Advertisement
by Republic of Coldwater » Wed Dec 17, 2014 2:16 am
by Chestaan » Wed Dec 17, 2014 3:40 am
by Colbert Super PAC » Wed Dec 17, 2014 3:46 am
Rhodisia wrote:Hello NSG, Rhodisia here. I describe myself as a social conservative, but see some very clear arguments for universal health coverage. This thread is intended to encourage debate and the free exchange of ideas regarding healthcare. Here is my conservative case for universal health coverage:
by Washington Resistance Army » Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:05 am
by Murkwood » Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:14 am
Degenerate Heart of HetRio wrote:Murkwood, I'm surprised you're not an anti-Semite and don't mind most LGBT rights because boy, aren't you a constellation of the worst opinions to have about everything? o_o
Benuty wrote:I suppose Ken Ham, and the league of Republican-Neocolonialist-Zionist Catholics will not be pleased.
Soldati senza confini wrote:Did I just try to rationalize Murkwood's logic? Please shoot me.
by Washington Resistance Army » Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:15 am
by Fortschritte » Wed Dec 17, 2014 6:05 am
Republic of Coldwater wrote:You mean that Singapore, which outspends the US in private healthcare has terrible health coverage? A government system not only bankrupts a nation, but hurts competition and lower prices. The reason for shitty, expensive healthcare in America is due to the lack of competition, as insurers have basically no competition. As a result, they make the decision to give you shit healthcare and high costs, but when competition happens, a company must get that customer by having the highest quality for the lowest costs without operating at a loss, and that results in lower costs for the consumer.
by Tamoi » Wed Dec 17, 2014 6:45 am
Rhodisia wrote:2. The current American mindset with healthcare is penny-wise and dollar-foolish.
...- but at the same time, we allow ourselves, our children, and our elderly to get sick and die from entirely curable diseases. It is far better to plan for 40 or 50 years down the line, when the next generation of Americans are in power, and we're old and fat and sick and need a doctor, ...
3. We have certain religious and moral imperatives to take care of our own citizens - including the poor, the elderly, the disabled and the mentally unstable.
by Ostroeuropa » Wed Dec 17, 2014 6:49 am
by Tamoi » Wed Dec 17, 2014 7:00 am
Ostroeuropa wrote:The discovery of microorganisms causing disease and the importance of this discovery is often overlooked.
We are at war, my friends. War with trillions and trillions of little fuckers.
They've got the biggest body count on us in history.
Were this another human nation the idea of privatizing this war and leaving every person to fend for themselves against the invaders would be fucking treasonous.
What's more, there can be no negotiation.
There can be no peace. Only extermination. Our enemy is without fear or favor, without malice, and truly alien to us.
Death to the xeno-threat!!!
Down with the xeno-loving conservative dogma!
TOTAL WAR TIEM!
by Old Tyrannia » Wed Dec 17, 2014 7:15 am
Vazdaria wrote:Are you quite certain you're conservative? Because you sound very liberal.
by Murkwood » Wed Dec 17, 2014 8:05 am
Old Tyrannia wrote:Vazdaria wrote:Are you quite certain you're conservative? Because you sound very liberal.
The above posters believe Otto von Bismarck was a liberal socialist. Suddenly the fact that I usually agree with the above posters fills me with shame and disappointment.
Conservatism is about preserving traditions and a traditional, rooted way of life. It's about scepticism towards idealism and favouring gradual reform rather than revolution. It doesn't say anywhere that you have to believe people dying of curable diseases should be allowed to die if they can't pay for expensive treatment in order to qualify as a conservative.
Degenerate Heart of HetRio wrote:Murkwood, I'm surprised you're not an anti-Semite and don't mind most LGBT rights because boy, aren't you a constellation of the worst opinions to have about everything? o_o
Benuty wrote:I suppose Ken Ham, and the league of Republican-Neocolonialist-Zionist Catholics will not be pleased.
Soldati senza confini wrote:Did I just try to rationalize Murkwood's logic? Please shoot me.
by Fortschritte » Wed Dec 17, 2014 8:07 am
Murkwood wrote:Old Tyrannia wrote:
The above posters believe Otto von Bismarck was a liberal socialist. Suddenly the fact that I usually agree with the above posters fills me with shame and disappointment.
