Health Care

[Blowtus]

1. If only that were the case...crime occurs precisely on account that authority is dis-regarded.
2. A rose is a rose by any other name, though 'anarchy' would be an accurate description of a state of nature.
3. Laughable. That would imply a claim to property that is not their own...could I lay claim to your property on grounds of such things without a pre-existing contract in the name of such things?
4. You likely ate dinner this evening, it must be good for something.

1. Yes, exactly - state authority, not individual firepower, is the largest defining factor.

3. The notion of 'property' itself is that it is a 'claim to stuff that is not ones own'. The computer you sit at is not 'yours' through any inherent, everlasting property of the universe itself, merely through functional custom. When you wish to argue that some customs are more worthwhile than others, (i.e., your 'property rights' over someone else's 'human rights') you need reasons grounded in functionality - dogma doesn't cut it.

 

[razoredge]

My only concern with "healthcare" is that it is a BIG business, lots of people getting rich off of healthcare and have run amuk. Its laughable the expence of "healthcare" and the entire insurance game. Damn near running this country. None the less we have insurance in this country and in that, in theory everyone contributes to the pool and its there when whomever needs it. Great in theory but in application it has made many grubbers filthy stinking rich, be it insurance people, doctors or exagerated law suits. Some of us are healthier or luckier that others. Insurance companies decide what they will pay for and what they will not.

Someone breaks their leg skiing is a risk taker ? ... yeah, but someone breaks their leg on a bicycle because they dont have a mechanical bone in thier body or common sense in their head, I mean who gonna evaluate this stuff ?

Myself I have not had insurance most of my 32 working years. I have had it for only 3 years due to it being provided 100% as part of the pay package, when not paid for 100% I have refused it, I want my hourly wages not contribute 25% of them to some insurance jerk.

I have not needed any healthcare and the few times I needed fixing I paid out of my own pocket. One bill was high enough I told the hospitol next time I will just lay down and die, that was over 15 years ago and I havent been back.

We have a governmental healthcare system in place that provides help for low wage workers. Im more concerned with why there is such a thing as low wages but our government has not addressed this and let competition for lower wage work from immigrants and outside countries keep our labor wages continously falling behind the inflation rate, so this does not bother me what-so-ever, tax the hell out of the wealthy or let them do their own dirty work... in the end Im sure they are happier with their manicures and the current setup.

Last large healthcare concern of mine is what immigrants have cost the country and even the hospitols. They can just lay and die for all I care, they have not been contributors to our society or our country and in most cases have been from countries that have been our nemisis and are continuing that by being in our country... fuck them !

 

[Fenrisúlfr]

1. Yes, exactly - state authority, not individual firepower, is the largest defining factor.

3. The notion of 'property' itself is that it is a 'claim to stuff that is not ones own'. The computer you sit at is not 'yours' through any inherent, everlasting property of the universe itself, merely through functional custom. When you wish to argue that some customs are more worthwhile than others, (i.e., your 'property rights' over someone else's 'human rights') you need reasons grounded in functionality - dogma doesn't cut it.

[1]...and my argument goes over your head as it has in times past. If one disregards the firepower of the state, the act itself is still perpetrated and said firepower has not an iota of remedy.

I would sooner have pikes with the heads of burglars upon them in peoples' yards before trusting someone who invariably would show up too late.

[3]The computer before which I sit is mine through contract, itself a custom to an extent. However, the notion that the computer is mine until I surrender it in the course of a new contract is implicit from the aforementioned contract. Without this, there would be no incentive for people to create property without any guarantee of ownership. Therein lies why taxation is so insidious: if the state confiscates more than the smallest sliver the fruits of the people's labour, a disincentive emerges to produce. Likewise for one who is sick: that is the reason the smart ones put aside monies for a rainy day.

Bottom line: whenever anyone diminishes the incentives to be prudent, people become imprudent, not unlike the ants and the grasshopper. Being of the former variety, it would have been my great pleasure to defecate upon the corpse of the latter as posthumous penalty for his imprudence and lack of industry.

Now the onus is upon you: what 'right to life' does one have, and how does it imply a claim upon the livelihoods of others. If I was to be foolish as the grasshopper, what entitles me to so much as a sliver of the fruits of the prudent ants?

 

[Blowtus]

1. Yes, but there are more crimes prevented due to regard for the firepower of the state than are prevented due to other measures.

3. The onus is upon me to show some right, when we have already agreed that it is simply custom? The claim on your livelihood is simply that imposed by desire (born out of evolving custom) and greater power. As you wish it were otherwise, you need either avoid the claim, oppose it with greater power, or show the claimants that their desire will not achieve the wished for ends. Thus, rather than carry on with 'natural rights' bullshit, I suggest your argument would be much better served through discussion of the motivational basis' for human thriving and the big picture advantages gained through sacrifice of the short term comforts of security, conformity, and protection of the weaker / less prudent. I agree with your perspective (in a watered down manner) in many cases, I just think you couch it in a pissweak dogmatic style of argument. JS Mill had the right idea imho, whether you think 'maximal human happiness' a worthy goal or not, at least he grounded his libertarian ideas solely in their functionality towards a value / end / goal. Basically, you need a more powerful hook than, 'this should happen because some dead bloke said so'.

