Luigi Mangione
- Thread starter Zeez
- Start date
Eltitoguay
Well-known member
Not only do you misunderstand me (or rather misrepresent me), but you don't even understand what Universal Public Health is, nor Universal Public Education; which also in no way excludes that there are private companies that are dedicated to healthcare for payment-business.
And stop with the cheap talk, with guns in the chest, and other demagogic comparisons: in this country we have decided by broad consensus and majority (our particular "Social Contract", which @Cannavore refers to in general above; other societies may decide that every adult has the right to buy a gun, for example) , that (beyond human rights, ethics and speeches of Jesus Christ that the majority of "Christian fundamentalists- right-wingers" go overboard) that even the last individual (and their children) on the social-economic scale has the right to the same free education and healthcare as the highest taxpayer on the scale, generates and increases the progress, health and general wealth of the entire society.
And we have not set up this system as a business: but it generates more health, progress and general wealth than anything you could propose: that is why you neither respond nor propose anything better; Becouse you or anybody can't; and you go off on a tangent with topics that have nothing to do with it, only to release your speech again.
Becouse no private healthcare model that you set up in the best scenario of your capitalist dreams can compete with mine in results or cost/results.
Last edited:
This dudes a reptilian from the planet draco, right? No shot he's fully human lol. @Hempy McNoodle what's your thoughts lol
Eltitoguay
Well-known member
And to answer in advance the extreme and demagogic question-objection-example that neoliberals usually raise in response to the above:
Yes: I, who work and pay taxes, gladly "pay" for the healthcare and education of X's children (who, putting us in the aforementioned extreme example, "does not want to work and contribute to his taxes"):
I paid for his education out of "pure capitalist selfishness": why it has been proven that it is the best thing for X's children to be profitable economic contributors (in addition to " better citizens"; but that no longer matters/interests in your ideology) that contribute to improving both the system and the general economy of society in general, and of my family in particular (by contributing to paying for my future pension and education and health of my grandchildren, and to be able to improve the economy in which my children operate).
And since X and his children live in the same society as me and mine, "for the pure interest of general health and progress, I will gladly pay" for their access to Universal Health Care.
And in my capitalist society (although it can be described as "social democratic", it is still capitalist), these two previous measures are almost the only "social elevator", so that the children of poor parents who do not want to work (which their children are not guilty), but that they are future members "economically beneficial for all."
Last edited:
Captain Red Eye
Active member
Except there is no such thing as a "social contract". which can give you the right to violate the right of an otherwise peaceful individual. None. Zero. Zilch. Make believe horse shit.
(When I say, "otherwise peaceful person" I mean a person not actively trying to violate your rights.)
If you think there is, how would you be any better than a rights violating "crony capitalist" or other types of thugs operating in a plurality to force their ideas on an otherwise peaceful person?
Spouting nebulous terms such as "social contract" and "society" as if they grant a license to groups to do things which no individual in the group actually had a right to do to begin with is word smithing. Illogical and contradictory to the concept of individual rights,. Not to mention mathematically unsound too.
Can this "social contract " magic even overcome what liberals like to spout from the other side of their mouth when it suits them, "my body, my choice".?
My body, my choice makes sense, it's too bad you don't actually believe it and you approve proposals that violate the concept when it suits your agenda.
Since all people are "equal" in the rights they are born with, their rights are inherent, not bestowed on them by other people. All another individual or majority of individuals can do to remain rightful is respect or protect other's rights, not conjure up ways to violate them.
That's what a "social contract" intended purpose is. It's a tool of suppression cloaked in phony righteousness. A made-up term to rationalize a group violation of individual right and consent. That's what the evidence and the math shows.
Can you show me the math how 2 or more people all having zero right to do something could add up their zeroes and come up with a number other than zero ? It's impossible.
It's impossible to delegate a right you as an individual don't possess to a group. That's why the word "consent" is so important.
Since people have equal rights as individuals, it becomes necessary to acquire individual consent of other peaceful people before including that person in a cooperative effort a group has proposed. FAILING THAT, the group is a group which has stepped beyond any rights it could have if it forces "consent" from a disinterested but otherwise peaceful person. Logic, get some.
