Total Posts:111|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Brussels decrees holidays a right

Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2010 11:19:37 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
http://www.timesonline.co.uk...

Awesome we just found another right! I hope the next one is the right to ice cream.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2010 11:23:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
"AN overseas holiday used to be thought of as a reward for a year's hard work. Now Brussels has declared that tourism is a human right and pensioners, youths and those too poor to afford it should have their travel subsidised by the taxpayer."
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2010 11:24:47 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/20/2010 11:23:09 AM, Reasoning wrote:
"AN overseas holiday used to be thought of as a reward for a year's hard work. Now Brussels has declared that tourism is a human right and pensioners, youths and those too poor to afford it should have their travel subsidised by the taxpayer."

That fails especially.

I'm all for saying, hey, people have a right to to exit, to leave the country, and to return to it (except for obvious reasons, like being suspects in major crimes), but we have to subsidize tourists now? Oh give me a f*cking break.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2010 11:31:47 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
This is a good idea.

Travel broadens the mind.

Perhaps if extreme-right wing British people travelled to other parts of Europe rather than their usual favourites (Florida, South Africa, Australia and other English-speaking destinations) they might learn to appreciate our neighbours' cultures more and be less opposed to European integration.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2010 11:41:35 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/20/2010 11:31:47 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
This is a good idea.

Travel broadens the mind.

Perhaps if extreme-right wing British people travelled to other parts of Europe rather than their usual favourites (Florida, South Africa, Australia and other English-speaking destinations) they might learn to appreciate our neighbours' cultures more and be less opposed to European integration.

You are only saying that because,
a) You are a socialist.
b) You own a travel firm!

Why not simply abolish the tax on aviation fuel?

Also why can't we appreciate our neighbours culture and be opposed to European integration?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2010 12:14:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/20/2010 11:24:47 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 4/20/2010 11:23:09 AM, Reasoning wrote:
"AN overseas holiday used to be thought of as a reward for a year's hard work. Now X has declared that health care is a human right and pensioners, youths and those too poor to afford it should have their health care subsidised by the taxpayer."

That fails especially.

Indeed.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2010 12:15:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/20/2010 12:14:17 PM, Nags wrote:
At 4/20/2010 11:24:47 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 4/20/2010 11:23:09 AM, Reasoning wrote:
"AN overseas holiday used to be thought of as a reward for a year's hard work. Now X has declared that health care is a human right and pensioners, youths and those too poor to afford it should have their health care subsidised by the taxpayer."

That fails especially.

Indeed.

It depends if you are a social darwinist or not.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2010 12:18:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/20/2010 12:15:47 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
It depends if you are a social darwinist or not.

...Pejoratives...

No it doesn't.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2010 12:18:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/20/2010 12:14:17 PM, Nags wrote:
Indeed.

Yes, because health is just a convenient reward for people. I mean, Jesus, who would ever say we should give health coverage to little children, pensioners who live only on $14,000 a year, or the very poor who would allow any diseases to spread rapidly due to horrible health, creating a much larger situation and much higher costs for health in the long term! They can all go f*ck themselves.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2010 12:20:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/20/2010 12:18:53 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 4/20/2010 12:14:17 PM, Nags wrote:
Indeed.

Yes, because health is just a convenient reward for people. I mean, Jesus, who would ever say we should give health coverage to little children, pensioners who live only on $14,000 a year, or the very poor who would allow any diseases to spread rapidly due to horrible health, creating a much larger situation and much higher costs for health in the long term! They can all go f*ck themselves.

Tommy Douglas is my hero! ^^
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2010 12:20:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/20/2010 12:18:03 PM, Nags wrote:
At 4/20/2010 12:15:47 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
It depends if you are a social darwinist or not.

...Pejoratives...

No it doesn't.

It was not intended as a perjorative, though indeed the term may be taken as such. But even so, denying universal health care has socially darwinian results even if thats not the intention.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2010 12:26:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/20/2010 12:18:53 PM, Volkov wrote:
Yes, because health is just a convenient reward for people.

Hmm.

I mean, Jesus, who would ever say we should give health coverage to little children, pensioners who live only on $14,000 a year, or the very poor

People like you.

who would allow any diseases to spread rapidly due to horrible health

I'm not aware of any diseases that have been spread in industrialized countries due to the poor/retarded not receiving health care.

creating a much larger situation and much higher costs for health in the long term!

What costs are you talking about? If there poor don't receive benefits, and they don't pay for health care, then their is no costs.

Let's stay on the subject of costs though. Medicare and Medicaid are budget-busters that will cost the US about $750 billion in FY 2010. They are also poised to soon run out of money.

They can all go f*ck themselves.

Agreed.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2010 12:28:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/20/2010 12:20:52 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
But even so, denying universal health care has socially darwinian results even if thats not the intention.

On the contrary. Welfare programs only further the plight of the poor. Trust me, I'm on your side. You're just not on your side.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2010 12:31:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/20/2010 12:28:28 PM, Nags wrote:
At 4/20/2010 12:20:52 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
But even so, denying universal health care has socially darwinian results even if thats not the intention.

