Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Mad Dogs and Englishmen


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Mad Dogs and Englishmen Page: <<   < prev  8 9 10 [11] 12   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Mad Dogs and Englishmen - 12/7/2014 8:58:51 PM   
ThirdWheelWanted


Posts: 391
Joined: 4/23/2014
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
2) The young girl told you she had six kids but was under twenty.......
4) The Pakistani immigrant who had only been here a week told you he had three wives and fifteen kids........ he also told you about his new fully furnished, six bedroom house, made from two houses being knocked into one, and told you he had a giro for £1,000

I am still telling you its bollocks, neither of the above make sense. Under twenty and six kids ? Been in the UK a week and telling a total stranger his good fortune. You can kid yourself but you are not kidding me, nor many others for that matter.


I don't know whether the story is true or not, but you're making it seem like someone having 6 kids that young is completely impossible. It all depends on just when they got started, and how many they cranked out after that. When I first met my wife's niece, she was 19 and had 5 kids. If I remember correctly, she had her first at 13. She had another two by 15. That's when her parent's gave in and put her on the pill. They wouldn't before that because it would be "condoning her behavior". She had here next two even after the pill, because she didn't take them every day, just when she planned on having sex. If she hadn't smartened up, she could easily have had another before she was 20. So while it's certainly not the norm, it's not impossible.


(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 201
RE: Mad Dogs and Englishmen - 12/8/2014 1:01:15 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
And Desi, you're missing the point again.
The NHS is funded from the general tax pot, not just N.I. That tax pot has many inputs.
In your example, the 2% could be from any of the other tax sources, or more likely, from a mixture of many.
The thing is, it isn't relevant; all that matters is that it doesn't come from the personal pocket.
How the government fund it or where those funds come from isn't the issue.
The fundamental thing is the cost to the individual - which is where the US tops the bill.


I think you're missing yet another point. Where do all your taxes come from, if not the "personal pocket?"


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to freedomdwarf1)
Profile   Post #: 202
RE: Mad Dogs and Englishmen - 12/8/2014 1:38:46 AM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
And Desi, you're missing the point again.
The NHS is funded from the general tax pot, not just N.I. That tax pot has many inputs.
In your example, the 2% could be from any of the other tax sources, or more likely, from a mixture of many.
The thing is, it isn't relevant; all that matters is that it doesn't come from the personal pocket.
How the government fund it or where those funds come from isn't the issue.
The fundamental thing is the cost to the individual - which is where the US tops the bill.


I think you're missing yet another point. Where do all your taxes come from, if not the "personal pocket?"



Clearly the NHS is funded by tax payers, and on which tax these funds depends is pretty much irrelevant: it is funded through a stream of tax revenues to the government.

I'm not really sure why tax percentages and the like are so important here.

I think it's readily understood that under the English system the taxpayer pays and everyone can access the NHS. There are drawbacks with the main being the healthy will pay for the unhealthy, including for alcohol, drug, smoking related health problems etc.

In the United States, correct me here if I'm wrong, health care is largely a private affair. There are drawbacks with the main one being that if you're on the breadline access to health care is unaffordable.

I'd guess that if you have a few quid then the more beneficial system would be the US one simply because generally where there's profit involved the service will improve (although this certainly wasn't the case in my one and only experience in a US hospital), and if you don't then the English one.

Take your pick in terms of which you prefer: you could make a decent case for both depending upon political standpoint.



_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 203
RE: Mad Dogs and Englishmen - 12/8/2014 10:02:22 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
And Desi, you're missing the point again.
The NHS is funded from the general tax pot, not just N.I. That tax pot has many inputs.
In your example, the 2% could be from any of the other tax sources, or more likely, from a mixture of many.
The thing is, it isn't relevant; all that matters is that it doesn't come from the personal pocket.
How the government fund it or where those funds come from isn't the issue.
The fundamental thing is the cost to the individual - which is where the US tops the bill.

I think you're missing yet another point. Where do all your taxes come from, if not the "personal pocket?"

