I like COVID 19

[Burkey]

That only occurs in liberal cities, places where liberals are in control of everything, do the research. Ever wonder why?

It may look that way to an outsider but that is by design. Turn off CNN.

And just exactly what would you guys do about it?

Actually, violence of any kind is typically linked to totalitarianism. Egalitarian societies tend to have less crime for the simple reason that the people are more closely aligned in their prosperity. Disparity is a leading predictor of violent crime.

CNN doesn’t exist in Australian culture. Neither does Fox. We do receive news from a variety of sources, all of which are giving Trump a pasting of late.
For clarity, it’s not about Republican vs Democrat. It’s about the man at the head of the party. It simply wouldn’t matter which side he represented.

As to what “we” (the rest of the free world) would do about it, I have no idea. But, if you think a nation of armed civilians are going to get a job done that the combined forces of armies across the world can’t, I think you’re grossly overestimating the power and tactical strength of your population.

And finally, I can’t speak for @Gregs24 but, he might share a similar view to me on this one -
I care because I care about PEOPLE. I don’t care what colour their skin is, their religion, their politics or any other affiliation they might have. Whilst I might not agree with their views, I’d still like them to have access to the best care that they can receive, whether that be medical, political or whatever form it might take.
Maybe that’s too leftist?

Sponsored

 

[Hack]

And finally, I can’t speak for @Gregs24 but, he might share a similar view to me on this one -
I care because I care about PEOPLE. I don’t care what colour their skin is, their religion, their politics or any other affiliation they might have. Whilst I might not agree with their views, I’d still like them to have access to the best care that they can receive, whether that be medical, political or whatever form it might take.
Maybe that’s too leftist?

It's not leftist wanting the best health care possible, but it is leftist if you think that the government can provide a service better than the public sector.

Government has never, ever provided any service better than the public sector has.

 

[Burkey]

It's interesting that they want to count suicides as part of gun violence. Actually I think interesting is the wrong word. There's always a push to misrepresent facts based on agendas.

It's not leftist wanting the best health care possible, but it is leftist if you think that the government can provide a service better than the public sector.

Government has never, ever provided any service better than the public sector has.

It depends on what you define as “better”.
Cheaper is only one metric.
Accessibility would be another.

I’m not asserting a position of public vs private. My position is that your income shouldn’t dictate whether you’ll be receiving treatment or not and that it shouldn’t place a financial burden on those who are unfortunate enough to suffer from certain types of illness’s/injuries.

If you build your society on the foundation of not knowing where you might sit within it, you’ll generally come up with a more equitable system.

 

[Gregs24]

It's not leftist wanting the best health care possible, but it is leftist if you think that the government can provide a service better than the public sector.

Government has never, ever provided any service better than the public sector has.

You need to get your public and private sectors better understood !

Public sector is a state / government controlled provision !

NHS in the UK is a prime example of where the government does provide a free service to all (paid for by tax payers) irrespective of income or status. You get sick - you get the required treatment for free at the time of treatment when you need it. You never have to worry if you can afford it. We are very proud of our NHS and the fantastic service it provides to everybody in the UK.

The next thing you need to consider is how you define 'best' and why politics - left or right - are relevant to the discussion. Best availability of healthcare, best value, widest range of free cover, accessibility, etc etc.

'Leftist' comments suggest that only right wing governments can provide adequate healthcare - really ?

Private companies are 'better' than public owned healthcare systems, where private companies need to make a profit, that profit derived from patients - is that really better ?

 

[Gregs24]

Meanwhile in the fairy-tale world Trump lives in...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52450692

If he can't work it out maybe somebody should play his news conference back to him so he understands !

 

[Hack]

It depends on what you define as “better”.
Cheaper is only one metric.
Accessibility would be another.

I’m not asserting a position of public vs private. My position is that your income shouldn’t dictate whether you’ll be receiving treatment or not and that it shouldn’t place a financial burden on those who are unfortunate enough to suffer from certain types of illness’s/injuries.

If you build your society on the foundation of not knowing where you might sit within it, you’ll generally come up with a more equitable system.

I don't think it's equitable for the government to do things that private individuals can't do.

For instance, taking money from one person and giving it to another seems wrong to me. Just because it's the government that is stealing doesn't make it right.

Income tax and property tax are both unethical in my opinion. It's no business of the government what a person makes or what they own. I think sales tax is the perfect tax. If a person buys something, they should have to pay tax on it. Very fair. People who don't have a lot of money don't buy as much and so they wouldn't pay much sales tax. Wealthy individuals who purchase expensive things would pay a lot of sales tax. That seems to me like a much better system than what we currently have.

I think freedom is equitable, but redistribution of wealth seems bad. I'm surprised that people think it's ok or equitable. I feel like those people have some issues with their moral compasses.

Why shouldn't health care cost money? It's a valuable service. If you make it free you will end up with shortages and people who work hard and produce a lot might have trouble getting good health care. Yes it is sad if someone gets sick and their disease is too expensive for them to afford to fix it on their own. I realize that could happen to me at any time. So I do my best to work hard and save money just in case. I also have insurance. When you have a big safety net, it removes the incentive for people to work hard and to save their money. It's not fair to steal money from someone who is working hard and saving to provide a safety net for someone else who decided it was too much effort to try hard and spent all their money on frivolous things.

