Insurance or universal based health care?

[CptStern]

a tiered system is a horrible idea ..one must by neceesity take precedent over the other ,,not a good way of running "universal" healthcare ...screw the rich, there's plenty of private clinics they can go to in other countries

 

[No Limit]

I agree. The problem is that in a market-based environment, comedy mismanagement is severely punished.

Sure, in the market there are punishments if the mismanagement is caught, a lot of time it isn't until it is completely too late. Enron being a classic example but there are many more similar examples of this.

What you are doing is saying that since sometimes the government screws up we shouldn't trust the government with anything, yet you overlook when the market screws up and then say we should let the for profit market manage all this.

I know this is a talking point but its a fairly concrete one: I get my mail usually on time with no problems, I haven't had a letter lost in years. In fact the government ran USPS usually delivers letters and packages faster and cheaper than the private sectors do. As much as I hate the IRS they do their job very effectively when collecting taxes. When I call the police they respond. When there is a fire the government comes to put it out. When I call 911 for help someone picks up the phone. When I need an ambulance an ambulance shows up. All these things are ran by the government. So the government can be very efficient as long as there are strong laws and strong regulations to make sure that they are performing efficiently.

 

[repiV]

Worked for it or not, if someone's sick, it's our duty as human beings to try to help them out. These are human beings - not just statistics - that we're talking about, and I don't think someone should go without treatment just because they can't afford it.

-Angry Lawyer

All well and good, but how is it your place to decide what duties human beings have? The inherent problem in any kind of socialist policy is that is forces people to donate their own money against their will - in any guise other than taxes, that's known as theft.

Having said that, I agree with you - healthcare is a sore spot for me, and the one instance in which I back overall welfare above all else. I despise pharmaceutical companies. It's not a capitalism vs socialism issue though - the NHS is still a steaming pile of shit.

 

[repiV]

Sure, in the market there are punishments if the mismanagement is caught, a lot of time it isn't until it is completely too late. Enron being a classic example but there are many more similar examples of this.

Enron wasn't an issue of incompetence though - it was fraud. And the company almost went bankrupt as a result, which is the kind of punishment I'm referring to.
Incompetence in business hurts YOU, it hurts YOUR wallet and YOUR client base. State-provided services have a monopoly on the marketplace and the reality is that governments are run by selfish people with only their own interests at heart. So are businesses of course, but businesses have an incentive to make their relationships as beneficial to their customers as possible - apart from Harley Davidson's brilliant marketing scam where they sell absolutely godawful machines at premium prices by convincing gullible idiots they're "living the dream", it's only the state that can pull the wool over people's eyes and they don't have to do a whole lot to justify their positions.
Decisions in government are not made on what is best for the people, but on what makes them look good. Ponder on the implications of that for a while, it explains why governments are chronically short-sighted and couldn't make balanced decisions and allocate their resources wisely to save their life.

What you are doing is saying that since sometimes the government screws up we shouldn't trust the government with anything, yet you overlook when the market screws up and then say we should let the for profit market manage all this.

The government is above reproach. They can screw things up on an ongoing basis with impunity. Over here it's entirely a regular occurence for them to come up with some crackpot idea, hold a consultation in which they found over 90% opposition from the public and experts in their fields, and then go ahead and do it anyway. That's why Britain is such a miserable place to be nowadays - we are dictated to and everything they do seems to fly in the face of a) the correct thing and b) what the public wants.
It's almost nightmarish, if you actually think about it.
Businesses and especially corporations cannot afford to screw up on a regular basis. Remember Atari, Amiga, Commodore and all those other leading-edge brands...?

I know this is a talking point but its a fairly concrete one: I get my mail usually on time with no problems, I haven't had a letter lost in years. In fact the government ran USPS usually delivers letters and packages faster and cheaper than the private sectors do. As much as I hate the IRS they do their job very effectively when collecting taxes. When I call the police they respond. When there is a fire the government comes to put it out. When I call 911 for help someone picks up the phone. When I need an ambulance an ambulance shows up. All these things are ran by the government. So the government can be very efficient as long as there are strong laws and strong regulations to make sure that they are performing efficiently.