Clearly the NHS is funded by tax payers, and on which tax these funds depends is pretty much irrelevant: it is funded through a stream of tax revenues to the government.
I'm not really sure why tax percentages and the like are so important here.
I think it's readily understood that under the English system the taxpayer pays and everyone can access the NHS. There are drawbacks with the main being the healthy will pay for the unhealthy, including for alcohol, drug, smoking related health problems etc.
In the United States, correct me here if I'm wrong, health care is largely a private affair. There are drawbacks with the main one being that if you're on the breadline access to health care is unaffordable.
I'd guess that if you have a few quid then the more beneficial system would be the US one simply because generally where there's profit involved the service will improve (although this certainly wasn't the case in my one and only experience in a US hospital), and if you don't then the English one.
Take your pick in terms of which you prefer: you could make a decent case for both depending upon political standpoint.


In the US, private insurance covers more people than public (government) insurance, but government spending is, roughly, half of all health care spending.

Private insurance covers, roughly, 65% of Americans. The uninsured are, roughly, 16% of the population, and public insurance covers about 31% of the population (it is possible to be covered both by public insurance and private insurance, leading to the percentages adding up to over 100%).

Here's the problem, as I see it. It's extremely difficult for the vast majority of Americans to afford necessary health care. Health insurance is there to help make it less economically painful. Now, however, health insurance itself is extremely difficult for most Americans to afford (because the cost of care keep going up and up and up). Obamacare isn't about "affordable healthcare." It's all about shifting the cost of insurance to those who make more money. That doesn't reduce the cost of care. It doesn't even reduce the cost of insurance. It just shifts the costs around. And, if an employer covers its employees with a policy that is "too good" that employer has to pay a tax penalty (instead of rewarding an employer for offering excellent coverage, it's penalized).

If our costs were where they are in Germany, fewer people would need insurance to afford care, and more people would be able to afford insurance (it would cost less since the cost of care is lower).

FD made the claim that it's only about 8% of income. That it's 12% is not the bone of contention, either. It's 12% of income (over the nontaxable limit), but it's also costing employers. What would wages have been if employers didn't have to pay that? Would wages have risen, prices of the products made lowered, or would profits simply have gone up?



_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 204
RE: Mad Dogs and Englishmen - 12/8/2014 10:43:49 AM   
freedomdwarf1


Posts: 6845
Joined: 10/23/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
And Desi, you're missing the point again.
The NHS is funded from the general tax pot, not just N.I. That tax pot has many inputs.
In your example, the 2% could be from any of the other tax sources, or more likely, from a mixture of many.
The thing is, it isn't relevant; all that matters is that it doesn't come from the personal pocket.
How the government fund it or where those funds come from isn't the issue.
The fundamental thing is the cost to the individual - which is where the US tops the bill.


I think you're missing yet another point. Where do all your taxes come from, if not the "personal pocket?"


Not everyone pays income tax - that is one huge bonus point.
Taxes also come from corporations, employers, tax on profits, road tax, tax on investments, VAT, and many other sources.


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
In the US, private insurance covers more people than public (government) insurance, but government spending is, roughly, half of all health care spending.

Private insurance covers, roughly, 65% of Americans. The uninsured are, roughly, 16% of the population, and public insurance covers about 31% of the population (it is possible to be covered both by public insurance and private insurance, leading to the percentages adding up to over 100%).

See my post with the graphs: http://www.collarchat.com/m_4751631/mpage_17/key_/tm.htm#4757697

US Healthcare coverage: 53.1% (private), 31.8% (public), 84.9% total.


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Here's the problem, as I see it. It's extremely difficult for the vast majority of Americans to afford necessary health care. Health insurance is there to help make it less economically painful. Now, however, health insurance itself is extremely difficult for most Americans to afford (because the cost of care keep going up and up and up). Obamacare isn't about "affordable healthcare." It's all about shifting the cost of insurance to those who make more money. That doesn't reduce the cost of care. It doesn't even reduce the cost of insurance. It just shifts the costs around. And, if an employer covers its employees with a policy that is "too good" that employer has to pay a tax penalty (instead of rewarding an employer for offering excellent coverage, it's penalized).

