The Dangerous Case Of Donald Trump

[anticlimatic]

Number one problem with Communism is dictatorship, which is generally lose-lose for the most people right from the start. Because if someone wants to really help people he wouldn't make a dictatorship out of it. While in the other things it really depends: in my book the left in the western/developed countries can get carried away with certain impractical ideas, but that doesn't really make me a right winger. Although I have seen "globalists" calling my people savages and what not. Because we aren't too politically correct from left to right and we can skip this "micro stuff". Here we didn't have political stability since the collapse of Roman empire and therefore we aren't too firmly into "rules". As I said we just had elections in this country and here are photos from the debates. Who do you think represents left and who is right. Therefore if we go by your logic you would probably make a wrong conclusion. The guy is a Socialist, not to mention ex party boss of our Socio-democratic party. Therefore left-right as you know them aren't made in stone. Muscular left wing is possible, after all the guy won basically on "I am ENTJ 8 and I am not afraid of anyone" ticket. I am not really a big fan of either of them but there is perhaps a lesson to be learned here, he even openly defied Angela Merkel back in a day (to the point of international scandal). Or if you want it straight: do you honestly think that "socialism" would get so bad rep in the case that it can't be muscular or as you say "conquest oriented" ? [/SPOILER]

That is an interesting photo dichotomy. I don't usually judge books by their covers, but if I had to I would judge them both as looking conservative. I don't see feminine things as inheritly weak. I know statistically women are less physically strong than men, but I like to think they compensate for this with other things to the effect of balancing out overall relative strength. While a socialist leader might physically weaken the nation with reduced defense spending and economic strain, I don't think they would necessarily be 'weak,' especially considering how communism ends up.

Let me explain what I mean by conquest oriented, which is in reference to a general style of living. There are many paths through life to chose. Someone who wants socialism would probably like a path in which whatever job they happened to have, no matter what it was, but preferably something easy social comfortable and indoors, would satisfy all of their safe living needs- therefore freeing them up to not worry about such things, enjoy routine trips to various health professionals to keep the fear of death at bay, and pursue their inexpensive but meaningful interests with what little money they have left after taxes whatever those may be- though likely are aesthetically enjoyable. This is a reasonable and feminine path that I wouldn't fault men or women for the desire to walk down it. To contrast, the path I am more interested in walking will disproportionately reward my work based on skill level and difficulty. As someone who loves challenging and difficult jobs, I like the idea of more money than most people for accomplishing them. Since safety is less of a concern for me- something I consider traditionally masculine- I don't care to have any of my money taken and invested into various safety nets for society, and instead prefer to redirect that money to continue pursuing my adventurous interests- be it mere travel, or overhead investments into new and challenging business ventures.

 

[ceecee]

That is an interesting photo dichotomy. I don't usually judge books by their covers, but if I had to I would judge them both as looking conservative. I don't see feminine things as inheritly weak. I know statistically women are less physically strong than men, but I like to think they compensate for this with other things to the effect of balancing out overall relative strength. While a socialist leader might physically weaken the nation with reduced defense spending and economic strain, I don't think they would necessarily be 'weak,' especially considering how communism ends up.

Let me explain what I mean by conquest oriented, which is in reference to a general style of living. There are many paths through life to chose. Someone who wants socialism would probably like a path in which whatever job they happened to have, no matter what it was, but preferably something easy social comfortable and indoors, would satisfy all of their safe living needs- therefore freeing them up to not worry about such things, enjoy routine trips to various health professionals to keep the fear of death at bay, and pursue their inexpensive but meaningful interests with what little money they have left after taxes whatever those may be- though likely are aesthetically enjoyable. This is a reasonable and feminine path that I wouldn't fault men or women for the desire to walk down it. To contrast, the path I am more interested in walking will disproportionately reward my work based on skill level and difficulty. As someone who loves challenging and difficult jobs, I like the idea of more money than most people for accomplishing them. Since safety is less of a concern for me- something I consider traditionally masculine- I don't care to have any of my money taken and invested into various safety nets for society, and instead prefer to redirect that money to continue pursuing my adventurous interests- be it mere travel, or overhead investments into new and challenging business ventures.