The constitution and supporting documents are very strong and held in an almost fanatical regard by Americans - but that didn't stop the Bush administration completely undermining the sanctity of it with the support of the population. It's just too easy to do.

Over here, when you call the police whether they come out depends entirely on how much money the government can make from the crime and whether it's easy to solve. British police are little more than licensed bandits these days, since they are evaluated entirely on how many crimes they solve on a monthly basis - you get equal points for catching a litterer as you do for catching a murderer.
Which means we have a police force that will persecute you for committing a minor indiscretion (smoking in the company car? That'll be a ?60 fine...) but never bother to turn up if you've been the victim of a burglary. I'm not exaggerating even slightly, that's the reality of it here. Be on your very best behaviour towards the end of the month, because the police have targets to hit and they'll have you as an easy resolved crime...

 

[kirovman]

Recording reality to meet the statistics, rather than recording the statistics to meet reality.

How Orwellian.

 

[repiV]

Recording reality to meet the statistics, rather than recording the statistics to meet reality.

How Orwellian.

And did you see the Panorama about the police recently?

According to this ex-policeman, 80% of what they do is a complete waste of time. Most of their shift is spent in the station filling out forms - sometimes their entire shift can be consumed with paperwork.
We now have a situation where it's in the interests of the police to incite you to do something that could be considered a crime so they can arrest you and tick one of their boxes, and in which all police discretion goes out the window as they are only recognised as doing their job when an arrest is made - of course, this means that the police are no longer focused on preventing crime either.
Everyday people can now expect to be harassed for committing trivial technical breaches of law (33mph in a 30, for example) but real criminals are left to roam free. Like when a man called the police to report teenagers smoking on the bus and then two minutes later the bus was pulled over with sirens , lights and the whole shebang, three police officers charge up the bus to issue fixed penalty notices to the ****ing kids.
The other week me and my buddies got chased by four police cars for the heinous crime of speeding on a clear open dual carriageway at 2 in the morning with no traffic for miles. They turned a safe situation into a very dangerous one, I nearly crashed going round the roundabout at 100mph because I knew full well if they caught me I'd be banned. Very Orwellian...

You also have no right to silence in petty motoring offences anymore - if you get sent a Notice of Intended Prosecution, you must by law name the driver under penalty of 6 points and a large fine. The European Court of Human Rights recently upheld that the right to silence must be waived for the public good.
So there you have it - you can say "no comment" if you're a murderer, rapist or armed robber, but not if you did 33 in a 30. And the burden of proof lays with you to prove you weren't driving, too.

 

[CptStern]

The other week me and my buddies got chased by four police cars for the heinous crime of speeding on a clear open dual carriageway at 2 in the morning with no traffic for miles. They turned a safe situation into a very dangerous one, I nearly crashed going round the roundabout at 100mph because I knew full well if they caught me I'd be banned. Very Orwellian...

it's their fault you were speeding? pull over, dangerous situation averted

 

[Solaris]

The other week me and my buddies got chased by four police cars for the heinous crime of speeding on a clear open dual carriageway at 2 in the morning with no traffic for miles. They turned a safe situation into a very dangerous one, I nearly crashed going round the roundabout at 100mph because I knew full well if they caught me I'd be banned. Very Orwellian...

Lol that's more your fault for running from the police.

 

[Mr Stabby]

between 10pm and 6am we should have autobahns

 

[CptStern]

I cant trust drivers not to do something stupid ..it's kept me from getting into a serious accident in 20 years <knock on wood/Nemesis' head> ..the last thing we need (at least in canada where roads are perpetually straight) is for drivers to drive at whatever speed they feel like

 

[Stigmata]

In terms of healthcare, I trust the government far more than I trust corporations. For all the reasons that people have listed as far as being in favor of universal healthcare.

Plus, I don't like the idea of paying an insurance company to try as hard as they can to not insure me for operations that I paid to be insured for.

