Why are europeans so clueless?

[Calm2Chaos]

Still having a problem reading what you wrote, eh?

Let my highlight the relevent portion:

.

Timeliness, as I have said before, is an aspect of the system. If you believe that people have to wait 5 months to see a doctor, that is a problem with the SYSTEM. Not the quality of care. Which FYI, is just as good as ours. Not like you would know, I'm sure.

So your telling me seeing a doctor or a specialist in Canada is as "Timely" as it is in the US. Hell canadians complain about that very thing. If they are in need of timely care it is not uncommon for them to look for medical care in the US whenever possible. There are documented cases of people waiting for a doctor for months and getting a letter for there appointment well after they have died. LONG LONG waits to see these well overworked doctors can be months. The average wait time is somewhere between 7 and 12 weeks for a specialist. And sometimes much longer

A 2004 study by the Fraser Institute found that the median delay from referral by a general practitioner (GP) to surgical treatment was over four months. According to Dr. John Rapin, president of the Ontario Medical Association, the waits in his province are now “life threatening.”

In Cape Breton, N.S., Judith MacQuarrie, 55, was bedridden for five years, suffering excruciating pain because of a circulatory disorder called Raynaud’s Syndrome. It took three years before a GP was able to refer her to the proper specialist. Then MacQuarrie waited another two years before a corrective procedure could be scheduled in January 2005

I'm not making this **** up. Explain how your defending it when it is a known problem in canada

 

[nkgupta80]

and by the way, the cases you site are a bit extreme. I can find cases like that in America too (Dermatologists being the most reputable in America for having long appointment queues that span 6-8 months). And the thing is, these guys aren't overworked. They are overpayed. So overpayed that after having made substantial amount of money, they only work a few times a week, and then pretty much live a retired or research driven life otherwise. You cannot deny that the US healthcare system is very overbloated.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Just a simple question for the people that want to defend there earnings with a gun against evil undemocratic goverment. How democratic is the salary set? Because it is clearly not set democratic by the people of the society but through market mecanism. In theory that can be ok because Bob want's to cut the lawn for five bucks and John want his lawn cut for three bucks so there can agree on four.

But that constitute equals partner that have the same power to negotiate the price and condition. But that if cutting the lawn is considering a very simple task and their it very many that can do the work and also because many of them are poor and despretly in need of money. At the same time John can hire some people from another country to do the job if he think that the worker wants to mutch money. That will lead to John having mutch more pover in the negotiatin over salary then Bob, so Bob can maybee have to work fourteen hours a day just to support his familly and get basic health care and even then don't get the salary that he need to send his kids to college.

 

[Imudman]

Just a simple question for the people that want to defend there earnings with a gun against evil undemocratic goverment. How democratic is the salary set? Because it is clearly not set democratic by the people of the society but through market mecanism. In theory that can be ok because Bob want's to cut the lawn for five bucks and John want his lawn cut for three bucks so there can agree on four.

But that constitute equals partner that have the same power to negotiate the price and condition. But that if cutting the lawn is considering a very simple task and their it very many that can do the work and also because many of them are poor and despretly in need of money. At the same time John can hire some people from another country to do the job if he think that the worker wants to mutch money. That will lead to John having mutch more pover in the negotiatin over salary then Bob, so Bob can maybee have to work fourteen hours a day just to support his familly and get basic health care and even then don't get the salary that he need to send his kids to college.

Look, it's really simple. You are worth only as much as it costs to replace you. If you want more, you need to become more valuable. This can be done in a wide variety of ways, like getting more education or getting to know decision makers.

You're too worried about power struggles. Bottom line is you need to forget about all that and concentrate on becoming more valuable to employers and/or customers. I know a guy who made 350k last year mowing lawns...

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Look, it's really simple. You are worth only as much as it costs to replace you. If you want more, you need to become more valuable. This can be done in a wide variety of ways, like getting more education or getting to know decision makers.

You're too worried about power struggles. Bottom line is you need to forget about all that and concentrate on becoming more valuable to employers and/or customers. I know a guy who made 350k last year mowing lawns...