 

[razoredge]

Go for it Blotus, myself I simply wouldnt waste my time on such a weak tunnel visioned tool, with the character and personality of a toad.

 

[Volve]

Myself I have not had insurance most of my 32 working years. I have had it for only 3 years due to it being provided 100% as part of the pay package, when not paid for 100% I have refused it, I want my hourly wages not contribute 25% of them to some insurance jerk.

I have not needed any healthcare and the few times I needed fixing I paid out of my own pocket. One bill was high enough I told the hospitol next time I will just lay down and die, that was over 15 years ago and I havent been back.

Where I come from you would have those right from the government. Everyone here does. Suddenly you need the medical treatment, but are not ready to die just jet.

One problem of cause is that all europeen people here has the same rights as our own, without paying for it. Rights they might not even have in their own country. This right is something all workers in this country pay for through the taxes. But they don't.

I have a sick story. In Norway we have a few very high cliffs witch is much used for basejumping. In the early days they jumped from a well known cliff beside a major road. The local authorities did'nt like cleaning up bodies and having to pay for rescue operations for foreign people. They had now connection to this country and benefited from our healthcare services. So it was forbidden. They could not basejump from that mountain.

The reason I guess was Norway being so big and only about 10 or 20 persent being occupied, they probably didn't think it could be controlled.

The only problem is, now they still basejump from that mountain but they leave their friends behind to die ... or they call from their homecountry, several days later.

A few years ago it was disided that people who had to be rescued after risky behavier in the wild, would have to pay it themselves. Now the government has troubles making people pay from their home country. These operations can be from 1000 meter tall cliffs. It's risky for the rescuers too. Sometimes the police have to use hours to get the right people. The basejumpers also use the same cliffs usually. These rescueoperations are paid bay the local police, and are very costly.

 

[razoredge]

Where I come from you would have those right from the government. Everyone here does. Suddenly you need the medical treatment, but are not ready to die just jet.

Oh yes, Im ready, I've seen enough of this place, that is so long as its not before I bury my remaining three dogs.

One problem of cause is that all europeen people here has the same rights as our own, without paying for it. Rights they might not even have in their own country. This right is something all workers in this country pay for through the taxes. But they don't.

I have a sick story. In Norway we have a few very high cliffs witch is much used for basejumping. In the early days they jumped from a well known cliff beside a major road. The local authorities did'nt like cleaning up bodies and having to pay for rescue operations for foreign people. They had now connection to this country and benefited from our healthcare services. So it was forbidden. They could not basejump from that mountain.

The reason I guess was Norway being so big and only about 10 or 20 persent being occupied, they probably didn't think it could be controlled.

The only problem is, now they still basejump from that mountain but they leave their friends behind to die ... or they call from their homecountry, several days later.

A few years ago it was disided that people who had to be rescued after risky behavier in the wild, would have to pay it themselves. Now the government has troubles making people pay from their home country. These operations can be from 1000 meter tall cliffs. It's risky for the rescuers too. Sometimes the police have to use hours to get the right people. The basejumpers also use the same cliffs usually. These rescueoperations are paid bay the local police, and are very costly.

That is a shame, I would let them die, because as long as Norway continues to "save" these buttcakes, they will continue to do as they do. Its the same in America, here we have Mexicans and other hispanics that come across the border just to put the screws to our hospitols and our screwed up Social Security system. Most Americans are ignorant to this or passive, yet they will all bitch about our Social Security system and the insane rate of inflation in our health care system. The whole thing is a NO BRAINER... but yet, NO ONE is getting it... go figure. Must have something to do with the "superiority of intelligence" (see the "Races" thread) within the white race that escapes me.

 

[Blowtus]

Somehow I don't think base jumpers worry too much about the available health care if their 'chute fails, when selecting a destination

 

[razoredge]

True, thrill seeking risk is what it is but in reality through selfish inconsideration they knowingly place the burdon on others to clean up the mess. I would suggest placing long iron burred shafts under such designated areas, if that doesnt get the point across... fuck em

 

[Volve]

Somehow I don't think base jumpers worry too much about the available health care if their 'chute fails, when selecting a destination

Well, I agree they don't.

I saw a program about a english woman who had even learned norwegian in order to run her case against the norwegian government. Her boyfriend was killed and she claimed the police used hours not doing anything at the sight.

It actually turns out that a fraction of the norwegian military had to abort their vacation at easter to be able to help out her friend. They were the only ones who had the training to do the job. They did it in their own time with no pay, because the norwegian government has no rescue service of its own. It's usually the red cross doing the work, but this is to specialized.

She claims they didn't do anything for ours, but what can you do when he is laying on a shelf in the middle of a cliffside?

Perhaps they should think about the rescue before something happens instead of blaming people afterwords.

 

[razoredge]

If those involved in law were not such monetary predators the entire cost of such a law suit would be little more than one typed letter to said individual stateing that her "friend was a moron who jumped from a high cliff, prohibited by law and died... end of story... here is a bill for $1,000,000 to extract said individual from their self inflicted predicament, please send check promptly, body will be exhumed from its unmarked grave when payment is made in full, bye, have a nice day"

 

[Blowtus]

Perhaps they should think about the rescue before something happens instead of blaming people afterwords.