 

[Mr Stabby]

I cant trust drivers not to do something stupid ..it's kept me from getting into a serious accident in 20 years <knock on wood/Nemesis' head> ..the last thing we need (at least in canada where roads are perpetually straight) is for drivers to drive at whatever speed they feel like

The Germans seem to manage

 

[CptStern]

ya but they have twisty roads and more experienced drivers ..our drivers seem to be from the genetic pool that imprinted them with an inexplicable compulsion to apply the brakes at every opportunity whether necessary or not. "oh look the light is turning yellow and I'm 300 yards from the intersection, better start applying the brakes" "oh look I see a raindrop on my windshield, better cut my speed to half and ride my brakes for the next 100kms" "oh look that angry man's foot is heading towards my driver side windo.."

 

[No Limit]

it's their fault you were speeding? pull over, dangerous situation averted

I wonder if his attitude would change if it were a muslim that refused to pull over at 2am.:dozey:

 

[CptStern]

yes it would change: spiked chain, sniper bullet and rpg authorised for use

 

[kirovman]

The Germans seem to manage

That's because they are genetically programmed to drive at 40 km/h.

 

[repiV]

it's their fault you were speeding? pull over, dangerous situation averted

Why on earth should I pull over so I can be persecuted by the system for doing something that was completely safe, because the police have nothing better to do than harass bikers?
120mph is serious ban territory, like **** I'm gonna give my license away.
They knew the likelihood of us running away was very high when they decided to chase us, and the chance of actually catching us - virtually zero. Police car versus competent rider on a high performance motorcycle - there's only two ways that can end, the rider either escaping or dying.

 

[repiV]

Lol that's more your fault for running from the police.

Not really, there's something very wrong with a system that allows bans, huge fines and even jail sentences to be handed out for operating a motor vehicle in a safe and controlled manner. It should be a human rights issue.

 

[No Limit]

Not really, there's something very wrong with a system that allows bans, huge fines and even jail sentences to be handed out for operating a motor vehicle in a safe and controlled manner. It should be a human rights issue.

Yeah, because nobody dies from speeding. Wow dude, I used to think you were fairly rational. Actually, now that I think about it I bet you more people have died from speeding in your country than from muslim terrorism. I say we put a new law on that books that from now on anyone caught speeding is exiled from the country.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

I wish you guys wouldn't be so hard on RepiV, or bring other threads into equation for this one.

 

[No Limit]

I wish you guys wouldn't be so hard on RepiV, or bring other threads into equation for this one.

In defense of everyone else I think I'm the only one doing it. :dork:

I'm fired up today, you'll have to excuse me. But for the record I still think its idiotic to say going 120MPH is a perfectly safe activity that cops should ignore. It is even crazier to say that a cop shouldn't chase you when you refuse to pull over.

 

[Mr Stabby]

Yeah, because nobody dies from speeding. Wow dude, I used to think you were fairly rational. Actually, now that I think about it I bet you more people have died from speeding in your country than from muslim terrorism. I say we put a new law on that books that from now on anyone caught speeding is exiled from the country.

Though should speeding on a motorway at 2am be illegal, I don't see why it should be, the Germans can manage no speed limits on their autobahns 24 hours a day, I think we could manage, night time when the motorways are empty.

 

[CptStern]

Though should speeding on a motorway at 2am be illegal, I don't see why it should be, the Germans can manage no speed limits on their autobahns 24 hours a day, I think we could manage, night time when the motorways are empty.

agreed, night time is when the drunks come out in full force, driving on the wrong side of the highway ..it's almost like a video game; dodging and weaving between drunken idiots yelling "YOU'RE GOING THE WRONG WAY YOU FREAKIN MANIAC" at 200 miles per hour

they should allow me to discharge a firearm into the air at night, there's no one around to catch the bullet anyways

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

In defense of everyone else I think I'm the only one doing it. :dork:

I'm fired up today, you'll have to excuse me. But for the record I still think its idiotic to say going 120MPH is a perfectly safe activity that cops should ignore. It is even crazier to say that a cop shouldn't chase you when you refuse to pull over.

Oh yeah, I'm not denying that.