 

[Gregs24]

I don't think it's equitable for the government to do things that private individuals can't do.

For instance, taking money from one person and giving it to another seems wrong to me. Just because it's the government that is stealing doesn't make it right.

Income tax and property tax are both unethical in my opinion. It's no business of the government what a person makes or what they own. I think sales tax is the perfect tax. If a person buys something, they should have to pay tax on it. Very fair. People who don't have a lot of money don't buy as much and so they wouldn't pay much sales tax. Wealthy individuals who purchase expensive things would pay a lot of sales tax. That seems to me like a much better system than what we currently have.

I think freedom is equitable, but redistribution of wealth seems bad. I'm surprised that people think it's ok or equitable. I feel like those people have some issues with their moral compasses.

Why shouldn't health care cost money? It's a valuable service. If you make it free you will end up with shortages and people who work hard and produce a lot might have trouble getting good health care. Yes it is sad if someone gets sick and their disease is too expensive for them to afford to fix it on their own. I realize that could happen to me at any time. So I do my best to work hard and save money just in case. I also have insurance. When you have a big safety net, it removes the incentive for people to work hard and to save their money. It's not fair to steal money from someone who is working hard and saving to provide a safety net for someone else who decided it was too much effort to try hard and spent all their money on frivolous things.

Income tax and other such taxes are how governments work in every country in the world so you have a long battle ahead if you want to change that ! Of course it is important what you earn - the more you earn the more tax you should pay, entirely reasonable in my opinion (and that comes from somebody who pays a lot of tax, but I still feel it is correct) It is all very well only using sales tax, but if the other taxes were not there then sales tax would be huge, which would stop people buying stuff and hence decrease revenue. Better to get tax from a variety of sources.

There is no shortage of healthcare here because it is free to use. There is a shortage of healthcare in the US if you cannot afford it. people are losing their jobs everywhere at the moment and so have no income / insurance, why should that stop them getting healthcare at a time they most need it. There are plenty of people who work hard, earn very little and have no safety nets or frivolous spending. I'm not suggesting there are no scroungers out there but tarring all people who are poor as not working hard enough is distinctly unfair.

 

[Caballus]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_Arab_Emirates

 

[Caballus]

https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/01/04/10-countries-with-zero-income-taxes.aspx

 

[Burkey]

I don't think it's equitable for the government to do things that private individuals can't do.

For instance, taking money from one person and giving it to another seems wrong to me. Just because it's the government that is stealing doesn't make it right.

Income tax and property tax are both unethical in my opinion. It's no business of the government what a person makes or what they own. I think sales tax is the perfect tax. If a person buys something, they should have to pay tax on it. Very fair. People who don't have a lot of money don't buy as much and so they wouldn't pay much sales tax. Wealthy individuals who purchase expensive things would pay a lot of sales tax. That seems to me like a much better system than what we currently have.

I think freedom is equitable, but redistribution of wealth seems bad. I'm surprised that people think it's ok or equitable. I feel like those people have some issues with their moral compasses.

Why shouldn't health care cost money? It's a valuable service. If you make it free you will end up with shortages and people who work hard and produce a lot might have trouble getting good health care. Yes it is sad if someone gets sick and their disease is too expensive for them to afford to fix it on their own. I realize that could happen to me at any time. So I do my best to work hard and save money just in case. I also have insurance. When you have a big safety net, it removes the incentive for people to work hard and to save their money. It's not fair to steal money from someone who is working hard and saving to provide a safety net for someone else who decided it was too much effort to try hard and spent all their money on frivolous things.

Where do you draw the line? Should education also be a user pays system? Do you really want to live in a society where the average citizen is even less educated than they are now?

The economic health of any democracy is going to depend heavily on both the health (ability to work) and education (ability to work smart) of its citizens. This is probably why many countries operate under the assumption that they are basic rights rather than privileges.

As to taxes...
As someone who resides in the highest tax bracket, I can tell you first hand that losing nearly half my income each year in taxes hurts. It really does. However, it’s worth pointing out that literally 25% of the population don’t earn even a quarter of what I do. The option of them being able to fund their healthcare simply doesn’t exist. They live week to week, trying to find enough money to put some food on the table in the house they’re renting (because they’ll never have enough money for a deposit on a home of their own). They aren’t looking at which school to send their kids to, they simply look for “most convenient”

I prefer to live in a society where these people and their children are given the foundational stepping stones that allow them to rise above it and enjoy a quality of life where they don’t feel compelled to resort to crime as a solution to their problems.

Each to their own of course, but as I said, if you build a society without knowing which end of it you might happen to be in, you’ll usually come up with a more equitable system.

 

[Hack]

Where do you draw the line? Should education also be a user pays system? Do you really want to live in a society where the average citizen is even less educated than they are now?

I like that k-12 is free. I do think that if people want to go to a private school they should get vouchers. Our public schools are really terrible. More news came out this week about how crappy the US education system is.

