priority scale as soon as they get elected.

The NHS suffers through a lack of adequate funding.

Ok its not ok to keep borrowing and building debt to provide for social programs and benefits.

What is the solution?

Perhaps the government should take over everything, including the means of production.

Once private profit is removed from the equation, all that profit can be used for the public good, and finally the goal of an egalitarian society free from unmet needs can be achieved, based entirely on the concept of from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.

What, what was that you said? What about wants? Silly comrade, wants have no place in our brave new utopia, wants are simply misguided bourgeois desires, perhaps a session of re-education will restore you to a proper state of mind.

Once upon a time, people had the silly notion that a piece of garden to putter around in was a need, when real needs were being unmet. 

 

Edited July 19, 2018 by Phorumities

[Fionalein]

4 hours ago, Phorumities said:

You lose sweetie. I never report threads as being off topic. Off topic threads are the only ones I find that are really worth posting to.

The only "problem" in the forums is that I keep poking the hive mind with a stick and the drones don't like it. 

Wait that is your idea of fun? I mean we all suspected but thanks for admitting what you are...

[Phorumities]

4 minutes ago, Fionalein said:

Wait that is your idea of fun? I mean we all suspected but thanks for admitting what you are...

It's not my fault that my beliefs and opinions are in variance to the majority of users in here.

These days anyone that expresses an opinion contrary to the hive mind is called a troll.

"all suspected"? 

yes yes its the hive mind at work

Edited July 19, 2018 by Phorumities
added a line

[Coffee Pancake]

2 minutes ago, Phorumities said:

These days anyone that expresses an opinion contrary to the hive mind is called a troll.

 

You said it ... deliberately making comments intended to inflame or provoke a reaction from a wider community for your own amusement..... 

[Phorumities]

5 minutes ago, CoffeeDujour said:

You said it ... deliberately making comments intended to inflame or provoke a reaction from a wider community for your own amusement..... 

I post legitimate opinions. It's really not my fault if others are inflamed or provoked into a reaction.

People are always free to skip over my posts, or even block me.

There is never any reason for any inflamed or provoked reaction, unless you wish to be inflamed or provoked.

 

[Tari Landar]

9 hours ago, CoffeeDujour said:

Lego bricks and bare feet ? Winner gets to keep the bricks.

I am a PRO at lego walking-I can do it with my eyes closed...I got this

 

[ellestones]

9 hours ago, Phorumities said:

the common refrain of socialists everywhere is that some people are just too greedy and it is governments responsibility to force the well off to share their excess with those that are less well off.

if this is wrong explain how it is wrong

 

whats wrong is labeling everything to the political left of us as socialist. When we do this it shows our lack of education

the socialist refrain is not to force the well off to share their excess with the less well off. Taxing the rich to pay for the less well of is a tenet of centrist capitalism. As are all taxpayer-funded social services. The tenet of centrist capitalism is that in a market-driven society then at any given time some people are doing well, and others are not. Centrist capitalism taxation systems are designed to ameliorate the excesses

socialism puts the means of wealth generation into co-operative common ownership. When so then there is no taxation system

within the socialist model of common ownership, wealth distribution is according to the tenet: The labourer is worthy of their hire. Some hires, leading hand for example is worth more than a hammer hand. The leading hand is compensated accordingly

stepping left to the communist model. Wealth distribution is according to the tenet: Each according to their needs. This is a different wealth distribution value proposition to the socialist tenet

an explanation of socialism in a functioning realworld case. My bank is socialist. The ownership of the bank is vested in the account holders, we own the bank in common. There are no bank shares as found in the capitalist model. We pay our CEO more than we pay the bank tellers

if you want to dispute socialism vs capitalism then do so with the understanding that the difference isn't about who gets what share of the wealth. Its about ownership

 
i would suggest a book to you @Phorumites, and anyone else reading who does want to brush up on their general knowledge: 'Sapiens' by Yuval Noah Harari. It explores pretty much every aspect of the development of humanity since the beginning up to the present generation. Is a good read, is thought provoking, and is written with the layperson reader in mind

then read the followup book: 'Homo Deus' by the same author, which posulates what the alternate futures for humanity might be. Including topics which quite a few SL residents are interested in. Stuff like singularity, human-machine interfaces, human-nonhuman biological interfaces, machine intelligence, auomation, etc. And the structural and social implications which might result from these
 

 

[Madelaine McMasters]

1 hour ago, Phorumities said:

I post legitimate opinions.

Is there any other kind?

[MoiraKathleen]

1 hour ago, Phorumities said:

I post legitimate opinions

I don't doubt that you believe you are posting legitimate opinions.  However posting opinions that differ from those of others in the discussion can be done in a manner that facilitates discussion and learning by both sides,  or it can be done in a manner which hopes that the others in the discussion will be provoked (in which case the discussion turns into a game by the one hoping to provoke others). 

[Aethelwine]

10 hours ago, Phorumities said:

America was founded on the principles of certain inalienable rights, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is government's responsibility to protect and defend those rights.

Happiness was never guaranteed, neither was success, and nowhere did it even hint that it was the government's duty or responsibility to declare that some people had too much and it was their job to confiscate any excess and give it to those that didn't have enough.

 

The USA founding declaration in the very first sentence contradicts you..."We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. "

The fact of the matter is the USA was founded on the Lockean principle of a Social Contract.