Conservatism is about preserving traditions and a traditional, rooted way of life. It's about scepticism towards idealism and favouring gradual reform rather than revolution. It doesn't say anywhere that you have to believe people dying of curable diseases should be allowed to die if they can't pay for expensive treatment in order to qualify as a conservative.
That's rather...strong. What's wrong with being wary of stepping stones to full-out Socialism, enemy of Conservatism?
by Murkwood » Wed Dec 17, 2014 8:12 am
Fortschritte wrote:Murkwood wrote:That's rather...strong. What's wrong with being wary of stepping stones to full-out Socialism, enemy of Conservatism?
I fail to understand why you're so god damn stubborn in your insistence that universal healthcare is socialism. You haven't explained why it's a stepping stone to full out socialism, and every other developed, capitalist country has universal healthcare. You've made the claim that universal healthcare is a stepping stone to socialism countless times, but you run away when you're asked to explain why. Hopefully, you can stop being blinded by ideological stubbornness, and accept the objective, blatant fact that universal healthcare is almost universally accepted as a necessity in a capitalist country.
Degenerate Heart of HetRio wrote:Murkwood, I'm surprised you're not an anti-Semite and don't mind most LGBT rights because boy, aren't you a constellation of the worst opinions to have about everything? o_o
Benuty wrote:I suppose Ken Ham, and the league of Republican-Neocolonialist-Zionist Catholics will not be pleased.
Soldati senza confini wrote:Did I just try to rationalize Murkwood's logic? Please shoot me.
by Fortschritte » Wed Dec 17, 2014 8:13 am
Murkwood wrote:Fortschritte wrote:
I fail to understand why you're so god damn stubborn in your insistence that universal healthcare is socialism. You haven't explained why it's a stepping stone to full out socialism, and every other developed, capitalist country has universal healthcare. You've made the claim that universal healthcare is a stepping stone to socialism countless times, but you run away when you're asked to explain why. Hopefully, you can stop being blinded by ideological stubbornness, and accept the objective, blatant fact that universal healthcare is almost universally accepted as a necessity in a capitalist country.
It's a slippery slope. If you nationalize one major sector of the economy for the greater good, it'll be much easier to do it the next time.
by Republic of Coldwater » Wed Dec 17, 2014 8:30 am
Fortschritte wrote:Republic of Coldwater wrote:You mean that Singapore, which outspends the US in private healthcare has terrible health coverage? A government system not only bankrupts a nation, but hurts competition and lower prices. The reason for shitty, expensive healthcare in America is due to the lack of competition, as insurers have basically no competition. As a result, they make the decision to give you shit healthcare and high costs, but when competition happens, a company must get that customer by having the highest quality for the lowest costs without operating at a loss, and that results in lower costs for the consumer.
Bullshit. Singapore has Universal Healthcare.
by Fortschritte » Wed Dec 17, 2014 8:32 am
Republic of Coldwater wrote:
And this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtuXrrEZsAg shows that Singapore has a 66% private healthcare spending. Singapore mainly has a savings system, and as far as I can see, you basically save up for a situation, and you spend that saved money, which is different than many traditional universal systems.
by Soldati Senza Confini » Wed Dec 17, 2014 8:38 am
Murkwood wrote:It's a slippery slope. If you nationalize one major sector of the economy for the greater good, it'll be much easier to do it the next time.
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.
by Soldati Senza Confini » Wed Dec 17, 2014 8:54 am
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.
by Romalae » Wed Dec 17, 2014 8:55 am
by The Sons of Adam » Wed Dec 17, 2014 9:02 am
by Fortschritte » Wed Dec 17, 2014 9:03 am
by Arkolon » Wed Dec 17, 2014 9:03 am
by Fortschritte » Wed Dec 17, 2014 9:03 am
Arkolon wrote:What's wrong with free private healthcare through a comprehensive voucher system? That way we have competition AND affordability, not one or the other.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Diarcesia, Haganham, ImSaLiA, Infected Mushroom, Kostane, Russian Brotherhood, San Lumen, Spirit of Hope, Washington-Columbia
Advertisement