Or grow some balls and throw the case out based on initial reports. The problem in that example isn't people putting themselves at risk, its the soppy wankers that can't cope with it when the shit hits the fan, looking for someone to blame / finance them.

 

[Volve]

When you're standing there waiting for a rescue of your friend, two minutes seems like a lifetime.

Those thrillseekers can pay their own rescue. Lets see what they think then.

 

[Fenrisúlfr]

Where I come from you would have those right from the government. Everyone here does. Suddenly you need the medical treatment, but are not ready to die just jet.

One problem of cause is that all europeen people here has the same rights as our own, without paying for it. Rights they might not even have in their own country. This right is something all workers in this country pay for through the taxes. But they don't.

I have a sick story. In Norway we have a few very high cliffs witch is much used for basejumping. In the early days they jumped from a well known cliff beside a major road. The local authorities did'nt like cleaning up bodies and having to pay for rescue operations for foreign people. They had now connection to this country and benefited from our healthcare services. So it was forbidden. They could not basejump from that mountain.

The reason I guess was Norway being so big and only about 10 or 20 persent being occupied, they probably didn't think it could be controlled.

The only problem is, now they still basejump from that mountain but they leave their friends behind to die ... or they call from their homecountry, several days later.

A few years ago it was disided that people who had to be rescued after risky behavier in the wild, would have to pay it themselves. Now the government has troubles making people pay from their home country. These operations can be from 1000 meter tall cliffs. It's risky for the rescuers too. Sometimes the police have to use hours to get the right people. The basejumpers also use the same cliffs usually. These rescueoperations are paid bay the local police, and are very costly.

In such a situation, if the private sector was allowed to step in and provide rescue services, supply and demand would ensure that the services were available without burden to the taxpayer and at minimal burden to the jumpers. Additionally, it was said rescue operations by the police were expensive...perhaps because the police are a government agency, or because they form a monopoly in this case?

Heck, some may decide to offer insurance to cliff-jumpers, covering their expenses up to a certain point for a flat price. I would wager more would go 'splat' than live to tell the tale, so it could be quite profitable.

For the economy, this would be a better alternative to an outright prohibition because employment would be created in the areas of tourism, finance (insurance), and of course rescue and medicine.

Then again, Norway is not a free market, so this would not happen, and those who would otherwise be employed will likely go on welfare or something of that nature.

 

[Volve]

In such a situation, if the private sector was allowed to step in and provide rescue services, supply and demand would ensure that the services were available without burden to the taxpayer and at minimal burden to the jumpers. Additionally, it was said rescue operations by the police were expensive...perhaps because the police are a government agency, or because they form a monopoly in this case?

Heck, some may decide to offer insurance to cliff-jumpers, covering their expenses up to a certain point for a flat price. I would wager more would go 'splat' than live to tell the tale, so it could be quite profitable.

For the economy, this would be a better alternative to an outright prohibition because employment would be created in the areas of tourism, finance (insurance), and of course rescue and medicine.

Then again, Norway is not a free market, so this would not happen, and those who would otherwise be employed will likely go on welfare or something of that nature.

Well, where can I start. As I said earlyer, the red cross usually do the rescue operations in norwegian mountains. They are private. Norwegian government have now rescue service of their own in the mountains. The police only organize it. They have to get the right people to do it, and I guess somtimes they organize search effort when someone is missing.

Norway is a mixed economy like most capitalist states in the world would be. We controll more than other countries do.

But in the mountains you are left to your own divices. Many turists don't realize that. Many turists expects to be told when there is a hazard somewhere. In norwegian nature there are no signs. If you are not dressed according to natures demand, and only carry a mobile phone ... you might be in big trouble if you brake a leg and have now connection. You are dependant on someone finding you. That might be tricky if you did not tell anyone where you went.

And what you say at the top is completely open for anyone to start giving those services. As I told earlyer, the military people did not charge anyone for theire services witch they might do. The basejumpers can have insurence if they want to, but this is not done.

Why these things is not done I don't know. Perhaps they are not willing to pay what it costs?

 

[Fenrisúlfr]

Most likely the jumpers have a perverse incentive to take risks, as they are betting that in the event something goes awry, they will receive a handout at taxpayer expense. Why pay for something one can get for free

 

[Blowtus]

Most likely they are betting that if something goes awry *they will be dead*. Really not that hard to fathom.

 

[razoredge]

Then one could logicaly conclude that the number of base jumpers, paying say $1000 per year for insurance would hardly cover the cost of an extraction and any physical repairs should their be any hope of recovery in the first place... but what do I know.

 

[Volve]

Most likely they are betting that if something goes awry *they will be dead*. Really not that hard to fathom.

Yes, probably. They don't want to think about being a vegetable the rest of their life.

But at the same time I can't see authorities just leaving them to die. They will never do that.

 

[razoredge]

they could dig a large pit at the bottom and just swing by once a week and push a little dirt over top