Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds High THC Strains

Jump to first unread post Pages: < First | < Back | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | Next >
OfflineBANANA.MAN
Turd Ferguson
Male
Registered: 01/11/15
Posts: 7,474
Loc: Ontario Canada
Last seen: 5 hours, 8 minutes
Re: British people try to guess US healthcare cost [Re: Tantrika]
    #26369265 - 12/08/19 03:13 PM (4 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Tantrika said:
Quote:

BANANA.MAN said:
Tantrika you know my position by now. If the lease is not expired the person should not be allowed to be evicted. I am against the loophole as you have described it. Not sure what you keep bringing it up for because you're making it sound like there is a disagreement and its confusing me.

once again. if there is an agreement associated with a property, no loopholes unless they are specifically stated in the contract which is agreed to by both parties should allow the landlord to evict the tennant before the agreement expires. I dont care what the law in quebec is. agreements should not be violated.




Am simply asking how your position actually relates to the realities of the agreements as they exist in Québec

by saying that you don't care what the law in Québec is, you are saying you don't care about the terms of the rental agreements being violated

you keep trying to ascribe your moral feelings on the matter to what is instead handled by what is considered legal and just to citizens



We are talking about my moral feelings on the matter. you are asking how I feel about leases. I think they should not be violated.

I do care about the terms of a lease. I think leases should be voluntarily agreed to and the government should not have any say in the deal.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinetheRealrollforever
I DID-DENT
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/31/13
Posts: 12,846
Loc: Bada-Bing!
Last seen: 2 hours, 2 minutes
Re: British people try to guess US healthcare cost [Re: Tantrika]
    #26369270 - 12/08/19 03:15 PM (4 years, 2 months ago)

All good, I much prefer a zingy one liner than fruitless philosophical disagreements.  Yes the gub’ment is necessSry for the protection of society at large,  but that doesn’t inherently imply that they can raise taxes under the guise of “its for the people”. Most of it isn’t and most of it is wasted in my personal opinion.  Therefor I think it’s unjust that politicians with no real ties to providing the services or materials they are regulating are able to decide FOR EVERYONE what is best.  Make everything a true popular vote on ISSUES not representatives.  I know, I know,  that way of doing things is hopeless because of all the people out of touch with true morality.  My 2c


--------------------


sunshine said:
The order has to be secret and no one is sure.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBANANA.MAN
Turd Ferguson
Male
Registered: 01/11/15
Posts: 7,474
Loc: Ontario Canada
Last seen: 5 hours, 8 minutes
Re: British people try to guess US healthcare cost [Re: Tantrika]
    #26369276 - 12/08/19 03:18 PM (4 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Tantrika said:
Quote:

theRealrollforever said:
What is legal is a far cry from just and moral.




then is your position that the rich should be able to eject the poor at whim, and use the police to hold them down should they object

or do you agree with me that Québec is in the right by legally protecting innocent citizens from the more powerful?



its not a matter of rich vs poor. the person who owns the property should have freedom of association and autonomy over their property. However if they take on a voluntary agreement they mist honour that.

the same reason I cant take your phone against your will is the same reason you cant live in another person's property against your will. we all have the right to property. regardless of economic standing.

the police can use force to prevent you from comendeering someone else's property. because you would be violating their rights.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleTantrika
Miss Ann Thrope
Female


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/26/12
Posts: 17,138
Loc: Lashed to the pyre
Re: British people try to guess US healthcare cost [Re: BANANA.MAN]
    #26369282 - 12/08/19 03:20 PM (4 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

BANANA.MAN said:
1. roads should be funded by the residents of the area in which they belong. your taces from the praries should not go toward our roads in Ontario.
...




Yet the trans-Canada (lol, trans) highway conveys goods and services across the country
so Ontario's economy benefits from use of the roads of other provinces it passes through

Quote:

BANANA.MAN said:
2. No it doesnt. You are going around in circles Ive already explained this. Protecting a right means preventing people from actively taking it away. preventing murder is protecting the right to life. preventing theft is protecting the right to property. actively giving someone money is not protecting their right to property. A right is something that cant be taken away ftom you. Not someone that you entitled to for free and someone is required to give you at their expense.

...




This is you making a value judgement on how you define protection of a right
The reason we are going in circles is because you adhere to your own feelings, and not the factual and observed benefits of healthcare

Quote:

BANANA.MAN said:
3.  total misread of what I said. It feels like gou arent even trying to understanf anymore. I'm being selective based on very specific criterea that I have repeated over and over.

Its not based on what benefits individuals and I never said it was. at all. not once. that is simply untrue.

I said things which PROTECT RIGHTS not PROVIDE FREE THINGS AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS

roads are required for police and military. they are also non excludable.

you are combining two scenarios first of all which appears to me to be an attenpt to be dishonest I hope that wasnt your intention.

so simply because the government declares use of force ok in a given situation its ok? so it wss ok for nazis to confiscate property from jews  and arrest them for being jewish and if the jews resisted they would have been innitiating a violent interaction?
...