Yes but how much it take to replace a person is a very complex question. Like for example if you have unions like in Sweden you can prevent the workers being played out against each other. If not you face the risk that people have to work for so little money that way hardly can afford a good living at the same time as the companies make huge profits. Not because they don’t do a good and valuable job. But because it so many fighting for the same job. Of course it is also up to the individual if he can archive a higher salary.

But the single individual success is affected by many things outside there own control. Like for example if you don’t have taxed financed universities or even lower levels and also a possibility for all the student to survive without having to work so much during the semesters (or preferably not work at all). Also if you don’t have a tax financed health care system and you parents can’t afford the health care because they don’t have the right insurance you can be forced to drop out school. Therefore it can be very tough for children from low income families to get the jobs there want and also have the capabilities to get them, at the same time parents with academic background have better capabilities to help their children. Also during the lifespan a lot of other things can affect a individual chances to archive it carriers. But if you have a taxed financed welfare system you can help the individual to deal with those problem and get back on track and archive it’s goals.

And to you advice are doing both personally I’m at a university to get more pay and also more interesting job. But are also working with others for the rights we got here in Sweden and also to increase whose right to decrease the bad affects of capitalism. Both because of solidarity to my fellow man but also through enlighted egocentrism. That I think is good for society that have a population that have happy and secure life because that will lead to increase willingness to do a good job. Also having an educated population that have the ability to archive there goals increase Sweden competition. Finally if everyone have a better chance to get the education and careers they want Sweden will get more qualified people on the important jobs.

 

[Imudman]

...And to you advice are doing both personally I’m at a university to get more pay and also more interesting job. But are also working with others for the rights we got here in Sweden and also to increase whose right to decrease the bad affects of capitalism. Both because of solidarity to my fellow man but also through enlighted egocentrism . That I think is good for society that have a population that have happy and secure life because that will lead to increase willingness to do a good job...

Enlightened egocentrism? That's an interesting phrase. I know there is a language barrier between us, so it's possible I misunderstand you. You've realized it is in your own best interest to improve your life? Well, it's a step in the right direction, but it makes me wonder what you were thinking before your "enlightenment"...

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Sorry should have explained better
Egoism: Is that you basically only care for yourself. Like for example if I would think that I would get a really good job then I’m finished at the University and don’t want to pay the taxes to support the Swedish welfare system.

Solidarity/Altruism: Is that you care for other and don’t expect anything in return. Like for example if I think that I would get a really good job then I’m finished at the University but think it’s ok to pay the taxes to support the Swedish welfare system. Even if I wouldn’t get out as much as I pay in.

“Enlighted Egoism” Is that you care for other because it will be good for you in the long run. So maybe can also call a long term egoism. Like for example if I think that I would get a really good job then I’m finished at the University but think it’s ok to pay the taxes to support the Swedish welfare system. Because I as all other individuals are dependent on the society and therefore want a efficient society. Like for example if all workers and not only the well educated workers have the possibility to a decent pay and a happy life, it will lead to a increase in the willingness to a do good job. That will lead to increase and better productions. Also if 60 percent of the Swedish have the abilities to go to university instead of only 30 percent. Sweden will have a much better competitive position against other countries in today’s world there educated workforce getting more and more important. Also if 60 percent of the population get a higher education the likelyhood that you get the best persons for the important jobs out of the population increase. Also you have other reasons that border to “plain” egoism like for example if you have a society there the population can support themselves and are happy will probably lead to decrease in crimes that can happen to you. And also that even if you are really successful it is a risk that you or your kids will end up on the bottom of society sometime in the future, so it can be good with that safety net.

 

[Imudman]

Okay, I think I understand now. Thank you for the explanation. I mean no disrespect, but I feel a candid description of my opinion of socialism better serves our conversation. It seems to me that "enlightened egoism" is your motivation for happily going along with excessive taxation and invasions on your personal dignity. Without having some positive incentive to improve your life, then living under socialism is oppressive.

I suppose it's a matter of priorities. To me, personal freedoms are more important than a social safety net. Sadly, I don't think most Americans feel the same way anymore...