I will let the 4 DSA guys that are linemen for Consumers Energy that I know that they are feminine, only concerned with safety and fear death. lol. The farmers, the auto workers, the steel workers, the carpenters and millwrights, the electricians that that want a labor party in the US and know joining the demsocialists is the way forward. Cooperate Dems gave up on them long ago and the GOP is a crime syndicate.

This is the first time I have ever felt bad for you. You are ignorant as all get out but I have to say I'm not at all surprised by your opinion. It also shines light on why so many men, especially on the right, are angry all the time. No wonder you get pissed at the gender discussion around here, I would too if my thought process was this warped.

Go meet some people on the left. Not liberals, left.

 

[Red Herring]

That is because she is the right girl for you.

You are right, she can also pass as right. However the key part of the argument was that left doesn't have to necessary be "by the book empty moralist" type of people. Plus I did use some of the logic that "woman" can't be the president. In this duo it would be somewhat more logical that the women is "the left" side. Although they are both left wing by American standards. The whole spectrum is moved to the left in my country, so my right is actually what you call left. While GOP doesn't exist here, as well as my left in USA. Which is exactly why the Europe as a whole is uncomfortable with GOP for a long time, while you claim that "USA will never be a socialist country".

She was described as a conservative in the German media.

Historically it seems that the first female head of government tends to be conservative - maybe because it "softens the blow". So I am not at all surprised.

 

[Virtual ghost]

That is an interesting photo dichotomy. I don't usually judge books by their covers, but if I had to I would judge them both as looking conservative. I don't see feminine things as inheritly weak. I know statistically women are less physically strong than men, but I like to think they compensate for this with other things to the effect of balancing out overall relative strength. While a socialist leader might physically weaken the nation with reduced defense spending and economic strain, I don't think they would necessarily be 'weak,' especially considering how communism ends up.

Let me explain what I mean by conquest oriented, which is in reference to a general style of living. There are many paths through life to chose. Someone who wants socialism would probably like a path in which whatever job they happened to have, no matter what it was, but preferably something easy social comfortable and indoors, would satisfy all of their safe living needs- therefore freeing them up to not worry about such things, enjoy routine trips to various health professionals to keep the fear of death at bay, and pursue their inexpensive but meaningful interests with what little money they have left after taxes whatever those may be- though likely are aesthetically enjoyable. This is a reasonable and feminine path that I wouldn't fault men or women for the desire to walk down it. To contrast, the path I am more interested in walking will disproportionately reward my work based on skill level and difficulty. As someone who loves challenging and difficult jobs, I like the idea of more money than most people for accomplishing them. Since safety is less of a concern for me- something I consider traditionally masculine- I don't care to have any of my money taken and invested into various safety nets for society, and instead prefer to redirect that money to continue pursuing my adventurous interests- be it mere travel, or overhead investments into new and challenging business ventures.

It is interesting that you say both are looking conservative. I suppose that is possible because we as a nation are prideful people that went to hell and back. Therefore straight shooting and looking tough can come naturally to many of us. However since both are OK with "medicare for all", nationalizing certain things, investments from china ... I wouldn't call them really conservative in US sense. But ok perhaps I missed in my point with those pictures.


Btw you still think they both look conservative ? (official add)

Slogan: the president with character, choose a statesman.

I know what you meant fairly well I am simply saying that this isn't 100% correct. Ceecee beat me to it but you are indeed mixing (neo)liberalism and socio-democracy. Because you live in USA and for you the end of left lands somewhere at liberal/green part of the spectrum, while everything further left is a no go zone. However since you cut out that part of the spectrum all tough people are pilling on your right. Creating ideological distortions.