How was it a misread, it was me asking you to clarify your position because you failed to do so with your previous text
You took the position that your rights were being violated, but did not actually show that in any way

Do not think it was okay to use force for the Nazis (those in a position of power) to confiscate property from the Jews (those in a position of disempowerment)
and do not think it is okay to use force for the rich to confiscate property from the poor
how are your feelings on these parallel situations you provided?

Quote:

BANANA.MAN said:
4. whomever gets less than he/she paid in is having their right to property violated and whomever gets more than he/she paid in is benefitting from the violation of the right to property.




and could you show either instance taking place?
I mean, aside from road maintenance


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleTantrika
Miss Ann Thrope
Female


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/26/12
Posts: 17,138
Loc: Lashed to the pyre
Re: British people try to guess US healthcare cost [Re: BANANA.MAN]
    #26369299 - 12/08/19 03:31 PM (4 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

BANANA.MAN said:
Quote:

Tantrika said:
Quote:

BANANA.MAN said:
Tantrika you know my position by now. If the lease is not expired the person should not be allowed to be evicted. I am against the loophole as you have described it. Not sure what you keep bringing it up for because you're making it sound like there is a disagreement and its confusing me.

once again. if there is an agreement associated with a property, no loopholes unless they are specifically stated in the contract which is agreed to by both parties should allow the landlord to evict the tennant before the agreement expires. I dont care what the law in quebec is. agreements should not be violated.




Am simply asking how your position actually relates to the realities of the agreements as they exist in Québec

by saying that you don't care what the law in Québec is, you are saying you don't care about the terms of the rental agreements being violated

you keep trying to ascribe your moral feelings on the matter to what is instead handled by what is considered legal and just to citizens



We are talking about my moral feelings on the matter. you are asking how I feel about leases. I think they should not be violated.

I do care about the terms of a lease. I think leases should be voluntarily agreed to and the government should not have any say in the deal.




am attempting to engage in a conversation about the practical cost and benefit analysis to society in terms of lease management; Québec has its rental control laws in place to prevent the sort of fluxuating market that costs everyone, and benefits a privileged few
especially since Québec adheres to "National Moving Day" where 90%+ of all leases expire simultaneously

my attempt to discuss rental controls and their benefit to the less fortunate members of society
is being provided in a manner that hopefully reflects the similiar realities of the benefits of healthcare in society being higher than the costs

can respect your position regarding the presumed privileges of ownership that should be protected;
but also recognize how the unique cultural traditions in Québec effectively benefit from government management to keep the province's economy from shutting down at the beginning of every July due to everyone being uprooted


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBANANA.MAN
Turd Ferguson
Male
Registered: 01/11/15
Posts: 7,474
Loc: Ontario Canada
Last seen: 5 hours, 8 minutes
Re: British people try to guess US healthcare cost [Re: Tantrika]
    #26369305 - 12/08/19 03:37 PM (4 years, 2 months ago)

Its not a value judgement. Its what natural rights are. When I say rights I am refering to natural rights. negitive righrs not positive rights. i just dont add the beggining every time to save typing. when i say right, know that I beleive in negitive rights not positive rights.

how can you argue that giving something to one person at the expense of another is "protecting" something? its actively providing something to someone.

we are going around in circles because you are disregarding things I have already said.

not everything thats beneficial should be given to people for free at the expense of others.



It was a misread because you stated that I was in favour of funding things that benefit individuals but not society as a whole. I never said anything of the sort. if it benefits an individual at the expense of another its not ok. If it benefits society ad a whole and is non redistriibutive then its ok.


"You took the position that your rights were being violated, but did not actually show that in any way"


I have explained over and over and over and over and over and over and over how redistributive social programs violate human rights. I'm repeating it one more time. if you ask me to explain again I'm not going to.

If you take money from perdon A and use it to provide person B with a good you have violated person A's right to property by taking his money without just compensation. and his right to freedom of association by forcing hin to participate in a system regardless of how he feels about it.

I'm not going to say it again.


"Do not think it was okay to use force for the Nazis (those in a position of power) to confiscate property from the Jews (those in a position of disempowerment)
and do not think it is okay to use force for the rich to confiscate property from the poor
how are your feelings on these parallel situations you provided?"


so then whydid you say its ok to use force against someone sinply because they are considered delinquent? would jews in nazi germany not fall into that category?

ummmmmm... I dont think rich people should confiscate property from poor people. why would I think that?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBANANA.MAN
Turd Ferguson
Male
Registered: 01/11/15
Posts: 7,474
Loc: Ontario Canada
Last seen: 5 hours, 8 minutes
Re: British people try to guess US healthcare cost [Re: BANANA.MAN]
    #26369313 - 12/08/19 03:41 PM (4 years, 2 months ago)

"and could you show either instance taking place?"

what do you mean? if someone pays $1 into the healthcare system and another pays $0.5 and the first person gets $0.5 out and the second gets $1 out then the money has been redistributed.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleTantrika
Miss Ann Thrope
Female


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/26/12
Posts: 17,138
Loc: Lashed to the pyre
Re: British people try to guess US healthcare cost [Re: BANANA.MAN]
    #26369331 - 12/08/19 03:53 PM (4 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

BANANA.MAN said:
Its not a value judgement. Its what natural rights are. When I say rights I am refering to natural rights. negitive righrs not positive rights. i just dont add the beggining every time to save typing. when i say right, know that I beleive in negitive rights not positive rights.
...