 

[jakurus]

Rational egoism goes much further than just paying taxes and being happy about it.

It basically applies to every decision you make in which there is only one right answer. The answer to decision you will ever make is pre-ordained.

You know what the greater good is and you act on it without hesitation.

And it all hinges on everyone realizing and acting on this interest for the system to work.

Some philosophers who came up with this stuff thought the animals would coexist with us and learn to talk and the lakes would turn to lemonade. Craaazy shite.

 

[Imudman]

Rational egoism goes much further than just paying taxes and being happy about it.

It basically applies to every decision you make in which there is only one right answer. The answer to decision you will ever make is pre-ordained.

You know what the greater good is and you act on it without hesitation.

And it all hinges on everyone realizing and acting on this interest for the system to work.

Some philosophers who came up with this stuff thought the animals would coexist with us and learn to talk and the lakes would turn to lemonade. Craaazy shite.

This is all new to me. From what I know about socialist ideals, they're fine for the most part. The hard part comes when somone doesn't want to participate. Then it becomes oppressive. That's where I draw the line and say capitalism is better. If you're oppressed under capitalism, you at least have the opportunity to own property and use it to its highest and best use...

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Sorry don't know how to quote from two diffrent post but both is from Imudan in side the ""

"Okay, I think I understand now. Thank you for the explanation. I mean no disrespect, but I feel a candid description of my opinion of socialism better serves our conversation. It seems to me that "enlightened egoism" is your motivation for happily going along with excessive taxation and invasions on your personal dignity. Without having some positive incentive to improve your life, then living under socialism is oppressive.

I suppose it's a matter of priorities. To me, personal freedoms are more important than a social safety net. Sadly, I don't think most Americans feel the same way anymore..."

Sorry but I think you live a sad life if a bigger paycheck is the only way for you to improve your life. I know alot of other ways to improve your life. Like for example in your carrier you can strive to get new more meaningful task, learn new skills, get your own office, become a leader, get new nice co-workers and get more free time. And in your personally life you can meet a life parter, raise a familly, find god, meet new intersting friends and become an expert on chess. And besides all of that Sweden is a socialliberal country so you can earn more then the average svensson or joe if you work hard or get a education.

A article around the same subject: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/29/o...bd42da3b6&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

"This is all new to me. From what I know about socialist ideals, they're fine for the most part. The hard part comes when somone doesn't want to participate. Then it becomes oppressive. That's where I draw the line and say capitalism is better. If you're oppressed under capitalism, you at least have the opportunity to own property and use it to its highest and best use..."

That you talkning about there is minority rights or communist countries. In the first case like in todays european countries that have embraces socialliberalism it's up to the people do decide that leaders they want and that politics they should have. So if you don't like socialist ideas and high taxses you can for example in Sweden vote for this guys: http://www.moderat.se/otherlanguages.asp?language=english But of course you still have the problem with the minority that don't want to pay the taxes. And yes you sadly have to force them to pay taxes and yes force is not good. But I think that is the best of two evil because I think it worst that kids don't get a change to go to school, that people have to work on jobs they hate just to survive. That people will die of treatble deseaces and also even libertarians agree that you have to force people to pay taxes for somethings like the police, roads and lighthouses.

Then the others side of the coin is communist country there you have minority of people that controll the country and force the population to follow there warped idea of socialism. This is really screwed up and bad, but whose country was in almost all cases screwed up and bad before the communist take over.

Finally thank you Jakarus on your inside. Personally I just see it is a positive thing to back up solidarity that if you have solidarity for you fellow man you actually help yourself in the process. And it gets even better if I can start talking to animals and get lemonade in my nearest lake

 

[Uncle Shane]

i realise the thred has shifted topics but its odd that you say that as americans seem to me extreamly nieve, arguments about issues turn into war on political positions compleate with slogans and pesidents

 

[Imudman]

Sorry but I think you live a sad life if a bigger paycheck is the only way for you to improve your life. I know alot of other ways to improve your life. Like for example in your carrier you can strive to get new more meaningful task, learn new skills, get your own office, become a leader, get new nice co-workers and get more free time. And in your personally life you can meet a life parter, raise a familly, find god, meet new intersting friends and become an expert on chess. And besides all of that Sweden is a socialliberal country so you can earn more then the average svensson or joe if you work hard or get a education.