The basic idea behind socialized medicine is exactly to allow what you want. That if you are young that you can try all kinds of new endeavors, because you can't be crushed by medical bills if something goes wrong. Or that you have easier time to go to the college and that you actually study there instead of flipping burgers in order to pay medical bills that can "kill" you or your family at any time. If anything it is simply good for the nerves and you save money in antidepressants, therapy and alcohol. (I never took a single antidepressants)


You live in a belief that "socialism" is just about paying and not getting anything back (since that is the case with most taxation in US). While I claim that here you can get bargains that no market will ever give you. The farthest I ever was from my home was on the other side of the continent and that cost me 0$ directly, since the government gave me the ticket and it owned the plane, plus it payed me a room (it was a trip that was a part of my education). This is a little bit extreme example but it is factually correct. The general idea behind socialized medicine is to remove all these people you call "socialists" and pump money directly into treating people with minimal administration. Sales people, PR, lawyers, cost of offices, marketing, share holders ... they are all parasites for the basic medical service. In my country we will it seems have a fight to preserve this because interest groups have their own plans but once they cross the line there will be problems (with both left and right wing voters). Since most will defend this exactly because there is something good in this. which makes them free from sales people, lawyers etc (all socialists in your book). When I come to hospital I want to be treated while money and endless paperwork do not interest me.

I hate frickin bureaucracy.

 

[anticlimatic]

I will let the 4 DSA guys that are linemen for Consumers Energy that I know that they are feminine, only concerned with safety and fear death. lol. The farmers, the auto workers, the steel workers, the carpenters and millwrights, the electricians that that want a labor party in the US and know joining the demsocialists is the way forward. Cooperate Dems gave up on them long ago and the GOP is a crime syndicate. This is the first time I have ever felt bad for you. You are ignorant as all get out but I have to say I'm not at all surprised by your opinion. It also shines light on why so many men, especially on the right, are angry all the time. No wonder you get pissed at the gender discussion around here, I would too if my thought process was this warped. Go meet some people on the left. Not liberals, left.

I'd call them feminine to- and have, in fact. Union workers and other company-men cogs who enjoy their general lack of responsibility, scheduled breaks, and boring routine job grinds in exchange for kind-of job security and golden handcuffs benefits are mostly looked down upon by other tradesmen such as myself. It's snobby and not very nice, but it's an old tradition not without reasonable merit.

You don't have to like my thinking but it has served me very well. I probably feel anger once or twice a week, usually with the laws of physics coming back to (sometimes literally) bite me in the ass. How often do you feel angry? Judging by everything you post ever, it kind of seems like "all the fucking time." I'm not interested in that. So you'll forgive me if I ignore any advice you have to offer, and I'd ask you to question yourself on whether or not you should even be giving it to anybody in the first place.

 

[Virtual ghost]

She was described as a conservative in the German media.

Historically it seems that the first female head of government tends to be conservative - maybe because it "softens the blow". So I am not at all surprised.

I think you perhaps got something wrong here. She is indeed a conservative. The point was exactly that watching those pictures the left wing candidate doesn't look soft. In a way it would be more logical to presume that a woman is the left winger. She is EEP and he is S&D.


However our first female head of state was a PM from some 10 years ago (also EEP). I agree that this softens the blow, actually here far right leadership is dominated by women. Kinda strange but women can be very "by the book".




Btw. mods can transfer this entire sidewalk into my thread.

 

[Red Herring]

I think you perhaps got something wrong here. She is indeed a conservative. The point was exactly that watching those pictures the left wing candidate doesn't look soft. In a way it would be more logical to presume that a woman is the left winger. She is EEP and he is S&D.


However our first female head of state was a PM from some 10 years ago (also EEP). I agree that this softens the blow, actually here far right leadership is dominated by women. Kinda strange but women can be very "by the book".




Btw. mods can transfer this entire sidewalk into my thread.

I understood and was merely adding to your description of her as "sort of conservative" (I'm paraphrasing here). Our far right (AfD) also had and has prominent women at the top (currently Alice Weidel - a curious case because while she is clearly far right she actually lives or lived abroad in Switzerland with a Sri Lankan woman and railing against the elites sounds weird coming from a former Goldman Sachs business consultant).