Guns?
You and "society" never decided jack shit about whether other people can have guns or not, nature did. Legal decisions can just as easily deny or affirm a right. They are not precise guides as to whether or not something is rightful. Slavery being once legal is the evidence of that.
Peaceful People always had and always will have the right to defend themselves and to use weapons to do it. Regardless if a majority decides otherwise. Proportionate defensive force is rightful. Offensive force is not rightful. Violating the consent of an otherwise peaceful person is an example of offensive force. You should stop proposing using offensive force as a means to get what you want.
The right of self -defense isn't a revokable privilege or something that can be taken away. or granted by other people. It can be stifled, but the right is still possessed even when you're wrongfully made a captive/slave and have little means to effectuate the right.
Just like you always have had the right to consume weed, regardless of bullshit prohibition others imposed on you. "Your body, your choice" .
Slaves always had the right to free themselves, when their "equality" was usurped and they were enslaved didn't they? Or should they have waited for you and "society" to vote them some "rights".? Didn't slaves ALREADY have the right to be free to begin with? The right to use DEFENSIVE force to repel the OFFENSIVE force another person or group has used against them? The right to say, fuck you take your chains off me!!??
The thing you silly liberals like to do is perch on your phony moral highground, when you point to a result you like, while conveniently ignoring the rights violating means you use to get there.
If just one peaceful person does not consent to be part of a groups idea and the group will not let them opt out, the group is no better than a gang. of thugs.
People that propose mandatory universal healthcare are undeniably assuming consent when it isn't actually given by at least some otherwise peaceful but disinterested people.
Do you have any EVIDENCE TO COUNTER THAT? IF NO EVIDENCE , WILL YOU ADMIT THE OBVIOUS?
There's nothing wrong with "universal healthcare " for all that actually consent to it , Would you be willing to try that?
Last edited:
In your statement as well as those made by me @Captain Red Eye chooses for some reason to overlook this aspect. Is this because he wishes to force his formula upon us? ;D
Captain Red Eye
Active member
So in order to prevent other people from threatening you, your proposal is to have an institution, the State, that threatens you and everyone else? Then to allow them "special powers" that have nothing to do with actually protecting individual rights and frequently are used to suppress rights? Hmmm.
Without intending to, you reveal your State indoctrination , which the State uses to engender fear and your contradiction preserving loyalty.
Also, I agree with you crony capitalism is coercive..
Crony capitalism uses an alliance with the state to do what I explained above. That's why you don't and shouldn't like crony capitalism.
Arguing with me about "crony capitalism" is bad, is redundant, I already know crony capitalism is bad,
An actual free market is not crony capitalism, please don't conflate the two.
A free market featuring rightful voluntary exchange between consenting parties is not coercive. What makes that true, is no parties are under duress, they willingly consent and their interaction is voluntary.
There is no manufactured "consent" like crony capitalist and spouters of "social contract" nonsense use.
Liberals? Well meaning sometimes. Logical? Not so much.
Last edited:
Captain Red Eye
Active member
Allowing other people to act cooperatively while maintaining your right to peacefully decline their proposal is not forcing your wishes on other people.
Please don't you use "gang rapist" logic.
I'm fine with you and your friends cooperating to plan your healthcare. Just don't force a person who'd prefer otherwise to support it., like crony capitalists do.
Last edited:
Hempy McNoodle
Well-known member
Pretty weird. Definitely, a lizardly vibe about him. I know nothing about him, other than the observation that he is not well liked.
Not a single word about force was uttered but there is presently force in place and to bring about a lovely and gentle free market such as you envision would require force.Allowing other people to act cooperatively while maintaining your right to peacefully decline their proposal is not forcing your wishes on other people.
Please don't you use "gang rapist" logic,.
I'm fine with you and your friends cooperating to plan your healthcare. Just don't force a person who'd prefer otherwise to support it., like crony capitalists do.
The not for profit model paralleled with a payment for service would (could) blend within the current system and fairly rapidly, through choice, send the insurance companies out of business. I do think that force should be used to eject lobbyists. It is through these lobbyists assisted by media that Americans become convinced they have the best medical and doctors in the world.