If our costs were where they are in Germany, fewer people would need insurance to afford care, and more people would be able to afford insurance (it would cost less since the cost of care is lower).

Germany has 88.9% public healthcare and 11% private.
That makes 99.9% total coverage; most of which is publicly funded.
That's why it's cheaper than the US.

No matter how you slice the cake, publicly funded healthcare is cheaper all round and to the individual than insurance based private healthcare.
Why is this??? Because the profiteering is cut out of the loop!

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
FD made the claim that it's only about 8% of income. That it's 12% is not the bone of contention, either. It's 12% of income (over the nontaxable limit), but it's also costing employers. What would wages have been if employers didn't have to pay that? Would wages have risen, prices of the products made lowered, or would profits simply have gone up?

It's swings and roundabouts.

If employers didn't pay their bit, profits would rise, yes.
But, they would pay corporation tax on those profits instead of paying towards healthcare - which is usually at a higher rate.
Wages probably wouldn't rise by any appreciable degree either.
End result: A few pennies wage increase but huge rises in healthcare costs.
Which system gives you better value for money??
Think about it.
As an employer or employee, you are better off with publicly funded healthcare.


< Message edited by freedomdwarf1 -- 12/8/2014 10:44:37 AM >

_____________________________

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
George Orwell, 1903-1950


(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 205
RE: Mad Dogs and Englishmen - 12/8/2014 11:14:05 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
And Desi, you're missing the point again.
The NHS is funded from the general tax pot, not just N.I. That tax pot has many inputs.
In your example, the 2% could be from any of the other tax sources, or more likely, from a mixture of many.
The thing is, it isn't relevant; all that matters is that it doesn't come from the personal pocket.
How the government fund it or where those funds come from isn't the issue.
The fundamental thing is the cost to the individual - which is where the US tops the bill.

I think you're missing yet another point. Where do all your taxes come from, if not the "personal pocket?"

Not everyone pays income tax - that is one huge bonus point.
Taxes also come from corporations, employers, tax on profits, road tax, tax on investments, VAT, and many other sources.


Unless you do pay income tax, then you're paying a higher rate than those that don't pay in any.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to freedomdwarf1)
Profile   Post #: 206
RE: Mad Dogs and Englishmen - 12/8/2014 11:47:17 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		And that is a tautology in any space-time continuum, on this planet, and all others. It is a distinction without a difference in the (at least) three-dimensional space we find ourselves surrounded by.

This ain't physics.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 207
RE: Mad Dogs and Englishmen - 12/8/2014 12:02:54 PM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

FD made the claim that it's only about 8% of income. That it's 12% is not the bone of contention, either. It's 12% of income (over the nontaxable limit), but it's also costing employers. What would wages have been if employers didn't have to pay that? Would wages have risen, prices of the products made lowered, or would profits simply have gone up?



Clearly money would be freed up. Say you earn £40k a year, which I'm guessing is around 60,000 dollars, around 25% of that is taxed in PAYE and NI.

So, any tax freed up - you're relying on the principles of the company. Do they invest in their main resource, their employees, or do they set it aside for the annual bonus?

It is costing employers, I think the figure is around 12%. They also pay a pension contribution, anywhere between 3 and 5% these days, used to be higher.

I would like to say that if anyone (not you in particular) thinks that employers would use any tax money freed up to invest in people then that is certainly not my experience. They would pocket it, no questions asked. Or maybe that's just England, and in the US you have more philanthropic owners of companies.

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 208
RE: Mad Dogs and Englishmen - 12/8/2014 12:05:24 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		Yeah, we must, like our recent Prez candidate likes to park his money out of country, any he lays around with. They are not about reinvesting in the economy. The laughable notion of what 'capital' is.