At least here in Germany women tend to vote slightly more conservative than men so I don't see how it would be "logical" to assume the women to be the one on the left.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I understood and was merely adding to your description of her as "sort of conservative" (I'm paraphrasing here). Our far right (AfD) also had and has prominent women at the top (currently Alice Weidel - a curious case because while she is clearly far right she actually lives or lived abroad in Switzerland with a Sri Lankan woman and railing against the elites sounds weird coming from a former Goldman Sachs business consultant).

At least here in Germany women tend to vote slightly more conservative than men so I don't see how it would be "logical" to assume the women to be the one on the left.

Well, my country still places decent weight on gender roles, especially since our language makes a clear distinction between genders. But to be honest female right wing and male right wing aren't really the same thing in my book. The very fact that you have a female leader means that this isn't really a "conservative package". I really don't mind female leaders and I even voted for some of them over the years, but gender can kinda color any "ideology".

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I understood and was merely adding to your description of her as "sort of conservative" (I'm paraphrasing here). Our far right (AfD) also had and has prominent women at the top (currently Alice Weidel - a curious case because while she is clearly far right she actually lives or lived abroad in Switzerland with a Sri Lankan woman and railing against the elites sounds weird coming from a former Goldman Sachs business consultant).

Meh, privileged right-wingers railing against the elites is a common trope in American politics. I don't think I need supply you with an example (and that's not the only one). They're not perceived as elites because they dislike or fear the same things (or at least, they create that impression).

A grad student with purple hair who works as a barista is an "elite" to them, while being a billionaire does not necessarily qualify.

 

[Jaguar]

Btw you still think they both look conservative ? (official add)

Slogan: the president with character, choose a statesman.

That looks like a butch woman with shitty makeup.

 

[Virtual ghost]

That looks like a butch woman with shitty makeup.

Now when you mention it kinda does. (mostly because details can't be seen on this size and there wasn't a bigger one)


Anyway, in the fist interview he said we should pull out of Afghanistan (from what I heard). Basically: This is obviously a lost cause and USA will surely leave in the near future anyway. Plus we already left Iraq due to current crisis, not that we had much there anyway. Many neighboring nations are doing something similar.

 

[anticlimatic]

It is interesting that you say both are looking conservative. I suppose that is possible because we as a nation are prideful people that went to hell and back. Therefore straight shooting and looking tough can come naturally to many of us. However since both are OK with "medicare for all", nationalizing certain things, investments from china ... I wouldn't call them really conservative in US sense. But ok perhaps I missed in my point with those pictures. Btw you still think they both look conservative ? (official add)

Slogan: the president with character, choose a statesman.

I know what you meant fairly well I am simply saying that this isn't 100% correct. Ceecee beat me to it but you are indeed mixing (neo)liberalism and socio-democracy. Because you live in USA and for you the end of left lands somewhere at liberal/green part of the spectrum, while everything further left is a no go zone. However since you cut out that part of the spectrum all tough people are pilling on your right. Creating ideological distortions. The basic idea behind socialized medicine is exactly to allow what you want. That if you are young that you can try all kinds of new endeavors, because you can't be crushed by medical bills if something goes wrong. Or that you have easier time to go to the college and that you actually study there instead of flipping burgers in order to pay medical bills that can "kill" you or your family at any time. If anything it is simply good for the nerves and you save money in antidepressants, therapy and alcohol. (I never took a single antidepressants) You live in a belief that "socialism" is just about paying and not getting anything back (since that is the case with most taxation in US). While I claim that here you can get bargains that no market will ever give you. The farthest I ever was from my home was on the other side of the continent and that cost me 0$ directly, since the government gave me the ticket and it owned the plane, plus it payed me a room (it was a trip that was a part of my education). This is a little bit extreme example but it is factually correct. The general idea behind socialized medicine is to remove all these people you call "socialists" and pump money directly into treating people with minimal administration. Sales people, PR, lawyers, cost of offices, marketing, share holders ... they are all parasites for the basic medical service. In my country we will it seems have a fight to preserve this because interest groups have their own plans but once they cross the line there will be problems (with both left and right wing voters). Since most will defend this exactly because there is something good in this. which makes them free from sales people, lawyers etc (all socialists in your book). When I come to hospital I want to be treated while money and endless paperwork do not interest me.