 

[Mr Stabby]

agreed, night time is when the drunks come out in full force, driving on the wrong side of the highway ..it's almost like a video game; dodging and weaving between drunken idiots yelling "YOU'RE GOING THE WRONG WAY YOU FREAKIN MANIAC" at 200 miles per hour

they should allow me to discharge a firearm into the air at night, there's no one around to catch the bullet anyways

Those drunks are so considerate to wait till night time to joyride. Having no speed limit does not mean drive as fast as possible. When you fire a bullet into the air it comes down again and could kill someone regardless of the time of day, also the noise is a disturbance.

 

[CptStern]

Those drunks are so considerate to wait till night time to joyride.

well they have to get home somehow, the buses stop running at midnight and last call is 2 am

Having no speed limit does not mean drive as fast as possible.

oh come on, who's being naive? you're telling me if the sign said "no speed limit" you wouldnt drive as fast as possible just so you can say you drove with no speed limit? it would kind of defeat the purpose of a no speed limit sign if everyone drove at the limit (it's a riddle like the sound of one hand clapping thingy)

When you fire a bullet into the air it comes down again and could kill someone regardless of the time of day, also the noise is a disturbance.

ya but when you drive really fast people tend to liquify when you hit them, therefore it's a danger and the noise of their brief scream is a disturbance

 

[Mr Stabby]

well they have to get home somehow, the buses stop running at midnight and last call is 2 am

Well you have to be an absolute retard to drive if your going out drinking. I usually get a taxi home, and here you can still find places open as late as 5am

oh come on, who's being naive? you're telling me if the sign said "no speed limit" you wouldnt drive as fast as possible just so you can say you drove with no speed limit? it would kind of defeat the purpose of a no speed limit sign if everyone drove at the limit (it's a riddle like the sound of one hand clapping thingy)

well how fast can the average car go, most cars would die if they went above 100 for an extended period of time. Also on an empty motorway at night it's relatively safe, and as I've said before the Germans can cope.

ya but when you drive really fast people tend to liquify when you hit them, therefore it's a danger and the noise of their brief scream is a disturbance

People don't walk on motorways.

 

[CptStern]

Well you have to be an absolute retard to drive if your going out drinking. I usually get a taxi home, and here you can still find places open as late as 5am

well we have places that are open till all hours but legally they're only supposed to serve booze till 2 am

well how fast can the average car go, most cars would die if they went above 100 for an extended period of time. Also on an empty motorway at night it's relatively safe, and as I've said before the Germans can cope.

really I have no argument against this, just participating in this conversation by playing devils advocate, it's my favourite competitive sport

People don't walk on motorways.

oh right, the dents on my car just magically appeared there ..right ..and I'm just imagining that ear stuck to the radiator grill

 

[kirovman]

oh right, the dents on my car just magically appeared there ..right ..and I'm just imagining that ear stuck to the radiator grill

It's actually illegal to walk on Motorways.

Also, this made me remember something. National speed limit on single carriageways is 60mph. On dual carriageways it's 70mph.

On single carriageway, your maximum speed of collision (at the limit) is 120mph, for a head on collision.

For dual carriageway, the opposing traffic is separated by a barrier on the central reservation, so your maximum speed of collision is 70mph.

The limits are inconsistent, either one is too high or the other is too low (although likely to be much less).

 

[repiV]

Yeah, because nobody dies from speeding. Wow dude, I used to think you were fairly rational. Actually, now that I think about it I bet you more people have died from speeding in your country than from muslim terrorism. I say we put a new law on that books that from now on anyone caught speeding is exiled from the country.

Um, actually the percentage of total accidents which have exceeding a speed limit as even a contributory factor, let alone a cause, is less than 5%.
There is nothing even remotely dangerous about high speed used appropriately. I exceed the speed limit by a huge margin every time I ride, yet for some reason it's never got me into any scary situations yet. Slow, inattentive, bad drivers have nearly knocked me off on countless occassions, however.

For the record, I'm training for my advanced test so I know what I'm talking about.

 

[repiV]

In defense of everyone else I think I'm the only one doing it. :dork:

I'm fired up today, you'll have to excuse me. But for the record I still think its idiotic to say going 120MPH is a perfectly safe activity that cops should ignore. It is even crazier to say that a cop shouldn't chase you when you refuse to pull over.