So you make a value judgement based on the types of rights you believe in, and how those rights may be preserved

Quote:

BANANA.MAN said:
...
how can you argue that giving something to one person at the expense of another is "protecting" something? its actively providing something to someone.
...




because protecting the well-being of all individuals benefits the collective, and the well-being of the collective benefits individuals

Quote:

BANANA.MAN said:
...
we are going around in circles because you are disregarding things I have already said.

not everything thats beneficial should be given to people for free at the expense of others.
...




Am asking you to support the things you say, and waiting for provision of those points

Quote:

BANANA.MAN said:
...
It was a misread because you stated that I was in favour of funding things that benefit individuals but not society as a whole. I never said anything of the sort. if it benefits an individual at the expense of another its not ok. If it benefits society ad a whole and is non redistriibutive then its ok.
...




You said: "3. ... Its not about whether or not I like it. its about whether or not natural rights are being violated."
My request was: "could you please use the information provided to show that natural rights are being violated via providing for you through taxed income
or, alternatively, housing, feeding, and rehabilitating you at a cost to other tax payers "

at what point is there reference to me making claims that you are in favour of any kind of funding
did you lose track of your numbered points relative to the conversation we were having?

Quote:

BANANA.MAN said:
...

"You took the position that your rights were being violated, but did not actually show that in any way"


I have explained over and over and over and over and over and over and over how redistributive social programs violate human rights. I'm repeating it one more time. if you ask me to explain again I'm not going to.

If you take money from perdon A and use it to provide person B with a good you have violated person A's right to property by taking his money without just compensation. and his right to freedom of association by forcing hin to participate in a system regardless of how he feels about it.

I'm not going to say it again.
...




You have provided fear-mongering stories about your life being taken as response to a lack of adherance
and then said "I already showed that over and over" when asked to actually support the point by showing appropriate data

now that you are at least not going to waste time with that path again,
are you prepared to actually support your point with factual information, or are you going to tell me more about how you want to rape officer Zoey because she came to enforce the things you said cops should be funded to enforce

Quote:

BANANA.MAN said:
...

"Do not think it was okay to use force for the Nazis (those in a position of power) to confiscate property from the Jews (those in a position of disempowerment)
and do not think it is okay to use force for the rich to confiscate property from the poor
how are your feelings on these parallel situations you provided?"


so then whydid you say its ok to use force against someone sinply because they are considered delinquent? would jews in nazi germany not fall into that category?

ummmmmm... I dont think rich people should confiscate property from poor people. why would I think that?




you may have to excuse me if you misread my statement, did not feel like typing out "delinquent who wants to abusively rape and potentially kill her due to perceived threat"
felt "delinquent" would suffice since we had been in extended discussion about Jim attacking Officer Zoey


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleTantrika
Miss Ann Thrope
Female


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/26/12
Posts: 17,138
Loc: Lashed to the pyre
Re: British people try to guess US healthcare cost [Re: BANANA.MAN]
    #26369342 - 12/08/19 03:57 PM (4 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

BANANA.MAN said:
"and could you show either instance taking place?"

what do you mean? if someone pays $1 into the healthcare system and another pays $0.5 and the first person gets $0.5 out and the second gets $1 out then the money has been redistributed.




This is a made up example
but entertaining it in the place of concrete data

you have already specified that all medical costs are non-standard,
so both people pay a total of $1 in by paying $.5 dollars at different times
and both receive $1 in service back at different times
if one person is a meth abuser and the other is a marathon runner
then the meth abuser uses health services to get back on track and contribute to society
and towards the end of their life, the marathon runner gets approval for surgeries that cannot be performed on people that did not take care of their body to the same age


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinetheRealrollforever
I DID-DENT
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/31/13
Posts: 12,846
Loc: Bada-Bing!
Last seen: 2 hours, 2 minutes
Re: British people try to guess US healthcare cost [Re: Tantrika]
    #26369347 - 12/08/19 04:00 PM (4 years, 2 months ago)

It’s pretty simple.  I don’t agree with how they spend the taxes that are taken out regardless of what I say about it.  Therefore it is a theft of what is “mine”.  You can justify that theft as benefiting society but it’s still theft.  Robin Hood was a thief.