No, I said personal freedoms were more important to me than a social safety net. I never said a word about a bigger paycheck. Liberty, that is the government staying out of my life, is very important to me. I don't need every facet of life to be regulated and taxed by the government. It's very sad that here in America, we're turning into something I hate - a socialist nanny state, where a man can't be a man unless he fills out the proper forms and pays the appropriate fees...

 

[Imudman]

i realise the thred has shifted topics but its odd that you say that as americans seem to me extreamly nieve, arguments about issues turn into war on political positions compleate with slogans and pesidents

Yes, the thread topic should now include Australians with the Europeans...

 

[nkgupta80]

No, I said personal freedoms were more important to me than a social safety net. I never said a word about a bigger paycheck. Liberty, that is the government staying out of my life, is very important to me. I don't need every facet of life to be regulated and taxed by the government. It's very sad that here in America, we're turning into something I hate - a socialist nanny state, where a man can't be a man unless he fills out the proper forms and pays the appropriate fees...

yeah, but the only thing I think ideally should be provided is healthcare. It isn't something people can really abuse like welfare and foodstamps, and I personally don't mind giving up some of my money to help someone (in the majority of the cases my money wouldn't be helping a leech).

 

[Kelzie]

yeah, but the only thing I think ideally should be provided is healthcare. It isn't something people can really abuse like welfare and foodstamps, and I personally don't mind giving up some of my money to help someone (in the majority of the cases my money wouldn't be helping a leech).

As someone who was fed through childhood with food stamps, I have to ask if you think cutting off support for mothers who need to feed their children is really the best solution to people leaching off the system?

 

[Imudman]

yeah, but the only thing I think ideally should be provided is healthcare. It isn't something people can really abuse like welfare and foodstamps, and I personally don't mind giving up some of my money to help someone (in the majority of the cases my money wouldn't be helping a leech).

I think you should go ahead and contribute more tax money for health care. Just don't vote for me to help you pay for people's bad headaches and hang nails. While we're at it, please don't vote for me to help pay for abortions, sex changes and viagra for sex offenders (or anyone else, for that matter). If someone needs help in the health department, it should be between me and them, not the government gun, me, and them. Please, don't vote...

 

[Bergslagstroll]

No, I said personal freedoms were more important to me than a social safety net. I never said a word about a bigger paycheck. Liberty, that is the government staying out of my life, is very important to me. I don't need every facet of life to be regulated and taxed by the government. It's very sad that here in America, we're turning into something I hate - a socialist nanny state, where a man can't be a man unless he fills out the proper forms and pays the appropriate fees...

Sorry misinterpreted this:
“It seems to me that "enlightened egoism" is your motivation for happily going along with excessive taxation and invasions on your personal dignity. Without having some positive incentive to improve your life, then living under socialism is oppressive.”

Though you meant that in socialist countries everyone have the same salary and therefore no insensitive to improve their life, and I now agree that I took my interpretation way to far, sorry.

Then it comes to freedom it seams that we have very different interpretation. That you think that people get freedom automatically or get the change to get freedom if the government pull out. Self I see the state as a vessel for freedom. Some example: Like for example if we have public school a lot more children will get the freedom to learn. If we have speed regulation on the roads more people will have the freedom to travel and be less afraid of traffic accidents. If we have a police force people will be more free to move around and fullfile there lifes without being afraid of crimes. A social safety net will mean that people dare to take bigger changes and also have a greater ability to become productive citizens again increasing there freedom. But of course you don’t only need the government you need also non governmental organisation they people can organise themselves and together improve and influence there life’s and also that the party’s representing the people is based on a large membership base.