Going 120mph is a perfectly safe activity, in the right circumstances.

Any speed can be safe or dangerous depending on the conditions, you can't put a number on it. What's really dangerous is travelling at a speed below that which feels comfortable and appropriate to the conditions, as it makes your mind wander.

Also, do you have any idea how dangerous and futile it is to chase a motorcycle? One little mistake in a car and it's probably no big deal - make the same mistake on the bike and you're probably going to die. Is it really worth them endangering my life in order to waste taxpayer's money prosecuting me for a victimless crime that shouldn't even be a crime anyway?
My bike does 0-60 in 3.2 seconds and it's not even a sportsbike, can take corners at ridiculous speeds and can be hidden easily in a dark alleyway. Not a chance in ****ing hell of them ever catching me in a car, so why bother chasing? A lot of forces forbid their four-wheeled police from chasing bikes for the above reasons.

Btw, CptStern, I completely ignore speed limits but for the presence of speed cameras etc. because they don't offer me any useful information. I ride at a speed that is safe and appropriate for the conditions - and that's certainly not "as fast as possible". I would ride in an identical fashion if speed limits were abolished.
In any case, the most vital skill any motorist must have is the ability to set a safe speed for the conditions. If they didn't have that, people would crash constantly - there is no reason this skill cannot be applied above as well as below the speed limit.

 

[Absinthe]

What the **** is this.

 

[repiV]

It's actually illegal to walk on Motorways.

Also, this made me remember something. National speed limit on single carriageways is 60mph. On dual carriageways it's 70mph.

On single carriageway, your maximum speed of collision (at the limit) is 120mph, for a head on collision.

For dual carriageway, the opposing traffic is separated by a barrier on the central reservation, so your maximum speed of collision is 70mph.

The limits are inconsistent, either one is too high or the other is too low (although likely to be much less).

On that note, if the argument for speed limits is the damage caused due to collisions that do happen (a fallacious argument, imo, since the focus of good driving is to not crash in the first place), then why do bikes have to adhere to the same speed limits as cars? They don't carry anywhere near as much kinetic energy - a Range Rover would probably do more damage in a 60mph collision than a bike would do at 180.
Bikes can also stop a great deal quicker than the vast majority of cars, and are a lot more agile. You also have much better visibility and there are no distractions like stereos, passengers etc. It's just you and the road. And avoiding collisions is about giving yourself appropriate time to react to developing hazards, not simply obeying a limit and hoping that you don't crash - not paying attention for a couple of seconds has the same consequence as going 50+mph faster.
The quality of riding is also in general a lot higher than the quality of driving, partly because being highly skilled is an absolute necessity for survival on a bike and partly because bikers are usually enthusiasts who take the time to develop their skills.

So why should I have to adhere to a speed limit that caters to the lowest common denominator, and which in the case of the national speed limit was just a random number drawn out of a hat 40 years ago?

 

[CptStern]

In any case, the most vital skill any motorist must have is the ability to set a safe speed for the conditions. If they didn't have that, people would crash constantly - there is no reason this skill cannot be applied above as well as below the speed limit.

I go on the assumption that everybody on the road but me is stupid, keeps me alert ..I cant trust in anyone's ability to do the right thing at the right moment ..I've just witnessed too much stupidity to trust in blind faith

 

[Stigmata]

So yeah, healthcare.

 

[CptStern]

So yeah, healthcare.

meh who cares? ours is free ..bwahahahahahaha /slaps stigmata on back and points to america.



/runs

 

[repiV]

I go on the assumption that everybody on the road but me is stupid, keeps me alert ..I cant trust in anyone's ability to do the right thing at the right moment ..I've just witnessed too much stupidity to trust in blind faith

Many drivers are idiots...and the quality of driving has sunk massively here in recent years, most probably because of the sudden obsession with speed enforcement above all else. It's not uncommon to hear some dimwit rear-end the guy in front and then claim he thought he was safe because he was driving at the speed limit!
Driver discretion is being removed in favour of obedience to simplistic rules that can never possibly account for the wide variety of conditions on the roads.
If you want to make the roads safer and get rid of idiocy, the best way is to train to a high standard and train in the vital driving skills - why are we not taught how to set an appropriate speed for the conditions, the nuances of overtaking, cornering, observation and planning instead of "don't exceed this limit, and don't stray too far below it either because then you'll fail for not making good progress".