--------------------


sunshine said:
The order has to be secret and no one is sure.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleTantrika
Miss Ann Thrope
Female


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/26/12
Posts: 17,138
Loc: Lashed to the pyre
Re: British people try to guess US healthcare cost [Re: theRealrollforever]
    #26369360 - 12/08/19 04:08 PM (4 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

theRealrollforever said:
It’s pretty simple.  I don’t agree with how they spend the taxes that are taken out regardless of what I say about it.  Therefore it is a theft of what is “mine”.  You can justify that theft as benefiting society but it’s still theft.  Robin Hood was a thief.




then stop participating in society and gaining posessions that come by doing so?

the grossest reality is, it's not feasible to dig a well, build a shack on the land, and forage
because the concept of property ownership means you end up being taxed for setting up on property within the legal confines of the nation
only recourse is to find a nation to inhabit with a tax scheme one agrees with


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinetheRealrollforever
I DID-DENT
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/31/13
Posts: 12,846
Loc: Bada-Bing!
Last seen: 2 hours, 2 minutes
Re: British people try to guess US healthcare cost [Re: Tantrika]
    #26369394 - 12/08/19 04:24 PM (4 years, 2 months ago)

Is that really fair to ask?  It’s really neither here nor there.  I think the government should be much more limited than it is and you can’t really tell me anything that will change my mind.  It’s a philosophical difference not something you can present evidence about and change my mind.


--------------------


sunshine said:
The order has to be secret and no one is sure.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleTantrika
Miss Ann Thrope
Female


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/26/12
Posts: 17,138
Loc: Lashed to the pyre
Re: British people try to guess US healthcare cost [Re: theRealrollforever]
    #26369401 - 12/08/19 04:27 PM (4 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

theRealrollforever said:
Is that really fair to ask?  It’s really neither here nor there.  I think the government should be much more limited than it is and you can’t really tell me anything that will change my mind.  It’s a philosophical difference not something you can present evidence about and change my mind.




Suppose "fair" depends on where you are
to my comprehension, the United States has some form of defensible position referring to being a "free man on the land"
which Canada does not

if that does not effectively allow US citizens to opt-out without leaving their national or state borders
then my miscomprehension means unfortunately no nation on the planet facillitates such to my knowledge
which reinforces the limited scope of recourse


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinetheRealrollforever
I DID-DENT
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/31/13
Posts: 12,846
Loc: Bada-Bing!
Last seen: 2 hours, 2 minutes
Re: British people try to guess US healthcare cost [Re: Tantrika] * 1
    #26369428 - 12/08/19 04:43 PM (4 years, 2 months ago)

You are speaking in terms of legalities, and I am on my own personal definition of fairness.  We are discussing two different things


--------------------


sunshine said:
The order has to be secret and no one is sure.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleTantrika
Miss Ann Thrope
Female


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/26/12
Posts: 17,138
Loc: Lashed to the pyre
Re: British people try to guess US healthcare cost [Re: theRealrollforever]
    #26369449 - 12/08/19 04:50 PM (4 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

theRealrollforever said:
You are speaking in terms of legalities, and I am on my own personal definition of fairness.  We are discussing two different things




Ah, was not aware you were using "[your] own personal definition of fairness."

made up individual definitions are not typically as useful to conventional discussion between interpersonal social parties

but perhaps you are just here to express your feelings, in which case you are naturally free to carry on


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBANANA.MAN
Turd Ferguson
Male
Registered: 01/11/15
Posts: 7,474
Loc: Ontario Canada
Last seen: 5 hours, 8 minutes
Re: British people try to guess US healthcare cost [Re: Tantrika]
    #26369510 - 12/08/19 05:19 PM (4 years, 2 months ago)

1. ok this is degenerating into a semantics thing. it started off as a conversation about what the role of government should be and its starting to be about whether what I'm expressing can be categorized as a value judgement or not. If thats what you want to say then how about I just grant you that because we are drifting further and further away from the actual substance the more we pursue this thread of discussion and I am not crazy about this 5 conversations at a time anyway and dont think its the most productive way to go about it. so lets just say its a value judgement and if you want to go back and restart this thread of conversation from before we got hung up on this issue of categorization then I'm game but I would not be bummed out if we eliminated this thread of conversation and tried to find the real root of the issue at hand..

2. aside from preventing their rights to life, liberty and property from being violated, what does it mean to protect the well being of others? we all have different ideas about whats best for society. are we are all just competing to enforce what we beleive society should be onto everyone else?

because I dont beleive two gay guys vowing to live together constitutes a marriage. I dont beleive people should be worshipping idols. I have alot of beleifs.

its a good thing everyone can just say "look

3.  you said this

"But you seem to consent to other things, like roads
so you are being selective based on what you feel is appropriate and/or most benefits you as an individual rather than Canadian society at large"


That is a total misread. I dont personally want to benefit from someone elses money. I dont want for the government to fund re distributive programs in general regardless of whethr or not it benefits me.

police, the justice system and military benefit society as a whole. but those examples all protect life, liberty and property. 

4. this point isnt about specific data its about the way the system functions. some people take out more than others. thats BY DESIGN you font need data to show it. thats the point of setting up the system this way. so that the rich and subsidize the poor. thats the whole poijt of universal healthcare.

you want data? look at how much the 1% payd in taxes compared to the rest of the Canadian population. not only are they paying more relative to their amount of wealth people are put in different tax brackets. and again. not everyone takes out the same amount. some people put a larger strain on the healthcare system and cost it more money. how is that not redistributive? how id that not a violation of the right to property?

at least pixelpopper is honest that he doesnt care about the right to property and wants to take away money at gunpoint from rich people. you are pretending thats not what you are advocating for.

its not fear mongering. its true. if i dont pay taxes the police will initiate a violent situation with me and if i resist i can be killed. that is absolutely true.

