Timewaster's Guide Archive
General => Everything Else => Topic started by: The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers on April 18, 2006, 10:36:11 AM
-
reference: http://www.timewastersguide.com/view.php?id=1287
-
You have shadowfist cards?
Those are RARE at the moment. A bunch of fans are buying them back and stuff to try and recirculate them. Seriously, advertise what you have on the yahoo group. And tell me so I can arrange something.
-
we have boxes and boxes of shadowfist cards...
Just like we had boxes of Vampire the Eternal Struggle until Saturday untill tow guys bought 100 bucks worth of cards...
-
Awesome article! You know, it's kinda funny, I was just wondering when the next one of these was going to come out yesterday.
-
all of our columns are bi-weekly. Except Page 33, which hasn't of late because I'm lazy.
-
Don't leave me hanging! Which sets? How much? Can we arrange sale by post?
-
I wont be back in till Saturday... I'll catalog it all then, and then maybe you and I can come to an arrangement.
-
If it's just sitting there, even if I'm not itnerested I can probably find some people who would be. Of course, if it's Dark Future I'll buy it from you then resist the temptation to ebay it :)
-
Wait... so I just realised, $5.15 an hour is about 40% under the uk minimum wage. :s
-
yeah, and people wonder why people think the US minimum wage sucks.
-
It sucks becuase of the trained monkeys that are "working" to try and combat inflation.
-
ninja monkeys aren't paid, fool. As soon as you pay them, they start to think they're autonomous. And nobody wants that.
-
e, I am shocked, did you not pick up that I said trained monekys, and not Ninja Monkey Assasain Priests. The very idea that your followers would spend time around these trained monkeys is insulting to both them and you.
-
Ent not only is it 40% under British standards 90% of all minimum wage jobs offer Zero health care.
-
Ent not only is it 40% under British standards 90% of all minimum wage jobs offer Zero health care.
Shocking. And we thought Stalin was bad...
-
Accch... Commies. Shoulda taken that government out right after Hitlers.
-
See, just to make sure it's clear, unlike the civil parts of the world, the way I understand it is that in the US, if you don't have private health insurance the government provides nothing - you get sick and have no money and you're stuffed.
-
The US government does provide several program to help certain individuals to cover the cost of medical care. An example is someone who is working for $5.15 an hour as long as they have kids or have some disability or are above the age of 65. Unfortunately, getting this help in some state is next to impossible and in other states they help anyone who applies.
It should also be noted that with the decreasing number of people private health insurance, this government aid is necessary so that doctors can make their six digit salaries (after their residency of course) and hospitals can charge $400 for a box of tissues.
-
See, just to make sure it's clear, unlike the civil parts of the world, the way I understand it is that in the US, if you don't have private health insurance the government provides nothing - you get sick and have no money and you're stuffed.
funny how being "civil" corellates to "weak economic power." Seriously jam, stop the US bashing. It'll only piss us off (which, I assume, you're doing on purpose, in which case, BAD FORM!)
-
Judging by the anarchist symbol, I am under the impression that you are all for Anarchy and Communism... which is odd, because under both, no one lives well.
Don't tell me you want the government to just.. "take care of everything". The money has to come from somewhere.. and I know what you are going to say.. it is the same thing every leftist says, Just tax the rich...
You can't keep taxing rich people without end to make them pay for other peoples social issues.
2 reasons.
1: You have never been, nor will ever be hired by a poor person. Rich business owners who start to lose money start cutting jobs and wages in order to keep the business afloat.
2: The incentive for starting a business and living the American dream is gone.. who wants to try to get rich if Millions of people on medi-care are just going to take it away from you? You have the problem of Russian potatos.
For these reasons America is the richest country ever, even if you added all of the European nations together, by far! Because people learn to take care of themselves and not rely on Big brother to help them out.
And no, right now in the U.S. many states have charity laws, which say if you can't afford healthcare, the hospital is to do it out of charity. This has caused several hopsitals in California to go out of business due to the illegal immigrant problem.
-
For these reasons America is the richest country ever, even if you added all of the European nations together, by far! Because people learn to take care of themselves and not rely on Big brother to help them out.