This is the kind of stuff they teach in my advanced training (based on police rider training), but it should be taught to learners. Officially, they state that we must never exceed the speed limit but that's only because they're politically neutral. In reality, they teach how to ride at an incredibly fast pace without ever having an accident or inconviniencing other road users.
The problem with driver training is that it covers a set of very rudimentary skills and then we have inflexible, stupid rules like speed limits which aim unsuccessfully to minimise the effects of incompetence. There's a big flaw with this system, no?

 

[CptStern]

Many drivers are idiots...and the quality of driving has sunk massively here in recent years, most probably because of the sudden obsession with speed enforcement above all else. It's not uncommon to hear some dimwit rear-end the guy in front and then claim he thought he was safe because he was driving at the speed limit!
Driver discretion is being removed in favour of obedience to simplistic rules that can never possibly account for the wide variety of conditions on the roads.
If you want to make the roads safer and get rid of idiocy, the best way is to train to a high standard and train in the vital driving skills - why are we not taught how to set an appropriate speed for the conditions, the nuances of overtaking, cornering, observation and planning instead of "don't exceed this limit, and don't stray too far below it either because then you'll fail for not making good progress".

This is the kind of stuff they teach in my advanced training (based on police rider training), but it should be taught to learners. Officially, they state that we must never exceed the speed limit but that's only because they're politically neutral. In reality, they teach how to ride at an incredibly fast pace without ever having an accident or inconviniencing other road users.
The problem with driver training is that it covers a set of very rudimentary skills and then we have inflexible, stupid rules like speed limits which aim unsuccessfully to minimise the effects of incompetence. There's a big flaw with this system, no?

but you did have an accident and it was no ones fault but your own, had you been traveling at a high rate of speed we wouldnt be having this discussion

 

[repiV]

but you did have an accident and it was no ones fault but your own, had you been traveling at a high rate of speed we wouldnt be having this discussion

It was a classic newbie mistake that most people make at some time or another. I'm a far better rider now than I was then.

Although I think you're too quick to come to that conclusion. You can slide down the road at 200mph and walk away unharmed, as modern motorcycle gear provides practically perfect protection against abrasion injuries - hence why crashing on track is no big deal.
If you hit something solid, you're ****ed at pretty much any speed. The best motorcycle gear you can buy is still virtually useless at protecting you from impact. Come off at 30mph and end up in the lane of oncoming traffic and your chances of survival are next to zero.

In any case, no amount of traffic law could have prevented that accident. It's a simple issue of the nuances of motorcycle control, which takes time to master. Better training would help.

 

[No Limit]

It was a classic newbie mistake that most people make at some time or another. I'm a far better rider now than I was then.

Although I think you're too quick to come to that conclusion. You can slide down the road at 200mph and walk away unharmed, as modern motorcycle gear provides practically perfect protection against abrasion injuries - hence why crashing on track is no big deal.
If you hit something solid, you're ****ed at pretty much any speed. The best motorcycle gear you can buy is still virtually useless at protecting you from impact. Come off at 30mph and end up in the lane of oncoming traffic and your chances of survival are next to zero.

In any case, no amount of traffic law could have prevented that accident. It's a simple issue of the nuances of motorcycle control, which takes time to master. Better training would help.

I think you have way too much confidence in yourself. I know we argue a lot but that doesn't mean I want you to go out there and get killed, which will happen to you soon enough if you keep that attitude up. You say it was a newbie mistake, from what I recall that was not too long ago, just a few months back, no? Don't ever overestimate your abilities, that could be a fatal mistake. I've known far too many people that have died on motorcycles, many of them thought they were hot shit too. So drive safe out there, if you don't who am I going to argue with about muslims and other bullshit? I know nemesis will still be here but he's not very interesting .