And universities really aren't that good either. I have a college degree, but after going through that system I felt it was geared more toward getting my money than efficiently educating me.

The economic health of any democracy is going to depend heavily on both the health (ability to work) and education (ability to work smart) of its citizens. This is probably why many countries operate under the assumption that they are basic rights rather than privileges.

Most young people are healthy. People who are older should be capable of taking care of themselves. I question your theory. Can you give me examples of countries that are doing better economically that have all education and health care provided for free and some that are not doing well that don't have those? Can you show me that the effect is causal versus circumstancial? I think the US is one of the strongest nations economically and we don't have either free health care or free education.

As to taxes...
As someone who resides in the highest tax bracket, I can tell you first hand that losing nearly half my income each year in taxes hurts. It really does. However, it’s worth pointing out that literally 25% of the population don’t earn even a quarter of what I do. The option of them being able to fund their healthcare simply doesn’t exist. They live week to week, trying to find enough money to put some food on the table in the house they’re renting (because they’ll never have enough money for a deposit on a home of their own). They aren’t looking at which school to send their kids to, they simply look for “most convenient”

Maybe in Australia people can't afford health care. Here most people with decent jobs have health care provided by their employers. That's what capitalism and competition gets people. Really good job benefits.

I prefer to live in a society where these people and their children are given the foundational stepping stones that allow them to rise above it and enjoy a quality of life where they don’t feel compelled to resort to crime as a solution to their problems.

That's ridiculous.

Each to their own of course, but as I said, if you build a society without knowing which end of it you might happen to be in, you’ll usually come up with a more equitable system.

Equitable is everyone pays the same (equal) amount in taxes. I'm pretty liberal as I don't advocate that. I think it would be the most ethical system, but I think a mechanism where those that consume more pay more makes sense. It's not equitable, but I still would do it.

 

[Gregs24]

More on the R0 and what it means for lowering restrictions in an easily digestible format

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52473523

 

[Burkey]

I like that k-12 is free. I do think that if people want to go to a private school they should get vouchers. Our public schools are really terrible. More news came out this week about how crappy the US education system is.

And universities really aren't that good either. I have a college degree, but after going through that system I felt it was geared more toward getting my money than efficiently educating me.



Most young people are healthy. People who are older should be capable of taking care of themselves. I question your theory. Can you give me examples of countries that are doing better economically that have all education and health care provided for free and some that are not doing well that don't have those? Can you show me that the effect is causal versus circumstancial? I think the US is one of the strongest nations economically and we don't have either free health care or free education.



Maybe in Australia people can't afford health care. Here most people with decent jobs have health care provided by their employers. That's what capitalism and competition gets people. Really good job benefits.



That's ridiculous.



Equitable is everyone pays the same (equal) amount in taxes. I'm pretty liberal as I don't advocate that. I think it would be the most ethical system, but I think a mechanism where those that consume more pay more makes sense. It's not equitable, but I still would do it.

I’m not making an assertion that isn’t supported by the preponderance evidence.
The more easily digestible version is linked below.
If you want to disagree, that’s fine, but you’ll need to take it up with the people who specialise in the fields of psychology and statistics. The research isn’t novel in its findings.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/08/income-inequality-murder-homicide-rates

 

[watisthis]

Government has never, ever provided any service better than the public sector has.

Lmao! Good old "Don't just stand there, undo something" Reaganism. Widespread privatization adopts profit-making strategies and corporate practices that make essential services unaffordable and unavailable to large segments of the population, we've seen this over and over again. Profit-seeking operations do not choose to provide health care to the indigent nor do they extend education to poor and learning-disabled children nor do they provide food and help for the disenfranchised. Efforts to make such activities profitable have led to the reintroduction of government intervention after the fact.

The results have always been the same, people get fucked over which is a lot less appealing than if the government had simply continued to provide the services in the first place. Privatization has shown more often than not that they do not serve the public interest.

Managerial accountability to the publics interest is what counts most, not the form of ownership. The simpletons keep forgetting how we've fucked ourselves over and over again.

 

[Gregs24]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52656959

Not really sure how a warning can be 'unacceptable'. A warning is just that. A professional medic has given advice based on the information available to him from around the world. Good ol Donald knows better of course ! His accusation that Fauci is playing to both 'sides' shows how flawed the administration is and that politics is the only thing driving policy. Caution about school opening is quite correctly a worldwide concern for the simple reason that asymptomatic children could well be very good at spreading COVID between households. A few countries are cautiously opening schools and carefully monitoring the situation but it is completely wrong to criticise what Fauci is saying. I know who DT would blame if it was the other way around !

How it is being done in Denmark https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world...opened-primary-school-in-the-time-of-covid-19


In better news the antibody test developed by Roche in Switzerland seems to be the first that is specific enough to be validated by the UK/EU and FDA. It is not necessarily suitable for confirming immunity per se because of what it is testing for, but it is effective in testing for previous exposure so useful for population exposure rates and possibly 'herd immunity' information assuming the immunity does cross correlate with exposure for at least a period of time.

Sponsored