Sometimes, money or the aquisition of wealth aren't as important as we think it is. How truely wealthy are we if a signifigant percentage of our population is suffering? In terms of money how much more wealthy would we be if the people who couldnt afford health care recieved care when they were sick? How many missed work days would they be able to make up? How many other people would be spared from contagious diseases if the carriers recieved early treatment? Total quality of life must surely be as valuable as GDP and Per capita income.
-
America is rich and part of the reason is that if you don't work 3000 hours a year, then you don't get healthcare or a house and many other things. Now in many countries in Europe you can do no work and the government will take care of you (at least until the government can't fund their expensive welfare systems anymore because the number of rich people keep on declining).
Unfortunately, real wages in America are declining, so everyone will have to work more and more (and get more and more education) to earn the same amount of money (unless you're one of the 8.3 million millionaires in the US). It should also be noted that the rich are gettng richer in the US and the poor are getting poorer but that better than in many countries.
-
Holy cow, lay off of Jam, people. Obviously he touched a nerve, but there's no need to beat him up.
Also: are we really rich if we have an immense foreign debt that we will never, realistically, be able to pay off?
-
Sometimes, money or the aquisition of wealth aren't as important as we think it is. How truely wealthy are we if a signifigant percentage of our population is suffering? In terms of money how much more wealthy would we be if the people who couldnt afford health care recieved care when they were sick? How many missed work days would they be able to make up? How many other people would be spared from contagious diseases if the carriers recieved early treatment? Total quality of life must surely be as valuable as GDP and Per capita income.
Sure it does. But every story of anyone needing serious care in socialized medicine countries is a nightmare.
How can your socialized medicine be an improvement when you have major movements in places like Finland to start a private sector health-care insurance (so people can actually get care instead of being screwed over by the government) or when you have citizens pay full price (instead of nothing) for an operation in another country rather than wait eighteen months at home to get the surgery at home so they can live without pain?
I keep hearing socialized medicine touted as a good thing, but I've only recently come above the technical poverty line, and I've been taken care of very well in the health care department under private health care.
-
Its a balance E, but one that we shouldn't offhandedly dismiss, socialized medicine is hardly a panacea but then again private medicine leaves a lot of people wanting. It seems like hubris to brag about our wealth if we can't or wont provide for the poor in any signifigant way especially when more people become poor every year.
-
You're right, privatization is the worst system
...except for all the other ones out there.
No, it's not perfect, but it's hardly hubris to say we're doing better when we actually are. Or do I need to remind you that you're arguing we're doing better off than most places in another thread?
-
I know what you are going to say.. it is the same thing every leftist says, Just tax the rich...
You can't keep taxing rich people without end to make them pay for other peoples social issues.
2 reasons.
1: You have never been, nor will ever be hired by a poor person. Rich business owners who start to lose money start cutting jobs and wages in order to keep the business afloat.
2: The incentive for starting a business and living the American dream is gone.. who wants to try to get rich if Millions of people on medi-care are just going to take it away from you? You have the problem of Russian potatos.
It's interesting that you say that because I was reading a book recently that was talking about how the rich are able to pay less taxes than the poor. For one, you have rich people in Congress, and well are they really going to pass something that is really bad for them? No way.
Two, the rich have people working for them who are smart enough to help them pay as little tax as possible. I don't really understand the logistics of it because I'm not an accountant, but it has something to do with owning your own corporation. When you do, you can spend as much as you want from what the corporation makes tax free. The only money that is taxed is the money that is left over at the end of the year. The author talked about how he was able to use the money to buy a Porsche (in cash, being rich and all) and it was tax-free money. And all he did to create a corporation was buy some real estate (apartment buildings and such) and put them in a corporation he created. He started small with one house, then when he sold it took the proceeds to buy a bigger house (which is tax-free if you reinvest), then a small apartment complex, then a bigger place, and kept doing that.
I'm sure there are some rules on what you can spend this money on, but he didn't go into detail on that. It really changed how I look at money, though. I recommend anyone reading his books. His name is Robert Kiyosaki and the one I read was Rich Dad, Poor Dad. Totally recommended!
But what I'm saying is that the rich have a way to pay less taxes (percantage-wise) than the poor. So yeah.