As other posters said, yes governmental services can be abused like any other system in today’s world but should it be stopped because of that instead of improved? And do you really now how much money that is lost on the thing you think is abused compared to the entire budget? Maybe I’m going out on a limb now but I think you have a lot of money being wasted in your military but I think almost no Americans want to abolish the military. But it’s ok to take away the money from starving families (if I allowed to be a bit dramatic) because of some jackasses that abuse the system and that cost is very little compared to the money wasted in your military.

 

[Imudman]

...So if you disagree with those programs because of their socialist nature, or any other program that you involuntarily fund (anything funded by tax dollars), because it's socialist in nature, you should naturally be an anti-statist, because in fact the presence of a state means the presence of a socialism to a certain degree.

I like how you summed up your points in your last paragraph, because you got right to the heart of the matter. Yes, I would be an anarchist were it not for my belief in God. I understand that man needs to submit to some kind of authority in this life, if anything in order to confront his own mortality.

The reason I rail against socialism is because in the end it ends up being oppressive. You're right, any government program is a socialist one, but fewer programs are better for more individual freedom. My trouble is I really believe what Jefferson said in the Declaration. The only legitimate purpose of the federal government is to protect and defend individual liberties...

 

[Imudman]

I concur, but I don't really understand why your belief in God equates to a belief in government. I know you have to submit before an authority, but that authority is God, and following a government as a way of submitting can only really lead you astray from God.

See, that's just it. More government equals more socialism equals less reliance on God. That being said, I believe what St. Paul said about submitting to higher authorities, because they are established by God, and if a person resists them then they are opposing God. See Romans 13.

As individuals there is no war, we have the option to not fund murder in any perception (i.e. pro-lifers don't have to fund abortion, pacifists don't have to fund war), there's no system to be attacked, so thus there's no purpose for terrorism, people can be as decedant or as righteous as they want.
Now don't get me wrong, I am not an anarchist in relation to our current society. People are FAR too stupid to be able to function in an anarchy. The reason I believe this is it only takes understanding in one extrordinarily simple concept: regardless of your motivations, be them greedy and selfish, or good and wholesome, anything done for the good of society benefits all that are in the society, including the actor. If people just understood that one concept, the need for government would be erradicated.

Thus the reason we have government. Fortunately, in this country we have the oopportunity to peacefully change government policies. That's what I'm doing - I'm seeking to encourage people to recognize their freedoms and responsibilities come from an authority higher than the government's, and to ask them to act from a heart of compassion rather than from fear...

 

[nkgupta80]

I agree, but also people are easier to rule through fear than compassion. It's much easier to appeal to the worst in people, rather than the best, as we saw in our previous election, when we had a president elected on hatred of homosexuals and fear of terrorism.

Nah, we elected him cause we love freedom.

 

[Kelzie]

Nah, we elected him cause we love freedom.

Because, what? John Kerry was a communist masquerading as a Democrat?

 

[Imudman]

See, if there's anyone that I have trouble believing in the bible it's him. He doesn't really strike me as someone who actually accepted Jesus. Authorities were not put in place by God, they were put in place by men, and by that fact they are fallible and should not be neccisarily submitted to. I submit to no man, only to God.

Yeah, if you really look at him, you see a person who definately had issues. But I believe what my Church teaches, and it teaches that the book of Romans is inspired by God, therefore it must be truth.

I agree, but also people are easier to rule through fear than compassion. It's much easier to appeal to the worst in people, rather than the best, as we saw in our previous election, when we had a president elected on hatred of homosexuals and fear of terrorism.

You're so right! And it's been the same story for about 200 years. That's what's wrong with democracy - it appeals to the worst in human nature. I just wish more people would wake up and keep the government from encroaching any farther into our lives...

 

[Red_Dave]

I don't know if it has occurred to you, but the "free" healthcare isn't free.

I live in the europe and its free from where iam standing

 

[Kelzie]

why? do you not pay taxes?

I pay taxes on roads. I still consider them free. Well, except for toll roads of course. Damn MapQuest.

And yes I REALIZE that the money comes from taxes, but if it's something I'm not actively handing out money for, I consider it free. Like dinner at my mom's house. Free. Although I might have to watch my little brother and sister sometime.