I hate frickin bureaucracy.

I hate it more! I associate bureaucracy with the left here in the states as they seem to go hand in hand. I get what you mean about socialism trying to cut out some of the paperwork associated with private businesses, but I've never seen a situation in this country where a move to the left didn't come with more administrators regulators and other government bloat to overcompensate.

If it could be proven that the US government can function more efficiently with less bloat than private sector, I would get on board in a heartbeat. I am pragmatic first and foremost.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I hate it more! I associate bureaucracy with the left here in the states as they seem to go hand in hand. I get what you mean about socialism trying to cut out some of the paperwork associated with private businesses, but I've never seen a situation in this country where a move to the left didn't come with more administrators regulators and other government bloat to overcompensate.

If it could be proven that the US government can function more efficiently with less bloat than private sector, I would get on board in a heartbeat. I am pragmatic first and foremost.

"Can it function like that" is a big question. I had the thread about this before sub forum got cleaned and to me your government doesn't even look as a government, instead it is just one huge mix of various interest groups and various "moralists". It just doesn't have that feeling of "something" that will save you in bad times. I mean we shouldn't lie to ourselves that I don't have a fair amount of bureaucracy at home, since I clearly do. But I do tend to get something for my tax money. However increasing chunk of that spending has nothing to do with the core service that the government can and SHOULD provide. Therefore all of this can be reduced without damaging the basic service/protection that government provides, what would actually make our tax money more efficient. Although it is worth mentioning that I am from one of the most culturally homogeneous countries that is also small. Therefore we can allow ourselves "one big family policies". As a matter of fact most of us actually like it that way, that there is a certain line below which you can't crash. It is good for the nerves and you encounter less messed up people through life. What rises productivity and makes it easier to maintain this basic line, that makes sure that you don't needlessly die.




However this is exactly why we have the growth of forces that are economically to the left, which are promising to clear out this (neo)liberal swamp of special interests that established itself lately. As pictures from a few posts ago are showing we had the president that was in good relations with DNC and she was booted out of the office after a single term. What is to be expected since many are very unhappy with where things are going for the average/working people. Therefore in a shock vote from a few weeks ago 45% of her own base in the first round decided to just vote third party instead of her because they feel betrayed. So she barely made it to the second round where the socio-democratic left out voted her. So now our center right politicians ("globalists" in your terminology) are scared that in the upcoming vote for the parliament they will suffer a massive defeat from the left and nationalist block (which is generally fiscally "collectivistic" since our nationalists are basically "socially conservative left"). What altogether is in a way "We want our country back" atmosphere.


Traditionally we are nation of working people, farmers and sailors and therefore we culturally clash with modern "corporate statism", our culture and history are too wild that we become "working robots". Even if our young people are being forced to turn exactly into that. Therefore for me there is nothing really left or right about rampant bureaucracy or "big business", these are simply evils that happen if you let them. Even Communism we had is starting to look romantic to many here because back then we had our own functional factories and industry. You should have skipped opening of certain topics but there were jobs that pay a decent living wage. While today a bunch of managers that are often foreigners are just outsourcing everything to Asia or import from wherever ... and that is it. If you want to live you will have to do shity temporary jobs (especially if you don't have college). Therefore now when they started to play with benefits and multiculturalism card this started to openly boil over since someone has an interest of removing that basic line that I mentioned. While at same time they don't realize this isn't US. Here people can act together and this is the country where there is a war or revolution every few decades. In a way if your generation doesn't have successful revolution or a war you are a bunch "pussies". Therefore this clash of global big business logic and local culture will be "interesting" to watch. After all this show has already started all over the world.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I hate it more! I associate bureaucracy with the left here in the states as they seem to go hand in hand. I get what you mean about socialism trying to cut out some of the paperwork associated with private businesses, but I've never seen a situation in this country where a move to the left didn't come with more administrators regulators and other government bloat to overcompensate.