I like what others have said, though, about how we need to figure out how to take care of ourselves and not rely on the rich to do it. Otherwise we might turn into those people with entitlement issues who think they deserve this and that just because (no real reason why). It bugs. But I hope I have a job with health insurance for that reason! It can be very expensive!
-
The difference between a rich country and a poor country is that the rich country has the opportunity, if it chooses, to help out.
I agree, it isn't fair that someone who can't afford to get healthcare doesn't trust me, my wife and I have been there. But the government can't provide it, by itself or just by taxing the rich. History proves it time and time again. Europe (France especially) is running into huge problems because of this, Russia's living was one of the worst of a "modern nation" in our history, not just in healthcare but in food as well! When McDonalds first went in, there wasn't one potato that could be turned into a french fry, they all had to be imported, they were all (yes, everyone) to small being poorly grown and fertilized, because no one cared to do well when you aren't rewarded or punished. When you get to far to the left (or right) it doesn't work.
Good point Tink, I have read that book. It was good. As for taxes, I totally and completely favor flat tax. everyone pays the same.
The only reason they do things like giving tax breaks is because if you get a tax break for building a huge apartment complex, the government loves it!! they will gladly give you 500K break for building cheap housing that would otherwise cost them 4-5 million.
That is why these laws are in place. Unfortunately it is easy to take advantage of and buy cars.
-
Even if the private system by itself isn't the best system Im not arguing that it needs to go away, or that its evil. I also dont think I would argue that its better than every other system out there because I dont have the data to back that up. Frankly third party anecdotes about operations in other countries dont do that job. I have my own anecdote that influences my opinion a bit. When my wife was in Spain in college she fell and cracked her head open on the cobblestones she needed a lot of stiches. In America she would have had to pay an arm and a leg for care 500-1000 dollars for the ambulance ride, 100 dollars for the bandages, 300 dollars for stiches and painkillers and so on. In Spain she paid 10 dollars and waited 10 minutes to be seen. It wasnt the horror story that I hear a lot from americans about socialized medice.
But your right, socialized medicine itself isn't always good enough and there are gaps in quality. Im not prepared to offhandedly dismiss it without investigating it or other health care options more closely though.
I don't hate private medicine by any means but I don't think I have to settle for it just because I've been told "its the best" I'd like to read and learn more about it. It doesn't seem like the best on the surface, and maybe thats what Im reacting to. But I wish more people had access to health care.
-
I think they are probably great for emergencies. I know that we had to wait in line for an hour before we could buy cough medicine. Of course.. that can happen at a grocery store. I don't think any one system is the best. I don't know what the ideal system is, and I don't feel anyone else does either.. were kind of in a duldrum.
-
a doldrum?
-
a dole-drum?
-
Doldrum. right. sorry!
-
that almost became a musical opening...
-
The NHS is in a mess, but that's because it needs reform badly. It's got enough money.
The idea that people would seriously suggest that no free healthcare is a good idea makes my head hurt.
-
There are really two kinds of free healthcare.
1: The kind where those providing it choose to do so and to spend their money to do so. Things like Operation Smile and all those church run hospitals that treat the indigent.
2: The kind where those providing it are forced to do so and are also forced to spend their money to do so. That's socialized medicine. In the end it's just the government taking your money at gunpoint in order to give it to someone else.
Obviously, there never has been and never can be truly "free" healthcare. Someone is footing the bill in every case. I agree wholeheartedly with Entsuropi that the idea that you'd refuse to treat someone because they didn't have enough cold hard cash is horrific. On the other hand I also find the idea of someone taking money from me at gunpoint and redistributing it to be horrific and exactly like all those failed experiments in communism, or a mugging.
I don't know how to balance the two. Anybody?
-
So do you have a problem with roads, schools, libraries or a military? These are all things your taxes go for. Is someone mugging you to pay for those? Im not trying to be snarky with the question, im generally curious.
People dont seem to mind taxes for other things, or at least dont mind their benefits so why would health care be different?
It just seems like some things in this country cant or wont be done by an individual, so we need to tax and use those taxes for the betterment of the whole or the protection of the individual.