5. Why is it ok to subdue someone because they wouldnt gice you their money willingly but its not ok to subdue someone because they wont have sex with you willingly? its a violation of consent and an initiation of force in both situations. I think they are both wrong.







Quote:

Tantrika said:
Quote:

BANANA.MAN said:
"and could you show either instance taking place?"

what do you mean? if someone pays $1 into the healthcare system and another pays $0.5 and the first person gets $0.5 out and the second gets $1 out then the money has been redistributed.




This is a made up example
but entertaining it in the place of concrete data

you have already specified that all medical costs are non-standard,
so both people pay a total of $1 in by paying $.5 dollars at different times
and both receive $1 in service back at different times
if one person is a meth abuser and the other is a marathon runner
then the meth abuser uses health services to get back on track and contribute to society
and towards the end of their life, the marathon runner gets approval for surgeries that cannot be performed on people that did not take care of their body to the same age



So now you are agreeing with my statement that the systems are redistributive in nature and making a new suggestion that over time it all works out to everyone being equal. so the burden of proof would be on you to back up that new suggestion which you are bringing to the table.

but even theoretically that doesnt make sense because you are saying both the meth user and the marathon runner will receive the same benefit but you're failing to take into account that the meth addict who is according to your scenario going to die young and who is presumably broke and its not unlikely that they would be unemployed and not pay many taxes in their lifetime. the marathon runner is likely going to pay much more in taxes. so they are both benefiting but one is paying more into the system.

imagine a person who only go to private healthcare providers. they are having their money taken and not receiving any benefit from the public healthcare system.

the whole point of having nationalized healthcare is so that the rich and subsidize the poor and the healthy subsidize the sick. and I have no problem with a private insurance company using the premise of the healthy subsidizing the sick because its based on consent. two parties voluntarily entering into an agreement. I'm not in favour of forcing people to pay into a system that redistributes wealth.


it doesnt matter if it merely benefits society although again the burden of proof would be on you to show me that but dont bother because it doesnt matter. I've already stated that I am advocating for natural, negative rights here, not made up, positive rights.

I'm not convinced that the government does a better job than  community and non profit and for profit organizations but as realroll pointed out thats beside the point. we are talking baout morality here.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleTantrika
Miss Ann Thrope
Female


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/26/12
Posts: 17,138
Loc: Lashed to the pyre
Re: British people try to guess US healthcare cost [Re: BANANA.MAN]
    #26369595 - 12/08/19 06:07 PM (4 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

BANANA.MAN said:
1. ok this is degenerating into a semantics thing. it started off as a conversation about what the role of government should be and its starting to be about whether what I'm expressing can be categorized as a value judgement or not. If thats what you want to say then how about I just grant you that because we are drifting further and further away from the actual substance the more we pursue this thread of discussion and I am not crazy about this 5 conversations at a time anyway and dont think its the most productive way to go about it. so lets just say its a value judgement and if you want to go back and restart this thread of conversation from before we got hung up on this issue of categorization then I'm game but I would not be bummed out if we eliminated this thread of conversation and tried to find the real root of the issue at hand..
...




Sure,
the real root of the issue is whether or not healthcare benefits society
and how shocking the negative result of a lack of healthcare (in the US) is to those who have healthcare (in Britain)
unless my comprehension of the topic presented by OP is incorrect

Quote:

BANANA.MAN said:
...
2. aside from preventing their rights to life, liberty and property from being violated, what does it mean to protect the well being of others? we all have different ideas about whats best for society. are we are all just competing to enforce what we beleive society should be onto everyone else?

because I dont beleive two gay guys vowing to live together constitutes a marriage. I dont beleive people should be worshipping idols. I have alot of beleifs.

its a good thing everyone can just say "look

...




suppose it may be viewed as competing to enforce beliefs
if the data is not sufficient

Quote:

BANANA.MAN said:
...
3.  you said this

"But you seem to consent to other things, like roads
so you are being selective based on what you feel is appropriate and/or most benefits you as an individual rather than Canadian society at large"


That is a total misread. I dont personally want to benefit from someone elses money. I dont want for the government to fund re distributive programs in general regardless of whethr or not it benefits me.

police, the justice system and military benefit society as a whole. but those examples all protect life, liberty and property.
...




healthcare protects life and liberty, you don't want to fund it because you don't recognize the data
you want to fund the police, but you complain that the police will come for you if you object to healthcare

it was not part of my statement that you want to benefit from someone elses money; it was my statement that you like things that benefit you but don't necessarily like things that benefit the rest of Canadians

if this is still a misread, please clarify
am uncertain what position you are trying to take -- is it the idea that property is more important (in your view) than life and liberty?


Quote:

BANANA.MAN said:
...
4. this point isnt about specific data its about the way the system functions. some people take out more than others. thats BY DESIGN you font need data to show it. thats the point of setting up the system this way. so that the rich and subsidize the poor. thats the whole poijt of universal healthcare.

you want data? look at how much the 1% payd in taxes compared to the rest of the Canadian population. not only are they paying more relative to their amount of wealth people are put in different tax brackets. and again. not everyone takes out the same amount. some people put a larger strain on the healthcare system and cost it more money. how is that not redistributive? how id that not a violation of the right to property?

at least pixelpopper is honest that he doesnt care about the right to property and wants to take away money at gunpoint from rich people. you are pretending thats not what you are advocating for.

its not fear mongering. its true. if i dont pay taxes the police will initiate a violent situation with me and if i resist i can be killed. that is absolutely true.
...




"it's not about the data, it's about the way data functions in a system"
so it's about the data, and the data shows positive benefits of healthcare

but if you want to look at data on the rich and their contributions
here was my first google result when typing in "Canada 1% tax":
Quote:

Canadian companies avoided paying up to $11.4 billion worth of taxes they should have paid in the single tax year of 2014, according to the federal tax agency.

The Canada Revenue Agency released its fifth and final report on the tax gap, this one focusing on corporate taxes. Previous reports examined factors such as sales tax fraud, domestic tax evasion, and the use of offshore tax havens to look at how much leakage Canada's taxation system has.

Tuesday's report estimates that in the 2014 tax year, Canadian corporations managed to pay somewhere between $9.4 billion and $11.4 billion less than they should have in taxes.



https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/cra-corporate-taxes-1.5179489

but if business-centric data is not appropriate in lieue of citizen data:
Quote:

Well-heeled Canadians have hidden up to $240.5 billion in foreign accounts and are dodging up to $3 billion a year in federal tax on those funds, according to the CRA's first ever attempt to estimate how much government revenue is lost from individuals stashing money abroad.



https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/cra-tax-gap-foreign-holdings-1.4726983

But it is interesting that now you are trying to fear monger against me because you don't like the facts of the matter
while going on to not provide data to support your point, but say "that is absolutely true" in absence of support anyway

Quote:

BANANA.MAN said:
...
5. Why is it ok to subdue someone because they wouldnt gice you their money willingly but its not ok to subdue someone because they wont have sex with you willingly? its a violation of consent and an initiation of force in both situations. I think they are both wrong.
...




You appear to have mistyped a statement again here
it's okay to subdue someone who tries to force you to have sex with them
or who physically attacks you
like someone who attacks the police because they live under fear mongering stories that the police are going to attack them first

Quote:

BANANA.MAN said:
...
Quote:

Tantrika said:
Quote:

BANANA.MAN said:
"and could you show either instance taking place?"

what do you mean? if someone pays $1 into the healthcare system and another pays $0.5 and the first person gets $0.5 out and the second gets $1 out then the money has been redistributed.




This is a made up example
but entertaining it in the place of concrete data

you have already specified that all medical costs are non-standard,
so both people pay a total of $1 in by paying $.5 dollars at different times
and both receive $1 in service back at different times
if one person is a meth abuser and the other is a marathon runner
then the meth abuser uses health services to get back on track and contribute to society
and towards the end of their life, the marathon runner gets approval for surgeries that cannot be performed on people that did not take care of their body to the same age



So now you are agreeing with my statement that the systems are redistributive in nature and making a new suggestion that over time it all works out to everyone being equal. so the burden of proof would be on you to back up that new suggestion which you are bringing to the table.

but even theoretically that doesnt make sense because you are saying both the meth user and the marathon runner will receive the same benefit but you're failing to take into account that the meth addict who is according to your scenario going to die young and who is presumably broke and its not unlikely that they would be unemployed and not pay many taxes in their lifetime. the marathon runner is likely going to pay much more in taxes. so they are both benefiting but one is paying more into the system.

imagine a person who only go to private healthcare providers. they are having their money taken and not receiving any benefit from the public healthcare system.

the whole point of having nationalized healthcare is so that the rich and subsidize the poor and the healthy subsidize the sick. and I have no problem with a private insurance company using the premise of the healthy subsidizing the sick because its based on consent. two parties voluntarily entering into an agreement. I'm not in favour of forcing people to pay into a system that redistributes wealth.
...




Agreeing with is a strong term
entertaining your imagined scenario is more appropriate

as you seem to now recognize, the reality of the situation between a meth abuser and a marathon runner
is that the meth abuser will use far less services due to early expiration and various disqualifying factors
so the person who pays more due to living healthy for a longer period also gets more benefit than the person who pays less because they are paying for less cumulative time

the matching payments and outcome are only accounted for the duration of the meth abusers life
after the meth abuser dies, they aren't really paying for the marathon runners ongoing healthcare in the subsequent decades

Quote:

BANANA.MAN said:
...
it doesnt matter if it merely benefits society although again the burden of proof would be on you to show me that but dont bother because it doesnt matter. I've already stated that I am advocating for natural, negative rights here, not made up, positive rights.

I'm not convinced that the government does a better job than  community and non profit and for profit organizations but as realroll pointed out thats beside the point. we are talking baout morality here.




you are asking me not to bother because it doesn't matter to you,
because you feel that the data can't meet your standards

this thread was created on the basis of information on how public healthcare benefits, and how its absence in the US is to the detriment of citizen well being
except for the rich, they can afford healthcare in the US
or to travel out of Canada in order to queue jump when they don't want to wait


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBANANA.MAN
Turd Ferguson
Male
Registered: 01/11/15
Posts: 7,474
Loc: Ontario Canada
Last seen: 5 hours, 8 minutes
Re: British people try to guess US healthcare cost [Re: Tantrika]
    #26369700 - 12/08/19 07:15 PM (4 years, 2 months ago)

1. im talking about tge discussion we started not the one in the OP.

2. Tantrika im not saying data is never important. I'm saying that im expressing my view on the morality of redistribution and government regulations in the market.

3. its not about data. protecting a right is not the same thing as providing goods and services to people for free at someone elses expense. data about healtgcare outcomes doesnt change that. I beleive in the protection of natural rights. not proiding people with goods and services for free. I beleive the government should only prevent rights from actively being violated.

no property is not more improtant tban life and liberty theI didnt say tou said I wanted to benefit from someone elses money. I was saying It doesnt matter what benefits me as an individual or society as a whole. I dont consider either of those things. what matters is whether or not a law is infringing upon a right and taking peoples money and giving it to someone else is a violation of rights.

No property is not more impeotant than life or liberty. healtcare doesnt not protect the right to life. it may prevent someone from dying but its not protecting the RIGHT its not preventing the RIGHT from being violated.


4. Like I said many times its not about what benefits society the government shouldnt do something simply because someone can make a case that its beneficial in my view. its about whether or not it violates the right to property by being redistributive. and the point of beinging up the data about how the wealthy pay a higher share of taxes is to show you that the system is redistributive.

it doesnt matter if its beneficial to society. giving everyone free food is beneficial to society should we institute a universal food ration?

we are talking about two different things. you are saying that i am saying that healthcare is not beneficial. Im not saying that. Im saying its a violation of the right to property by virtue of the fact that the wealth which is put in is redistributed.

you said a meth addict and a marathon runner get the same out of it. I said even if everyone did get  the same out of it (which is obviously not the case. some people have more heallth problems throughout their lives than others) people pay in a different amount whoch is the point i was trying to illustrate by saying most tax ravanue is collected from the rich.


5. But look at the tax revanue collected. the majority is fron the welathy. even with all this evasion they pay a disproportionate amount of taxes. so they pay in more ergo the system is redistributive.

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/file/measuring-the-distribution-of-taxes-in-canada-infographicjpg
here is some data. the rich pay more. ergo the system is redistributive. ergo roperty rights are being violated.

6. No I didnt mistype. I'm asking why is it ok for the police to subdue anthony because he would not voluntarily handing over his money but its not ok for robbert to subdue annie because she would not voluntarily have sex with him.

7. ut during the meth users shorter life they will likely experience more health problems and requite more care due to their unhealthy life style.

what if someone uses only provate healthcare services because of the superior quality?

8. Im discussin morality. you came into the conversation and you werent clear on how rights were being violated so i explained. Im not arguing about tge effectiveness. If you want some info on that then go back in the thread to where I was discussing innovation in the private vs public sectors and yes, providing sources and using real world examples.

here, I'm explaining how involuntary redistributive systems violate rights. im not getting back into a discussion on effectiveness of public vs private. I'm burnt out. This is my highest post rate in a long time. I'm only here to continue our discussion by rarionalizing my position that  taxation without just compensation is theft and to explain how healthcare is redistributive. and how protecting natural rights is different from providing something to someone for free.

I'm not arguing about whether public or private is better in terms of effectiveness. maybe some day when I recharge we can have a go at that discussion.

I just want to answer your questions about how public healthcare violates human rights.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleTantrika
Miss Ann Thrope
Female


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/26/12
Posts: 17,138
Loc: Lashed to the pyre
Re: British people try to guess US healthcare cost [Re: BANANA.MAN]
    #26369753 - 12/08/19 07:52 PM (4 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

BANANA.MAN said:
...
5. But look at the tax revanue collected. the majority is fron the welathy. even with all this evasion they pay a disproportionate amount of taxes. so they pay in more ergo the system is redistributive.

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/file/measuring-the-distribution-of-taxes-in-canada-infographicjpg
here is some data. the rich pay more. ergo the system is redistributive. ergo roperty rights are being violated.
...




Damn, that's crazy
the money being hidden overseas appears to be significantly higher than the money the upper tax bracket pay into the system
apparently by severalfold, but as you linked to an image with no description of the data, it is hard to account just how much that tax bracket is screwing over the rest of us

think of all the jobs and development to infrastructure that could have taken place if not for the hiding and tax dodging
the Canadian economy would be in a better place for everyone

the real unfortunate part about the brackets as they are divided in the infographic tho
is that the "top 20%" is being all linked together
and someone who makes 190 000 dollars a year is at a vast wealth disparity from someone who makes 500 000+ dollars a year
presumably the lower end of the top 20% are not doing as much of the money hiding, more like the top 5%, or 1%

Quote:

BANANA.MAN said:
...
6. No I didnt mistype. I'm asking why is it ok for the police to subdue anthony because he would not voluntarily handing over his money but its not ok for robbert to subdue annie because she would not voluntarily have sex with him.
...




you have also established that the police won't enact violence against anthony for that
but will subdue anthony if he enacts violence against them

in the same way, it would be okay for Annie to defend herself from Robert's violence

Quote:

BANANA.MAN said:
8. Im discussin morality. you came into the conversation and you werent clear on how rights were being violated so i explained. Im not arguing about tge effectiveness. If you want some info on that then go back in the thread to where I was discussing innovation in the private vs public sectors and yes, providing sources and using real world examples.

here, I'm explaining how involuntary redistributive systems violate rights. im not getting back into a discussion on effectiveness of public vs private. I'm burnt out. This is my highest post rate in a long time. I'm only here to continue our discussion by rarionalizing my position that  taxation without just compensation is theft and to explain how healthcare is redistributive. and how protecting natural rights is different from providing something to someone for free.

I'm not arguing about whether public or private is better in terms of effectiveness. maybe some day when I recharge we can have a go at that discussion.

I just want to answer your questions about how public healthcare violates human rights.




you could start by providing proof of your assertions with regards to how healthcare violates human rights
:shrug:

you keep repeating a made up story about how much danger you are in by not consenting to pay taxes,
but then you refrain from providing measurable proof to support your assertion

I can say I'm afraid transphobes will come and violate my right to life for no reason other than they hate me for being trans
but that wouldn't mean much of anything without the data to back it up as proof

even if rates of transphobic violence are high enough for the United Church of Canada to recognize the Transgender Day of Rembrance


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBANANA.MAN
Turd Ferguson
Male
Registered: 01/11/15
Posts: 7,474
Loc: Ontario Canada
Last seen: 5 hours, 8 minutes
Re: British people try to guess US healthcare cost [Re: Tantrika]
    #26369784 - 12/08/19 08:26 PM (4 years, 2 months ago)

1. regardless, rich people pay more than everyone else. they would pay more if they didnt have offshore accounts. that doesnt change the fact that more revenue is collected from them as it is.and if you had your way it would be even more unfair. way to prove my point. you think they should pay even more than the disproportionately large sum they already pay.

think of all the jobs and developement that can happen now that the rich person can afford to invest in private business ventures.

I dont agree that the Canadian economy would be better. most innovation has been the result of private parties and individuals. but again ive had that discussion many times and am only interested in wrapping up this last conversation right now which is not about effectiveness. I dont want to keep jumping into new topics.



2. "you have also established that the police won't enact violence against anthony for that
but will subdue anthony if he enacts violence against them

in the same way, it would be okay for Annie to defend herself from Robert's violence"

no once again you are twisting what I say every time. I established the opposite.

The police officer will initiate the violence by trying to subdue anthony SIMPLY for not paying the taxes. even if anthony doesnt do anything pshycial to him. If that werent the case then anthony could just not pay the taxes and nothing would happen. its the police odficer initiating the violence.


3. realistically my rights have probably not been violated. I'm young and havent earned alot of money. I'm sure I can easily make the money ive spent in taxes back through services. but someone elses right is being violated

if everybody is paying the same amount then  whats the point of socialized healthcare? the whole point is for the rich and healthy to subsidize the poor and sick. or else why would we have it? why wouldnt everyone buy their own insurence if there is no difference?


https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/measuring-the-distribution-of-taxes-in-canada

sso pelase clarify, do you not think money is redistributed in the canadian healthcare system?


taking someone' property against their will and using it for someone else's benefit violates the right to property. what kind of evidence are you looking for? what would I need to show you for you to understand that? its about.

taking property (including money) away and giving it to someone else is by definition a violation of their right to property. what evidence am I supposed to show you?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < First | < Back | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | Next >

Shop: Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds High THC Strains


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Lady at ObamaCare townhall meeting lies about being a doctor Tedwilto 457 1 08/18/09 01:12 AM
by DeathCompany
* i consented to a search of my car last night :(
( 1 2 all )
ZippoZM 5,541 36 05/27/14 09:45 PM
by EdibleStereos
* If drugs were legal how much would they cost? BrAiN 1,830 15 01/24/05 01:54 PM
by Ravus
* Looking to get a new car - what are the hidden costs when buying? Twirling 1,004 12 10/04/05 04:52 PM
by Prisoner#1
* British Troops Under the Influence of LSD in Combat
( 1 2 all )
mjshroomer 2,081 22 03/17/05 06:16 PM
by aoxomoxoaMan
* If gas is gonna cost $3 a gallon
( 1 2 3 all )
MrBump 6,022 55 07/24/05 09:31 PM
by D4NK
* The Age of Consent........
( 1 2 3 all )
Mighty Bop 4,410 43 09/06/05 11:33 PM
by Skunk420
* Oh well, guess the world's gonna end in 9 years.
( 1 2 3 all )
SkorpivoMusterion 2,243 58 09/18/05 03:32 PM
by trendal

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Entire Staff
7,157 topic views. 12 members, 70 guests and 42 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.029 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 14 queries.