If it could be proven that the US government can function more efficiently with less bloat than private sector, I would get on board in a heartbeat. I am pragmatic first and foremost.

I've been trying to apply for unemployment earlier, and I accidentally was looking at the site for Pennsylvania, because I used to live there.


Now, Pennsylvania is a more right-wing state ( a generalization, but I'm sure it has affected what kind of policies are in place) than Illinois; it even voted for Trump. I have also had unemplyoment benefits from Pennsylvania in the past. So, I can directly compare the two states and how they have implemented it.

I started work in July. I got my last paycheck in November. In Pennsylvania, I would evidently only be eligible (because of something called base periods) for unemployment if I had a work-related injury. Evidently, I should be penalized for the fact that I started work in July instead of May. It's utterly ridiculous that the work I performed in the last quarter of 2019 wouldn't count in Pennsylvania.

In Illinois, while I do have to wait on the phone to arrange this, there are no special strings attached to receive an alternate base period which counts the last quarter of last year. To me, that seems like less bureaucratic bullshit than I would have had to endure in Pennsylvania.

Also, probably because they actually are willing to invest money it, I can call the unemployment office from 8:30 AM to 5:30PM in Illinois from Monday to Friday. In Pennsylvania,these are the hours to call the offices:


Monday 8 a.m. - 4 p.m.
Tuesday 8 a.m. - 4 p.m.
Wednesday 12 p.m. - 6 p.m.
Thursday 8 a.m. - 4 p.m.
Friday 8 a.m. - 12 p.m.

So in addition, it's harder to contact the office in the first place, probably because it's underfunded (I think it used to be worse, too).

For me, it's a clear vote for which government agency is easier to deal with. It's not perfect, but one model is clearly better than the other, and it's not the one that you claim it should be. I suppose there might be a correlation between places where there's a widespread belief that the government shouldn't be funded and a lower quality experience in dealing with government agencies.

Incidentally, I wasn't even going to apply for unemployment at first, but my various medical bills due to an injury I had in October depleted many of the savings I had accumulated in my bank account for my job (even though I had insurance). I'm not typically an extravagant spender; I put off getting a new cell phone for two years even though I had severe problems with the one I had.

Perhaps if I had something as evil as Medicare-For-All, I wouldn't have needed to apply for unemployment.

 

[Jaguar]

Trump (won by a mere 0.72%)
Obama
Obama
Kerry
Gore
Clinton
Clinton

'Right-wing' presidents voted for in PA since 1992.

 

[anticlimatic]

I've been trying to apply for unemployment earlier, and I accidentally was looking at the site for Pennsylvania, because I used to live there. Now, Pennsylvania is a more right-wing state ( a generalization, but I'm sure it has affected what kind of policies are in place) than Illinois; it even voted for Trump. I have also had unemplyoment benefits from Pennsylvania in the past. So, I can directly compare the two states and how they have implemented it. I started work in July. I got my last paycheck in November. In Pennsylvania, I would evidently only be eligible (because of something called base periods) for unemployment if I had a work-related injury. Evidently, I should be penalized for the fact that I started work in July instead of May. It's utterly ridiculous that the work I performed in the last quarter of 2019 wouldn't count in Pennsylvania. In Illinois, while I do have to wait on the phone to arrange this, there are no special strings attached to receive an alternate base period which counts the last quarter of last year. To me, that seems like less bureaucratic bullshit than I would have had to endure in Pennsylvania. Also, probably because they actually are willing to invest money it, I can call the unemployment office from 8:30 AM to 5:30PM in Illinois from Monday to Friday. In Pennsylvania,these are the hours to call the offices: Monday 8 a.m. - 4 p.m. Tuesday 8 a.m. - 4 p.m. Wednesday 12 p.m. - 6 p.m. Thursday 8 a.m. - 4 p.m. Friday 8 a.m. - 12 p.m. So in addition, it's harder to contact the office in the first place, probably because it's underfunded (I think it used to be worse, too). For me, it's a clear vote for which government agency is easier to deal with. It's not perfect, but one model is clearly better than the other, and it's not the one that you claim it should be. I suppose there might be a correlation between places where there's a widespread belief that the government shouldn't be funded and a lower quality experience in dealing with government agencies. Incidentally, I wasn't even going to apply for unemployment at first, but my various medical bills due to an injury I had in October depleted many of the savings I had accumulated in my bank account for my job (even though I had insurance). I'm not typically an extravagant spender; I put off getting a new cell phone for two years even though I had severe problems with the one I had. Perhaps if I had something as evil as Medicare-For-All, I wouldn't have needed to apply for unemployment.