I don't know why you find the need to use tired meaningless hyperbole
(e.g. gang rapist logic) rather than using actual logic to address what is discussed point by point. Do you truly believe that medical care is best provided by an economic system which must satisfy owners or shareholders of growing profits?
As Eltito has pointed out non-profit and profit making endeavors can co-exist. (education, medical, kids camps, produce markets, cannabis markets)
Correct me if I am wrong but I'm pretty certain that cannabis legalization in Canada came about through civil disobedience carried out by registered non-profits defying laws and distributing medicinal to sick people. (I was a cog in this activity)
Captain Red Eye
Active member
I truly believe you own yourself and you don't own other people. I also believe the things which naturally flow from that are worth consideration.
As far as using the efficacy, real or imagined, of something as a justification to force otherwise peaceful people into it ? It's flawed thinking, since it assumes consent when none is actually given.
That is not hyperbole, that is a fact. Using gang rape as a comparison makes you feel uncomfortable, as it should. Don't use the same tactics gang rapists do and you can make your cognitive dissonance go away.
For example, I need to stack some wood. It would be more efficient if I forcibly commandeered two burly young guys and made them help me stack the wood. It might even be "good for them" physically to do it. Am I justified in doing it, is the question none of "you people" have answered. It is the proverbial plank in your eye.
You can't rightfully argue against the force crony capitalism uses, and then do the same kinds of things they do and make a consistent argument.
Which reminds me, you seem like an intelligent and well-meaning person. I respect that.
You never responded to why you were upset with a person on this board who you said violated your consent by providing info. you asked him not to. Then when it comes to an outcome you prefer, Universal healthcare with no opt out, you forget about others rights? Why is that ?
Captain Red Eye
Active member
Yes they could, What a great idea!
As long as you don't require payment from other people who don't want to participate in your idea, that would make sense. Do we agree voluntary interactions are better than involuntary?
Private school and home school parents are still under threat of force to pay for government schools aren't they?
To argue there are options, but to then insist people also pay for your idea, even when they don't want it, don't use it, is disingenuous and a rationalization.
Please don't make silly arguments like that.
Captain Red Eye
Active member
Legalization is not the same as completely decriminalized and government stays the fuck out of it.
Legalization is an instance of government "allowing" prohibition light. They still tell people what they allow and grant themselves the power to punish people that disobey.
If you and the people that call themselves "legislators" were able to act equally, you would have no right to tell them what they can consume, grow etc, and they would have no right to tell you.
That's not what happened.
They tossed you some "we allow you to grow a few plants" bread crumbs. A kinder master is not evidence there is not still a master. You should know the difference.
I know a few things about peaceful civil disobedience. Quite a few. I appreciate that you used that tactic.
Captain Red Eye
Active member
Actually no. You contradict yourself, again.
At the very root of things, there are two kinds of people. Voluntaryists and Involuntaryists.
1) Those who disavow using force on disinterested but otherwise peaceful people. VOLUNTARYIST
2) Those who are willing to use force on otherwise disinterested but peaceful people. INVOLUNTARYIST
That's you and neo-feudalists. and crony capitalists.
You can't deny that, when you propose mandatory inclusion in your ideas of otherwise disinterested but
peaceful people.
You could be a Voluntaryist Socialist, meaning you and your friends all agree to those circumstances but nobody is involved who peacefully opts for something different for themselves.
A person could also be a Voluntaryist Panarchist .
Captain Red Eye
Active member
Yes he is.
Other people decided he will make money by aligning with government forced policies. you are forced to pay for even if you don't like it
You don't like it when people do that, except for when the forced part might push your desired policy, then it's okay.
This is known as a contradiction. Own it
Captain Red Eye
Active member
Which party is going to take on the sexual gratification of someone that is unwillingly not having sex ?
Which party is going to pay for you to go on a vacation if your business of selling stolen candy dries up?
Which party is going to buy Bernie Sanders his 4th house?
Which party is going to take on the debts and bills of a dying person who peacefully refused to go along with your plans for their life and they were assaulted for failure to obey by well meaning but offensive force approving people like you?
These are all good questions.