< Message edited by mnottertail -- 12/8/2014 12:06:24 PM >

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 209
RE: Mad Dogs and Englishmen - 12/8/2014 12:22:03 PM   
freedomdwarf1


Posts: 6845
Joined: 10/23/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Unless you do pay income tax, then you're paying a higher rate than those that don't pay in any.

DUH!! Talk about stating the bleedin obvious!

The point is, those that work help by paying into the system.
Those on a lower income below the tax threshold don't pay as much.
The employers also pay into the system.
All the other forms of taxation also go into the tax pot.

From that general tax pot (and including borrowed capital), is where the social healthcare is funded from.
That's the beauty of social healthcare - it is not funded by individual pockets but from a multitude of inputs.
Those that pay, help the system to provide for all, not just a select few that can afford it.

_____________________________

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
George Orwell, 1903-1950


(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 210
RE: Mad Dogs and Englishmen - 12/8/2014 1:35:48 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Unless you do pay income tax, then you're paying a higher rate than those that don't pay in any.

DUH!! Talk about stating the bleedin obvious!
The point is, those that work help by paying into the system.
Those on a lower income below the tax threshold don't pay as much.
The employers also pay into the system.
All the other forms of taxation also go into the tax pot.
From that general tax pot (and including borrowed capital), is where the social healthcare is funded from.
That's the beauty of social healthcare - it is not funded by individual pockets but from a multitude of inputs.
Those that pay, help the system to provide for all, not just a select few that can afford it.


So, how much, as a %GDP goes in specifically for NIH? Does more go in than comes out? I mean, isn't there some way to account for what you're charged?


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to freedomdwarf1)
Profile   Post #: 211
RE: Mad Dogs and Englishmen - 12/8/2014 1:46:11 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		I assume like our insurance system, more would go in than would come out, I believe those of us in capitalist countries (no matter how socialist or communist you want to make them out to be) consider that this is de rigeur. Damn near unremarkable for thinking people to contemplate.



< Message edited by mnottertail -- 12/8/2014 1:54:08 PM >

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 212
RE: Mad Dogs and Englishmen - 12/8/2014 2:07:12 PM   
freedomdwarf1


Posts: 6845
Joined: 10/23/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Unless you do pay income tax, then you're paying a higher rate than those that don't pay in any.

DUH!! Talk about stating the bleedin obvious!
The point is, those that work help by paying into the system.
Those on a lower income below the tax threshold don't pay as much.
The employers also pay into the system.
All the other forms of taxation also go into the tax pot.
From that general tax pot (and including borrowed capital), is where the social healthcare is funded from.
That's the beauty of social healthcare - it is not funded by individual pockets but from a multitude of inputs.
Those that pay, help the system to provide for all, not just a select few that can afford it.


So, how much, as a %GDP goes in specifically for NIH? Does more go in than comes out? I mean, isn't there some way to account for what you're charged?


The government work out the figures and it's on a par with most other OECD countries and shitloads cheaper than anything private.
Accountability is what the government take care of.
It is nothing like private insurance companies that need to make profits for shareholders and big CEO salaries.

Social healthcare isn't about making a profit.
If there is any profit (that's a really big *IF*), it goes back into the general pot for other things.
Sometimes, any excess profits are plowed back into the NHS budget for general improvements - such as the scanner I told you about.

I really don't need to know the in's and out's of it like I would if I were a shareholder in a private business.
All I need to know is that it pays for me to see my doctor any time I like and as many times as I like without it costing me money directly from my wallet or getting a bill later.
I need to know that if I need meds, or a hospital/clinic for treatment, I can go anytime 24/7 without needing to look at an insurance policy to see if I am covered - and again, without having to open my wallet or getting a bill.

This is what social healthcare is all about - very little or (usually) no cost to the individual.
It is free at the point of delivery (including any ambulances or specialists that may be needed).
It is still free when I am recovering - either in hospital or at home.
It is free for aftercare - for as long as it takes.
It is not a charity - it is all pre-paid by general taxes from the general tax pot.
Who gives a flying fuck who works the sums, as long as it is affordable for those working and those that aren't.
You can't say that about any of the private offerings, US or anywhere else.


_____________________________

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
George Orwell, 1903-1950


(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 213
RE: Mad Dogs and Englishmen - 12/8/2014 4:20:54 PM   
deathtothepixies


Posts: 683
Joined: 2/19/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1


This is what social healthcare is all about - very little or (usually) no cost to the individual.
It is free at the point of delivery (including any ambulances or specialists that may be needed).
It is still free when I am recovering - either in hospital or at home.
It is free for aftercare - for as long as it takes.
It is not a charity - it is all pre-paid by general taxes from the general tax pot.
Who gives a flying fuck who works the sums, as long as it is affordable for those working and those that aren't.
You can't say that about any of the private offerings, US or anywhere else.


I don't think he can understand ,the concept of the whole population just paying into a big pot and then the whole population just taking from that pot as and when thy need it, without caring who has paid what is just alien to him. Or maybe he just wants to trap you in some accounting double speak, I don't know.

I am a loser, at the moment. I have been to hospital once in the last 20 years, when I broke my nose playing rugby, and I visit my local GP (doctor) about once every 4 or 5 years.

I am a middle income earner so currently I am being robbed blind by the system.

But you know what, I don't give a shit. I don't know what's round the corner, I don't know what old age will bring, but I do know that I will be looked after whatever happens.

That is the society I want to live in, and I will fight to keep it.

Take your percentages, and your accounting, and your beliefs about the "truly needy" and shove them up your arse DS and try and think about a society that cares for everyone

_____________________________


The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."


(in reply to freedomdwarf1)
Profile   Post #: 214
RE: Mad Dogs and Englishmen - 12/9/2014 5:46:16 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
Who gives a flying fuck who works the sums, as long as it is affordable for those working and those that aren't.


You're defining what is "affordable" for someone else. Part of me just doesn't think that's right.




_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to freedomdwarf1)
Profile   Post #: 215
RE: Mad Dogs and Englishmen - 12/9/2014 6:05:05 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies
I don't think he can understand ,the concept of the whole population just paying into a big pot and then the whole population just taking from that pot as and when thy need it, without caring who has paid what is just alien to him. Or maybe he just wants to trap you in some accounting double speak, I don't know.


Proof positive that you know little about me.

quote:

I am a loser, at the moment. I have been to hospital once in the last 20 years, when I broke my nose playing rugby, and I visit my local GP (doctor) about once every 4 or 5 years.
I am a middle income earner so currently I am being robbed blind by the system.
But you know what, I don't give a shit. I don't know what's round the corner, I don't know what old age will bring, but I do know that I will be looked after whatever happens.
That is the society I want to live in, and I will fight to keep it.


I have no problem with people making that choice. That's your right to do. But, I'm not trying to change your system.

quote:

Take your percentages, and your accounting, and your beliefs about the "truly needy" and shove them up your arse DS and try and think about a society that cares for everyone


That's the whole point, DTP. The "truly needy" should get our support. Obviously, I agree with that. It's those that aren't truly needy that are siphoning off funds for the truly needy that aren't caring for everyone. They are out for themselves, fuck those who truly need the help.

You are proving out that you don't understand much about me or conservatives.

_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to deathtothepixies)
Profile   Post #: 216
RE: Mad Dogs and Englishmen - 12/9/2014 7:57:27 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		Do not call yourself a conservative, that is not traditionally conservative thought.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 217
RE: Mad Dogs and Englishmen - 12/9/2014 8:55:07 AM   
freedomdwarf1


Posts: 6845
Joined: 10/23/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
Who gives a flying fuck who works the sums, as long as it is affordable for those working and those that aren't.


You're defining what is "affordable" for someone else. Part of me just doesn't think that's right.

I don't think so Desi.

So you think the companies and employers are willing to pay 21% corporation tax instead of 13% Employers NI liability???
And also, by not paying their bit, pushing that 13% onto the employees??
Or alternatively, pay 30% or more for private insurance - with limitations??

C'mon Desi, nobody is that stupid!!