On the contrary. Welfare programs only further the plight of the poor. Trust me, I'm on your side. You're just not on your side.

Poorly administered they may do, but apart from that how?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2010 12:38:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/20/2010 12:26:39 PM, Nags wrote:
What costs are you talking about? If there poor don't receive benefits, and they don't pay for health care, then their is no costs.

Let's stay on the subject of costs though. Medicare and Medicaid are budget-busters that will cost the US about $750 billion in FY 2010. They are also poised to soon run out of money.

Your costs in the United States are so high because you don't have proper healthcare measures. Why is it other countries with universal coverage/service have such lower costs when the US doesn't? Because we take care of everyone, as opposed to only taking care of some.

You don't need to be a genius to know that when someone doesn't have regular access or even good emergency access to healthcare, then the costs will eventually run up, both for medical and other costs which will be affected after all those "retarded" people, aka. the menial workers, the children, and the elderly, die off in your streets.

Agreed.

You are a social darwinist.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2010 12:38:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/20/2010 12:31:06 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Poorly administered they may do, but apart from that how?

Welfare programs pay people to fail. If and only if people fail, those people will receive money. If those same people succeed, even to a moderate extent, that money will be taken away.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2010 12:41:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/20/2010 12:38:16 PM, Nags wrote:
Welfare programs pay people to fail. If and only if people fail, those people will receive money. If those same people succeed, even to a moderate extent, that money will be taken away.

You: If people lose their job, then let them rot. Except for people like me, who mooch and don't get jobs.

Me: If people lose their job, let them have security so they can live, and get them retrained so they can properly reintegrate into the workforce and contribute again to taxes and society.

We all know who will win this argument.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2010 12:44:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/20/2010 12:38:16 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 4/20/2010 12:26:39 PM, Nags wrote:
What costs are you talking about? If there poor don't receive benefits, and they don't pay for health care, then their is no costs.

Let's stay on the subject of costs though. Medicare and Medicaid are budget-busters that will cost the US about $750 billion in FY 2010. They are also poised to soon run out of money.

Your costs in the United States are so high because you don't have proper healthcare measures. Why is it other countries with universal coverage/service have such lower costs when the US doesn't? Because we take care of everyone, as opposed to only taking care of some.
We take care of everyone too, just not with insurance (duty to care laws). Obviously, NOT taking care of everyone would save money.

We have high costs because people pay for unnecessary procedures, insurance companies can't compete interstate, tying insurance to employment is inefficient, having insurance cover routine costs (which should come out of pocket, and could if there were no duty to care laws) is inefficient, insurance companies get sued all the time for not covering things that aren't in the contract and required to add such things when it isn't cost effective to cover them....

Some of these are unique, some are not, of course.

You don't need to be a genius to know that when someone doesn't have regular access or even good emergency access to healthcare, then the costs will eventually run up
Less service, therefore, more cost? No. The costs might "run up" if you block some care and then force the provision of others, indeed, they do. But they do not "run up" if you simply don't care for nonpayers.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2010 12:45:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/20/2010 12:38:16 PM, Volkov wrote:
Your costs in the United States are so high because you don't have proper healthcare measures.

The government is too involved in health care. That's why health care costs are so high.

Why is it other countries with universal coverage/service have such lower costs when the US doesn't? Because we take care of everyone, as opposed to only taking care of some.

Because the other countries have worse quality than the United States. And the other countries don't care about costs. Most of them have higher budget deficits and debts than the United States, in large part because of their health care systems.

You don't need to be a genius to know that when someone doesn't have regular access or even good emergency access to healthcare, then the costs will eventually run up, both for medical and other costs which will be affected after all those "retarded" people, aka. the menial workers, the children, and the elderly, die off in your streets.

The costs will eventually run up from and by whom? Who is taking these costs you speak of?

You are a social darwinist.

You are a socialist. <That's an insult.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2010 12:47:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/20/2010 12:44:26 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Less service, therefore, more cost? No. The costs might "run up" if you block some care and then force the provision of others, indeed, they do. But they do not "run up" if you simply don't care for nonpayers.

Yes, but you're a heartless bastard, and I already know your argument, and its invalid to me, for my purposes.

Also, there is vested self-interest in keeping every other individual other than yourself innoculated from disease, unless you're decided to separate all payers from non-payers and create a large segregated society, which probably wouldn't be fun for anyone.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2010 12:49:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/20/2010 12:41:28 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 4/20/2010 12:38:16 PM, Nags wrote:
Welfare programs pay people to fail. If and only if people fail, those people will receive money. If those same people succeed, even to a moderate extent, that money will be taken away.

You: If people lose their job, then let them rot. Except for people like me, who mooch and don't get jobs.

Me: If people lose their job, let them have security so they can live, and get them retrained so they can properly reintegrate into the workforce and contribute again to taxes and society.