-
Exactly what has been said. Yay, America's rich. Guess what, you CAN'T EAT MONEY. I live in a less rich country, but I live in one where if I'm sick, someone's gona help me get better if I'm rich or not. Money does not HAVE to come from somewhere, because money doesn't exist - it is merely a social value ascribed to near worthless pieces of paper and metals. Money is not a justification for anything. Try True Cost Economics - Economics that calculates costs based on environmental impact and resources.
Yes, I have an anarchy symbol in my picture. Yes, I have isocratic beliefs. I do not have communist beliefs. Communism is not the same as Isocracy. You really should do research before you bash me based on that. You also say no-one lives well, but I'm pretty sure there aren't a lot of true isocracies around to test that theory. It's not an easy system to create, and probably will require posthumanism first, which is ok by me.
Oh, and Go Forbid that people might not be able to get rich! I mean, there are many countries full fo starving people, human rights abuses, and even in the same country, people living in poverty. But no, it would be horrible to share economic wealth around and let them have enough to eat, because then some people can't be richer than others!
To use an example, I know e doesn't make THAT much money. But ask him about his daughters and if that doesn't make him the richest man around. Money doesn't equal happiness, and being rich in money isn't that great. I myself earn a huge amount of money, but that hasn't brought me half the happiness my girlfriend has.
Anyway, I'm not saying the US is bad - I'm saying that the health care system you use is terrible.
-
First, great article...love the series so far.
Second, did I miss something? I get busy, don't check the forums for a while and Jeffe gets a new job. Are you still in the Coast Guard, Jeffe? Fill me in, yo!
-
part time job...
-
Which we're all glad he got since it gives us an interesting article to read.
No one wants to hear me talk about web design at my job, though the crazy global events lady is good for a few laughs. Like how we're not supposed to use any fonts, graphics, ect that show cracks in them because it's bad luck in one part of Asia. (FYI for those that heard the other stories about her, this is the same nutty lady that wants me to work under her as director of global websites. She just kind of promoted me one day I guess, which got my boss laughing since she has no authority to do so).
-
The NHS is in a mess, but that's because it needs reform badly. It's got enough money.
The idea that people would seriously suggest that no free healthcare is a good idea makes my head hurt.
Sorry to make your head hurt, Ent, but no, I don't agree with socialized medicine. Primarily because every NHS is in a mess and needs reform badly. Maybe there's enough money in it, but it doesn't get used right. Whereas I pay for my healthcare, (well, copay, my current boss is generous enough to cover full cost of my health insurance) and I pretty much get any care I need the moment I make the phone call.
It *works* better. Maybe you don't have to pay for it, but that's only natural, because you shouldn't have to pay to be raped.
-
So do you have a problem with roads, schools, libraries or a military? These are all things your taxes go for. Is someone mugging you to pay for those? Im not trying to be snarky with the question, im generally curious.
People dont seem to mind taxes for other things, or at least dont mind their benefits so why would health care be different?
It just seems like some things in this country cant or wont be done by an individual, so we need to tax and use those taxes for the betterment of the whole or the protection of the individual.
Excellent question, and one I was expecting.
I think socialized medicine is a stupid idea. Since it's my money and I don't want to pay for it, I shouldn't HAVE to pay for it. I agree with the need for roads and a military and the other things you mentioned and would willingly pay my share even if the gov'mint didn't already take my money before I ever touch it. And yes, I am currently being mugged by the government for things like the NEA and dole welfare programs and so on.
Having a military, a police force, and roads are efficient methods for protecting the country and it's interests, keeping people safe and protecting property rights in an orderly society, and moving necessary goods from place to place effectively. Socialized medicine is not an efficient method for providing all necessary healthcare to a country's citizens. That has been proven many times in the past and is being born out everywhere it's practiced right now.
So we agree that taxes should be used for the betterment of the whole and the protection of the individual. Socialized medicine does not do either of those things in the long run while the infrastructures you listed do.
As for your argument, "People dont seem to mind taxes for other things, or at least don't mind their benefits so why would health care be different?" That line of reasoning can and has been used for everything up to and including gas chambers for jews. Imagine if someone said "People don't mind taxes for supporting the road system so why should they mind taxes to pay for a really efficient method of liquidating all the illegal immigrants and solving that whole problem really quickly?" Yes it's a ridiculous example but your argument works equally well in both cases.