Maybe you could organize a voluntary charitable effort to fund the things you are deeply concerned about. Maybe those who feel the same way as you can contribute to it?
Who is stopping you from doing that? Get to it, show me how it's done.
As moose eater said:
www.levernews.com
Health Insurers’ $371 Billion Windfall
Since the Affordable Care Act’s passage, the top five health insurers’ annual profits have jumped 230 percent, with much of that going to UnitedHealthcare.
www.levernews.com
Last edited:
The not for profit model paralleled with a payment for service would (could) blend within the current system and fairly rapidly, through choice, send the insurance companies out of business. I do think that force should be used to eject lobbyists. It is through these lobbyists assisted by media that Americans become convinced they have the best medical and doctors in the world.
As moose eater was saying , there was a reason the health insurance companies signed off on the ACA with out any resistance. I believe he referred to it as a fat goverment tit.
www.levernews.com
Since the Affordable Care Act’s passage, the top five health insurers’ annual profits have jumped 230 percent, with much of that going to UnitedHealthcare.
America’s largest health insurers have raked in more than $371 billion in profits since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, according to financial data reviewed by The Lever. More than 40 percent of that net income went to UnitedHealth Group, whose annual profits have skyrocketed by nearly 400 percent as the company now reportedly denies nearly one in three medical claims from its policyholders.
Insurers garnered these profits as the average American families’ premiums have risen to nearly $26,000 a year. In all, since the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was passed in 2010, more than $9 trillion of revenue has flowed to the country’s largest health insurance companies, which include UnitedHealth Group; Cigna; Kaiser Permanente; Elevance Health, the parent company of Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield; and CVS Health, which acquired Aetna in 2018.
The financial data comes from the companies’ annual reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and other disclosure forms.
The revenue and profits substantially increased starting in 2014, when the ACA was fully implemented. The law included a mandate for Americans to buy insurance, as well as government subsidies for such insurance policies.
Hold The Powerful Accountable
Last week’s murder of Brian Thompson, chief executive officer of UnitedHealth Group’s insurance division UnitedHealthcare, has sparked an outpouring of anger towards health insurers. New Gallup polling data shows Americans’ view of health care quality has declined to a 24-year low. The same data showed that 62 percent of Americans believe “it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage” — a decade high.
These five insurers control over half of the commercial market share of the U.S. health insurance industry. Their revenues and profits have increased as they have become larger, both because of mergers and because the Affordable Care Act’s subsidies have helped Americans buy private insurance.
Health Insurers’ $371 Billion Windfall
Since the Affordable Care Act’s passage, the top five health insurers’ annual profits have jumped 230 percent, with much of that going to UnitedHealthcare.
www.levernews.com
America’s largest health insurers have raked in more than $371 billion in profits since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, according to financial data reviewed by The Lever. More than 40 percent of that net income went to UnitedHealth Group, whose annual profits have skyrocketed by nearly 400 percent as the company now reportedly denies nearly one in three medical claims from its policyholders.
Insurers garnered these profits as the average American families’ premiums have risen to nearly $26,000 a year. In all, since the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was passed in 2010, more than $9 trillion of revenue has flowed to the country’s largest health insurance companies, which include UnitedHealth Group; Cigna; Kaiser Permanente; Elevance Health, the parent company of Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield; and CVS Health, which acquired Aetna in 2018.
The financial data comes from the companies’ annual reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and other disclosure forms.
The revenue and profits substantially increased starting in 2014, when the ACA was fully implemented. The law included a mandate for Americans to buy insurance, as well as government subsidies for such insurance policies.
Hold The Powerful Accountable
Last week’s murder of Brian Thompson, chief executive officer of UnitedHealth Group’s insurance division UnitedHealthcare, has sparked an outpouring of anger towards health insurers. New Gallup polling data shows Americans’ view of health care quality has declined to a 24-year low. The same data showed that 62 percent of Americans believe “it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage” — a decade high.
These five insurers control over half of the commercial market share of the U.S. health insurance industry. Their revenues and profits have increased as they have become larger, both because of mergers and because the Affordable Care Act’s subsidies have helped Americans buy private insurance.
Last edited:
