NHS: The best reason to dump Obamacare!

[Rum]

Personal and family experience? Saved my life, my father's and mother's lives, the life of my father in law and my daughter.

At what cost to others and society? Sorry, but none of your relatives has a right to medical care that is provided by placing others into involuntary servitude.

Everybody dies. Everybody. Some sooner than others. That's life, get used to it.

The NHS is awesome.

No it's not, it's evil.

You are evil. I will tell you why. You are opposed to socialised medicine purely on the grounds of your sick and selfish ideology. You overlook the simple pragmatic truth that it has saved millions of lives and prevented millions from going into penury to cure themselves and their families of common illnesses.

[pErvinalia]

When the taxes are taken and transferred more or less directly to another person in the form of welfare or direct government assistance to people the government thinks needs it IS theft and slavery, without any question whatsoever.

Your phrasing is pretty vague, but I think you do have a point here. Paying taxes toward something which is obviously to the benefit of the community, such as roads, is not obviously comparable to paying taxes which are directed to other persons in your community. In the case of the latter, it is indeed a transfer of property without the explicit consent of the person property is being transferred from which is unethical at best. The representative and publicly elected government is presuming consent on the part of the electorate when they develop the taxation system of America and everytime they enforce it.

It could be argued that this transfer of wealth is to the benefit of society as a whole, including yourself, which is what you'd call "Marxist". A simple cost-benefit analysis will prove this, given present statistics. So you are, in fact, recieving back more than you pay. It's hard to see when all you're presented with are taxes with no visible return, but analysis shows you'd be spending/losing more income if this policy was not enacted.

Yep. You need to have a certain level of equity in society, or society will collapse. That's the price you have to pay. The other point to be made is that the strictures of society are what enable people to make money. The more money you've made, the more you've relied on the strictures of society to provide for that wealth. It's not in the least unfair that you should give a portion of that back to society.

[Rum]

Quite so. I had an above average income for the latter half of my working life. I assume that the higher taxes that I paid then were being spent in part on others with less income. Personally I was happy with that. I also assume that if I needed some medical intervention that was going to cost a huge amount that my input didn't finance in net fashion, the same system would support me. It is a social contract.

[pErvinalia]

I do hope he refrains from using the roads and highways others have built when he goes to purchase his bullets.

Taxes aren't theft when he gets to use them.

Taxes to pay for what I use by way of public amenities and resources are not theft, they are merely the cost of using such public infrastructure, and I pay for what I use and always have, which includes never taking a dime of government money in my entire life by way of grants, subsidies or assistance payments. Every dime I've ever gotten from government has been earned.

Oh really. And how do you pay for the roads you use in other government localities? (fuck, I don't know why I am bothering doing this. I know exactly what your answer is going to be (and I've just pm'd Fuku with the answer), and we've had this stupid debate a million times before).

And you never, ever pay attention to the answers I give, which is why you go on acting like an idiot. How do I pay for the roads I use? Through taxes. I pay gasoline taxes in "other government localities" and I pay highway tolls when and where I choose to do so if they are sought.

I deliberately choose the Kansas Turnpike for example because it is a well-maintained highway that gets me where I'm going for about seven bux maximum. I even sometimes use the E-470 toll road around Denver, which is PRIVATELY OWNED, even though it costs about $18 bux for the whole route, which is less than half the length of the Kansas Turnpike. But if I don't feel like using it, I suck it up and fight the traffic on I-25, which I pay for in various ways.

If the government of another state wants me to pay for my use of their roads, then they can collect a toll from me, and I won't even complain...so long as they tell me up front how much I have to pay so I can decide if I want to avoid that state. But if they don't, then I'm entitled to use the highway without further charge. And if its a federally-subsidized highway, I pay for that use through various vehicle-related ownership, use and commodity taxes like gas tax, tire tax, etc..

And since I DO NOT use the highways in many states, including federal highways, why should I be compelled to pay for them? I'm fine with paying for them if and when I use them, but not otherwise.

Damn, you didn't answer it the way I thought you would. You must have got caught out enough times by now to have learnt.

Anyway, surely you pay some form of specific local or state tax that contributes to road building and maintenance. It can't all be gained via gasoline taxes and federal taxes (and tolls), surely?

When the taxes are taken and transferred more or less directly to another person in the form of welfare or direct government assistance to people the government thinks needs it IS theft and slavery, without any question whatsoever. It's pure socialist redistribution of the fruits of one man's labor to the needs of another person whom the laborer has no moral, ethical or legal duty to support.

That's a distinction that I always make and you always ignore, which makes your comments mendacious pettifoggery and dissimulation.

I don't ignore it.

Yes you do.

I point out to you that there is a thing called a "social contract". At which point you disingenuously ask to see it, or show you where your signature has been applied.

Indeed, and you've never once been able to show it to me.

And, the rebuttal you make is nothing more than a fallacious resort to common practice.

So which is it? Do I ignore it or do I make a rebuttal? Oh, that's right, Seth is just making up bollocks in place of an actual argument.

"Why is it okay to do it that way? Well, it's because that's the way we do it." Intellectually juvenile evasion of the fundamental question that I asked, which is, once again, "Why the fuck do you think that you are entitled to seize the fruits of my labor and force me into involuntary servitude against my will and to my detriment in order to satisfy your needs and desires?"

Your answer is the equivalent of the might-makes-right claim "because we can."

That's not a thoughtful and erudite logical or rational defense of socialism, it's an evasion and you use it every single time because you know you cannot ethically or morally defend your socialist dogma.

You don't even know what socialism is.

The social contract isn't literally a piece of paper you sign, despite your juvenile protestations. It's an understanding that to receive benefits and protections a society provides, is going to incur a cost. The only point up for debate is concerning the level of that cost. Denying that society provides you benefits above and beyond the physical stuff like roads et al that it provides, is, well, to show zero understanding of anthropology and economic markets. I have no doubt that you are smart enough to understand most of these points we make to you, but they don't fit your dogmatic ideology nor your old testament morals.

[pErvinalia]

I've done it a million times before, Seth. You don't listen to a word that is said. You are an ideologue with your mind made up, and nothing is going to change it. You think you are surrounded by Marxists, yet have absolutely no idea what a Marxist actually is.

Liar. You've never done it even once. You've studiously evaded the core issue for years now. And I know what a Marxist is, and what a Marxist useful idiot is, and you're one.

Seth, half the rd.net political forums are filled up with me and 914 and Aunty (PaulG), 95Theses, Snow leopard (Alnilam), fact-man, mr Jonno (before he became unhinged) and others addressing this very point.

Evading the point, actually. But that's an appeal to authority fallacy.

Can you not read simple English? You said I was lying that the arguments have been addressed before. I'm telling you that those people listed, plus a lot more, have explicitly addressed them at rd.net. That's got nothing to do with an "appeal to authority fallacy". Do you know what is being discussed here? I don't know if you are suffering from a brain injury, but I vividly recall MANY threads of hundreds of pages long on this exact topic. To say that we haven't responded to your intellectual bowel movements is simply wrong. And there's bulk evidence of it at the archived rd.net.

Do it here and now if you can.

Why the fuck would I? I've literally wasted months of my life arguing with you. It was a time when I thought that Libertarianism was something that we (the left) needed to fear. I now realise it is a fringe cult full of lunatics that virtually no one takes seriously. I have zero desire, or need, to bother with it. You are a dogmatic, so I have no chance of changing your mind. And I don't need to do it for anyone else, as there are so few people who actually buy this shit you sell. Your paranoid delusions of teh Marxists make the rest of your arguments a laughing stock. Seriously, knock yourself out presenting this stuff unchallenged, and continue to delude yourself that you are making a good impression. I can assure you, virtually everyone laughs at this shit.

I don't think you can because you never, ever have. You just resort to dogmatic proclamations and specious assumptions and blithe dismissals of both fact and logic, and then when challenged you resort to Alinsky ad hom tactics to derail the thread.

Says the person that got banned from ratskep for being an abusive troll. Oh, that's right, it was a Marxist conspiracy.

I've seen YOU do it a hundred times, and all the rest of the fuckwits you mention do it hundreds of times themselves.

Never ONCE has one of you socialists been able or willing to put up a rational and well-thought-out logical defense of socialism. Not once. Ever. In all my 30 years of debating the subject. Never.

Seth, you are an ideologue. You wouldn't recognise a logical argument if you saw one. And even if you did, you would never allow yourself to accept it, as it would shatter your dogmatic world. This is the futility of arguing with a dogmatic. It's 100% pointless. But knock yourself out presenting your retarded theories. I'll sit back and have a good laugh.

[macdoc]

In all my 30 years of debating the subject. Never

Because you never listen and live in a fantasy world of your own making trying to justify your $100k self insured health fund .
Meanwhile the rest of the world moves on and you and your ilk are marginalized while Norway et al are happy examples of well run social democracies.

Britain is broke and cannot afford the same level of service in most part due to the rape by economic deregulation and a vain attempt to remain a world military power plus allowing the the North Sea oil wealth to be frittered away.
It''s poor management of resources and allowing predators free access to the cookie jar of communal wealth.
US is a mess for similar reasons...poor management, irresponsible decisions especially under Bush..
Obama is making some strides to correct it and shale gas is a big help ( will also be in Britain if managed well ) but when right wingdings like you have a say in blocking any sensible progressive legislation - it's a wonder anything gets done at all.
Most of the repuglies should be in jail for treason against the republic...there is good reason Nancy Eisenhower quit
....it's not Snowden that is a threat....

Take a lesson in management

http://www.theatlantic.com/internationa ... _page=true

[mistermack]

Britain and most of the world are in trouble because their banks were conned by the americans into financing unsafe debt.

That's their fault, they shouldn't have fallen for it. But americans trumpeting their system as superior really is bollocks.
It's what put us where we are.
Who has all of the money that was lost? Mostly the very richest american and world capitalists. Who's paying? The poor, in the US and the rest of the world.
That's the only reason that the US can't afford proper health care for all. The very richest have got all the money.

[Tyrannical]

You could have pretty cheap healthcare if you only use drugs and medical equipment with expired patents.

[Azathoth]

Bring back feudalism. That shit worked

[Tero]

You could have pretty cheap healthcare if you only use drugs and medical equipment with expired patents.

Half the drugs out there are expired patents! Anything with a generic is expired.

[Azathoth]

You could have pretty cheap healthcare if you only use drugs and medical equipment with expired patients.

[Audley Strange]

Oh yea? Then why do IRS agents carry guns, and why do they have federal tactical teams to back them up when they raid someone's house to arrest them for tax evasion?

They carry guns because there are criminal lunatics who would shoot at them.

Resist paying taxes long enough and vigorously enough and the IRS will have you executed without a trial. That's a fact all over the world, including the UK and NZ.

No they won't, no it isn't, no it isn't. If you have evidence to the contrary (worldwide btw not some fucking end-timer in Montana, real people) present it.

And the force is always there as a threat to coerce me into involuntary servitude and surrender the fruits of my labor to pay for some socialist fuckwitted dependent class leech who wants to smoke crack and make babies on someone else's dime.

Just ask Wesley Snipes what happens if you refuse to pay your taxes. You can reach him C/O the federal prison system. And you can bet your ass that if he'd resisted arrest vigorously enough the guys with machine guns would have killed him.

No, you can voluntarily choose not to pay taxes or to choose not be be in servitude nor surrender the fruits of your labour. You are not coerced to do anything. A shoddy attempt at rhetoric.

As for Wesley Snipes. He evade paying taxes, that is a crime. Did he end up dead? No the evil socialist fuckwits provided him with a nice place or residence to reside in rather than kill him. Frankly , if you think you have the right to not pay taxes and to kill anyone who forces you to, you are as bad a criminal parasite as those you bitch endlessly about and since pitching in is something that reviles you, I'd say that execution was probably the right move, since why should we burden the rest of us to pay for criminal parasites who refuse to pay their taxes. However it's not. I can think of one person who was shot during an investigation of non-payment of taxes and that was the dangerous crackpot William Cooper who started firing at officers of the state.

[klr]

You could have pretty cheap healthcare if you only use drugs and medical equipment with expired patents.

You do realise that if everyone tried to do that, pharmaceutical companies would never bother to develop new products in the first place?

[klr]

...

The ONLY way to control medical costs is to make people pay for their own medical care. This encourages them to live a healthy lifestyle and take care of themselves and put money aside for future medical needs, as it has me. Those who cannot do so must rely on charity, altruism and enlightened self-interest of society by asking for help rather than demanding it at the barrel of a machine gun.

So, what about all of those people who are unlucky enough to have illnesses, conditions and injuries that are no fault of their own?

[Seth]

Oh yea? Then why do IRS agents carry guns, and why do they have federal tactical teams to back them up when they raid someone's house to arrest them for tax evasion?

They carry guns because there are criminal lunatics who would shoot at them.

And why would anyone shoot at them? Perhaps because they are viewed as evil, despotic thieves coming to destroy lives? Why indeed to IRS agents ever leave the office or see a taxpayer in person if not to intimidate and threaten them? Paying taxes is compulsory, and to be compulsory means that the State must have an enforcement mechanism to ensure compliance. The IRS is perhaps the largest terrorist organization on earth which uses fear and intimidation as an everyday tool of ensuring compliance with their byzantine and utterly incomprehensible "tax code."

As we've seen from recent events, it's now also a tool of political terrorism by Obama.

In a perfect world, the IRS would send a single polite letter saying "We believe you owe X for the government services you avail yourself of, please remit it to us at your earliest convenience." And if the taxpayer refuses, then the IRS should be bound by the same rules as every other bill collector in the US is bound by, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.