Hang in there brother, I've been where you're at. I don't think there's any corroborating rhyme or reason to the hell that is filing for benefits from state to state. Government or large corporate shit sucks the big one no matter who is in charge.

 

[Virtual ghost]

For me, it's a clear vote for which government agency is easier to deal with. It's not perfect, but one model is clearly better than the other, and it's not the one that you claim it should be. I suppose there might be a correlation between places where there's a widespread belief that the government shouldn't be funded and a lower quality experience in dealing with government agencies.

Incidentally, I wasn't even going to apply for unemployment at first, but my various medical bills due to an injury I had in October depleted many of the savings I had accumulated in my bank account for my job (even though I had insurance). I'm not typically an extravagant spender; I put off getting a new cell phone for two years even though I had severe problems with the one I had.

Perhaps if I had something as evil as Medicare-For-All, I wouldn't have needed to apply for unemployment.

To be honest I am not even fundamentally against paying for the service at the spot, since this is a service and it costs. What is the real problem is that you guys are paying downright absurd amounts of money for everything and from what I have seen you have to do plenty of paper work in the whole mix. To be honest I made a doctors appointment recently and I am going there cool headed to check something. I wouldn't pay anything on spot, do no paper work and if it is something I will buy a med that is fully covered or it costs 5 or 10$. Through taxation I have placed my money into the special account that covers the whole country and I have the right to have things fully financially covered. However I am even willing to pay something on the spot just to keep what is in general pretty good deal when compared to some other parts of the world. In my life I got days in a hospital without direct paying, surgeries without direct paying, the most expensive dental stuff I paid were something like 40$, meds for little to no money ... etc.. It is really great that medical bills can't push you off the cliff. If everyone pays a little constantly (what is money that would have been spent on something stupid), if you cut out most of administration/sales/shareholders, if the government can make a good collective med deal for the whole nation, if "free" prevention checks are implemented in order to find problems in their early stages ..... the decent healthcare can be something you don't really notice in your money issues. Therefore everyone that seriously touches into this is likely to trigger an avalanche on itself. In this country healthcare not only that it is seen as human right but it is seen as vital part of national security, which helps us through constant political instability in the wider region. Which can seriously shake up the economy at anytime.

 

[Nicodemus]

It has always fascinated me that 'conservatives' in the US who profess to hate being controlled by 'big government', which they can influence, virtually welcome being fucked over by big business, over which they have no control whatsoever.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Holy shit yes^, exactly.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

It has always fascinated me that 'conservatives' in the US who profess to hate being controlled by 'big government', which they can influence, virtually welcome being fucked over by big business, over which they have no control whatsoever.

It's probably a cultural thing. Stems from some sort of pride people take in not being seen as leeches on the system, even though we all are in this day and age. I mean, if we drive on the roads funded by ttaxpayers, it could be argued we're taking advantage of the system. Versus real rugged individualists who always drive off road or pave their own roads LOL

I was just at a party at someone's house recently and some people were going on and on about people who take handouts and don't "pay their own way". One of them was a veteran who didn't seem to see the hypocrisy in his own willingness to take the free healthcare he gets via the VA.