-
Also Heath Care is VERY expensive, MSN just had an article about tax rates by country (I'll see if I can find it) and the countries with Socialized heath care were all around 50% tax rate. In the us the average is 20% for single and 11% for married with one kid. Is universal heath care really worth a 30-40% increase in taxes?
-
Exactly what has been said. Yay, America's rich. Guess what, you CAN'T EAT MONEY. I live in a less rich country, but I live in one where if I'm sick, someone's gona help me get better if I'm rich or not. Money does not HAVE to come from somewhere, because money doesn't exist - it is merely a social value ascribed to near worthless pieces of paper and metals. Money is not a justification for anything. Try True Cost Economics - Economics that calculates costs based on environmental impact and resources.
Jam, it doesn't matter what you call the expenditure, whether it's money or environmental impact and resources things still COST. Healthcare COSTS. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. And no matter how you manipulate the symbols or how stridently you call socialized medicine "free healthcare" someone somewhere is paying for it and if it's not the peope receiving the service right now, eventually it will be, probably when the system breaks down and nobody can get healthcare.
Yes, I have an anarchy symbol in my picture. Yes, I have isocratic beliefs. I do not have communist beliefs. Communism is not the same as Isocracy. You really should do research before you bash me based on that. You also say no-one lives well, but I'm pretty sure there aren't a lot of true isocracies around to test that theory. It's not an easy system to create, and probably will require posthumanism first, which is ok by me.
Ok, now I'm curious. What is Isocaracy? Jam, I ask in all sincerity for a summary of that belief system from you. Who better to ask than a proponent?
Oh, and Go Forbid that people might not be able to get rich! I mean, there are many countries full fo starving people, human rights abuses, and even in the same country, people living in poverty. But no, it would be horrible to share economic wealth around and let them have enough to eat, because then some people can't be richer than others!
Actually, as was proven in the former Soviet Union and is still being proven in North Korea, among others, forcibly redistributing wealth and thereby disconnecting labor from its fruits leads to the worst class disparity the world has ever seen. 99% of the population in the USSR lived in abject grinding poverty with all its attendant evils while the high government officials and the criminal kingpins lived in the lap of luxury. The same is true in N.Korea today and in Cuba and so on. Perhaps I've misunderstood though. If you are trumpeting the idea that it's morally right for people to voluntarily choose to use their wealth to benefit the poor I wholeheartedly agree. It simply has to be voluntary to work.
-
Shocking. And we thought Stalin was bad...
Yes, I have an anarchy symbol in my picture. Yes, I have isocratic beliefs. I do not have communist beliefs. Communism is not the same as Isocracy. You really should do research before you bash me based on that. You also say no-one lives well, but I'm pretty sure there aren't a lot of true isocracies around to test that theory. It's not an easy system to create, and probably will require posthumanism first, which is ok by me.
I know that Isocracy is and Anarchy as well as communism and socialism, Isocracy is where everyone has equal political power. Anarachy is where no one has the ability to coerce or force someone into a decision they don't want to make. They are huge differences, I don't see why you claim the symbol and then act like it is obvious you are isocratic.
Socialism is where the people own everything equally, and distribution is based on the whole needs of all the people.
Even Hitler was a socialist as was Stalin, it's just he was a communist as well.
So, when you make comments like the Salin one, and socialized medicare in the next it doesn't leave to much wondering which form of socialism you gravitate towards.
The government shouldn't force everyone to pay for something that a person can do on their own. I also feel that public schooling is one of the worst things that can happen, no government employee should be allowed to strike, join a union or receive tenure.
Exactly as Skar said.. eventually all socialized systems break down.. the poor abuse it, and the rich can't afford it.
-
Even Hitler was a socialist as was Stalin, it's just he was a communist as well.
Fascism != socialist.
-
That is not correct. Fascism is the idea that a nation or state is superior to the individuals. Not the idea that all individuals have equal claim on the government property.
Many find fascism hard to define, or add that a fascist government also holds that race is superior, this is a less commonly accepted view. Hitler's form of fascism was that the workers party (and thus, the white race) were the superior, and therefore had claim to everything equally. Which is why Hitler's government is often viewed as a none fascism. The one thing everyone agrees on, is that Italy created the one and only completely true fascist state in the early 1920's as a direct movement against Socialist and Communist fronts in Russia.
In true fascism, the state is more important than that of the individual, whereas in a true socialist view, the opposite holds, where the state must lay down before the needs of the individuals (as all individuals are equal and have equal claim the the services of the state). Where in fascisim, the state may choose whether or not the individual is worthy of the state's service's.
They are totally and completely oppostie in the true forms. No... Fascism does not equal Socialism.
-
jack, you actually agreed with Ent there.
!= means NOT equal to
-
My bad, I apologize, Ent if I was at all offensive!
... I am unsure as to what is being said, in relation to my quote.
-
I think he was saying that you labelling Hitler a socialist was incorrect. Despite the party name "National Socialism"
-
haha, ;D
Hitler was parts of both. he kind of melded the two.. He was more socialist than Fascist.. but, he still had both....
...I guess we could define it as 'Hitlerism'.
It, like fascism, sounds bad enough to avoid for future use. No one would really want to be known as a Hitlerist.
-
Isocracy is very similar to anarchism, if not identical. I have recently come to prefer the term because it lacks the negative connatations of anarchy. Yes, there are subtle differences, but on the whole a isocratic society would be very similar to an anarchistic one. I mean, in ana narchy you have no government, but a truly representative democracy could be considered isocracy, but face it, an anarchy will still have leadership roles, but they will be leading not through power but through the people having respect for the leaders good decisions.
Think of open source software development. Some people are going to take charge, but if they don't do it well, the people will just leave and go and work on it themselves.
The reason I use this symbol is because the anarchy sign, already cool looking, is merged with a power on sign. The whole thought of digital anarchy or anarchy through tech appeals to me.
Should I mention now that Australias taxes aren't that much higher than the US, yet we offer government supported healthcare to anyone who chooses not to or can't afford private healthcare? Apart from some isolated incidents that were very bad, it is good - the main difference is smaller rooms in hospitals, less luxary, you can't choose your own doctor but get assigned one etc. You'll still get the treatment you need. Plus, no 40% increases in tax that I've noticed.
-
This is also one of the luxuries of being a world power and not a super power however.
The major world rule, governing countries, is that there is always only one super power at any given time, no matter what.
If rule one is broken, you have a war (hot or cold, you have war).
As such, we are required to spend more money on military than other things. Our taxes would suffer a MAJOR increase, due to the fact that we have now, and have to keep a military that can challenge multiple fronts at once, police the world and ensure that the world economy stays afloat. (Imagine a U.N. without the U.S.)
Our money is only worth anything because the government says so. If our government ever fell or collapsed, American money would be worthless, since you can't just exchange it for gold or some other precious metal. Thus, American money has the ability to increase relative to any supply or service, versus stuck on the amount and worth of gold in the world.
And you can't say that well, just get rid of your military. guys like Hitler make sure that argument is worthless.
Point being, America Must keep it's defense equal to it's wealth, and cannot afford to focus on everything with 100% efficiency. That is just to much to ask of a nation.
-
Yes, because killing people (Millitary) is much more important than saving people (Health).
-
You are meaning to be sarcastic. But, in fact, I agree with that statement. Without the U.S. military, for example, it is quite likely that the wars in the Middle East would have reached a boiling point a long time ago, when one fundamentalist group or another got a hold of some enriched uranium or plutonium, or some other equally volatile substance, and that would be that. Or the same thing might happen in Korea. Or Africa, or any of the other countless danger zones that the U.S. Military polices. Beside that, what happens when we get rid of our military in favor of free health care? We get invaded, and the invaders eliminate our current political system, including free health care.
-
I agree with Archon. Without a strong military, we'd all be wearing swastikas, or living our lives (if you we were 'lucky' enough to be so) as slaves to the master race.
And again, if nothing was keeping the Palestinian armies in check, the nation of Israel would be gone long ago. You may not think it is a big deal, but that is a lot of dead people. So, it is a question of life and death, and America did choose life.
Don't forget about your history with the battle of the Coral Sea, Papua, Buna and Gona. Without either one of our militaries, you'd be an Imperial Japanese protectorate and another Axis powers supply chain post 1943.
I dont' think anyone is saying that 100% healthcare isn't noble. What we are saying is that it's not practical, it's a feel good answer that will crumble sooner than most.