It is affordable (and available) for everyone in social healthcare.
You can't say that for private insurance.

The US model is too expensive and broken.
It doesn't cover everyone and what cover there is doesn't cover everything either.



quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies
Take your percentages, and your accounting, and your beliefs about the "truly needy" and shove them up your arse DS and try and think about a society that cares for everyone


That's the whole point, DTP. The "truly needy" should get our support. Obviously, I agree with that. It's those that aren't truly needy that are siphoning off funds for the truly needy that aren't caring for everyone. They are out for themselves, fuck those who truly need the help.

You are proving out that you don't understand much about me or conservatives.

And that is the whole point and the beauty about social healthcare - you don't have greedy CEO's, shareholders, and OTT profiteering to siphon off those funds.


< Message edited by freedomdwarf1 -- 12/9/2014 9:01:08 AM >

_____________________________

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
George Orwell, 1903-1950


(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 218
RE: Mad Dogs and Englishmen - 12/9/2014 10:50:41 AM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Yeah, we must, like our recent Prez candidate likes to park his money out of country, any he lays around with. They are not about reinvesting in the economy. The laughable notion of what 'capital' is.



It's a nice idea, Ron, isn't it; the idea that principles would over-ride monetary gain.

We have a real problem in this country in that we want to work a lot of hours, and do so, but yet our GDP is similar to a country such as France where the workforce are up in arms when they have to work more than 35 hours a week.

Why is that? Because the French invest in their workforce, which means they are more efficient with the resources they have available. I'm loathe to give the French any sort of boost, but credit where it's due: they have a system where their people work fewer hours for a similar outcome to ours.

Clearly I'm hardly a serious financial player, but I've seen enough to know that any money saved on tax in this country would disappear into the sands of time quick-sharp.

And, the other thing as well, why in a country such as the United States would people have to do 2 jobs just to make ends meet? Something isn't right somewhere. It doesn't make people 'work conscious' to have to do two jobs, nor should it ever be a badge of pride, it means they're mugs and are being massively shafted.



< Message edited by NorthernGent -- 12/9/2014 10:54:56 AM >

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 219
RE: Mad Dogs and Englishmen - 12/9/2014 11:32:32 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
Who gives a flying fuck who works the sums, as long as it is affordable for those working and those that aren't.

You're defining what is "affordable" for someone else. Part of me just doesn't think that's right.

I don't think so Desi.
So you think the companies and employers are willing to pay 21% corporation tax instead of 13% Employers NI liability???
And also, by not paying their bit, pushing that 13% onto the employees??
Or alternatively, pay 30% or more for private insurance - with limitations??
C'mon Desi, nobody is that stupid!!


Any citations for your numbers?

quote:

It is affordable (and available) for everyone in social healthcare.
You can't say that for private insurance.
The US model is too expensive and broken.
It doesn't cover everyone and what cover there is doesn't cover everything either.


How perverse is it that insurance is, for all intents and purposes, required to make health care affordable? Now, because of rising costs of health care itself, health insurance isn't even affordable. Obamacare didn't make health care more affordable. It shifted the cost of health insurance onto others. It's not even making health insurance more affordable.

Shouldn't a person have the right to choose to have insurance or not?

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies
Take your percentages, and your accounting, and your beliefs about the "truly needy" and shove them up your arse DS and try and think about a society that cares for everyone

That's the whole point, DTP. The "truly needy" should get our support. Obviously, I agree with that. It's those that aren't truly needy that are siphoning off funds for the truly needy that aren't caring for everyone. They are out for themselves, fuck those who truly need the help.
You are proving out that you don't understand much about me or conservatives.

And that is the whole point and the beauty about social healthcare - you don't have greedy CEO's, shareholders, and OTT profiteering to siphon off those funds.


You're now proving that you don't understand much about me or conservatives, too.

_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to freedomdwarf1)
Profile   Post #: 220
Page:   <<   < prev  8 9 10 [11] 12   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Mad Dogs and Englishmen Page: <<   < prev  8 9 10 [11] 12   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.125