We all know who will win this argument.

Do we?
So what about those who don't want to get retrained, will you force them? What if they don't want to go back to work, will you eventually kick them off the dole? Or will you be so compassionate and provide their security for them for as long as they need and for whatever they need?
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2010 12:49:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/20/2010 12:41:28 PM, Volkov wrote:
You: If people lose their job, then let them rot.

False dichotomy. How about they go out and find another job.

Except for people like me, who mooch and don't get jobs.

What's this supposed to mean?

Me: If people lose their job, let them have security so they can live, and get them retrained so they can properly reintegrate into the workforce

No. You give them welfare which motivates them to fail and not get employed again. Why work to succeed when you can sit on your couch to succeed?

and contribute again to taxes and society.

Lolol.

We all know who will win this argument.

If you mean in convincing the general public, probably you. The general public is generally stupid and welcoming to appeals to emotion. That's how politicians get elected.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2010 12:49:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/20/2010 12:38:16 PM, Nags wrote:
At 4/20/2010 12:31:06 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Poorly administered they may do, but apart from that how?

Welfare programs pay people to fail. If and only if people fail, those people will receive money. If those same people succeed, even to a moderate extent, that money will be taken away.

The intention of welfare is to pay people when they fail or when others fail them, not to pay people to fail. That is an important distinction. If they succeed, they do not need the money, because by definition they have more than is avaliable on welfare (assuming a properly run system).

What would your alternative be?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2010 12:52:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/20/2010 12:45:29 PM, Nags wrote:
The government is too involved in health care. That's why health care costs are so high.

LOL. The government isn't involved enough in healthcare - it lets these insurance companies, and users, go at it in such amazingly stupid ways that the costs run up. If "socialist" Canada can keep our healthcare costs down, and still provide the same care, albeit with more triage influence, then something is wrong on your side.

Because the other countries have worse quality than the United States. And the other countries don't care about costs. Most of them have higher budget deficits and debts than the United States, in large part because of their health care systems.

Canada dsoesn't have worse quality - we're pretty much the same. Where our problems come in is brain-drain and triage, and people don't like the latter, because those that are sick get care first, while those that can wait, do wait. Unlike the US, where you wait simply because you aren't first in line or don't have enough money! But there is no difference in quality.

The costs will eventually run up from and by whom? Who is taking these costs you speak of?

So a total breakdown of civil society with only the elite rich and "payers" left won't have any costs?

You are a socialist. <That's an insult.

I take it as a badge of honour, here. Call me what you will.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2010 12:54:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/20/2010 12:49:02 PM, innomen wrote:
Do we?
So what about those who don't want to get retrained, will you force them?

Yes.

What if they don't want to go back to work, will you eventually kick them off the dole?

Yes.

Or will you be so compassionate and provide their security for them for as long as they need and for whatever they need?

No. I expect work to be done in exchange for this support. It isn't a permanent thing - it's supposed to help you while you're down on your luck to get out of the rut. If you show no initiative to do so, then f*ck off.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2010 12:55:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Volkov, do you believe in drug testing for welfare recipients? I do since they could too easily be abusing the system just to support their addictions depriving funds for those who actually need it.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2010 12:57:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/20/2010 12:49:15 PM, Nags wrote:
What's this supposed to mean?

Think about it. Do you have a job, Nags?

No. You give them welfare which motivates them to fail and not get employed again. Why work to succeed when you can sit on your couch to succeed?

Lol. You give people welfare and employment insurance to ensure they're not going to die inbetween jobs. Obviously you can't let people sit on it forever - you tell them to show that they're getting back out there, that they're not simply wasting taxpayer's money, or else you say, well, get the f*ck off the dole, we're not subsidizing laziness.

If you mean in convincing the general public, probably you. The general public is generally stupid and welcoming to appeals to emotion. That's how politicians get elected.

You're such a elitist. Get back to your ivory tower, Nags, and let real people deal with problems.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2010 12:58:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/20/2010 12:55:52 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Volkov, do you believe in drug testing for welfare recipients? I do since they could too easily be abusing the system just to support their addictions depriving funds for those who actually need it.

Never thought about it, actually, but yes, that would be a good idea. However, I don't know how useful it would be. Studies show that less than 1% of welfare uses are truly abusing it; drug tests for everyone might be too much. Just those with a history, I suppose.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2010 1:00:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/20/2010 12:49:25 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
The intention of welfare is to pay people when they fail or when others fail them, not to pay people to fail. That is an important distinction.

Intentions are not synonymous with proper policy. I'm sure you have proper intentions. Your intentions are to reduce the plight of the poor. However, welfare does the exact opposite of these intentions.

If they succeed, they do not need the money, because by definition they have more than is avaliable on welfare (assuming a properly run system).

Exactly. It tells people that they can receive the same money working as sitting on their couch and receiving welfare. Why work when you can sit on your couch?

What would your alternative be?

Get rid of welfare and laws with misguided intentions to help the poor.