NationStates Jolt Archive

The Bill of No Rights merely makes those items listed privileges and not rights. In other words, if you wish to provide healthcare or you wish to censor speech, you may still do that, but it is no longer a requirement.

It is the time to make a stand against stupid people and idiots of all kinds!

Since writing out the things you CAN do has become too complicated for some people, we must write out the things you CAN NOT do. This is what this bill has done.

Nice. I like the Bill, but I don't think it will pass. Too many people rely on the government to solve all their problems, and even to tie their shoes. If only more people would take a stand against the growing ignorance...

It's obvious that anything that is not declared as a right, and is not outlawed in your nation is a priviledge. This bill really says nothing at all.

It's obvious that anything that is not declared as a right, and is not outlawed in your nation is a priviledge. This bill really says nothing at all.

It nullifies things like "required basic healthcare" and "keep the world disease free!" though. Note it doesn't repeal them, just supercede them when in conflict.

Keeping the world disease free, just doen't make any sense.

But, basic healthcare should be required. Why would anyone enter a social contract with a nation if it wouldn't at least take care of your most basic needs.

yes! finally, the feel-good proposal of the year.
Or something to that effect. Now if we can get rid of that stupid hydrogen car law...

Keeping the world disease free, just doen't make any sense.

But, basic healthcare should be required. Why would anyone enter a social contract with a nation if it wouldn't at least take care of your most basic needs.

Because 'free' healthcare isn't really free. Somebody has to pay for it either way. But whereas government tends to give substandard products, the free market produces the best products at the lowest price... whcih is why Canadians often come to the United States to undergo major surgery.

"ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to demand that our children risk their lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience. We hate oppressive governments and won’t lift a finger to stop you from going to fight if you’d like. However, we do not enjoy parenting the entire world and do not want to spend so much of our time battling each and every little tyrant with a military uniform and a funny hat. "



While I understand the sentiment, I also recognize that by its design, the United Nations may be called upon to quell threats of global implications. If we as a group are resolved to stand together for the greater good, this must be a consideration the United Nations must be willing to accept. It is better to make sure that CERTAIN NATIONS do not try to place themselves in the driver's seat for forcing the UN's hand into battle, but we must accept that our help may be called upon some day against hostile nations.

Actually, Paul is robbing Peter, by refusing to pay his fair share of taxes to pay for the healthcare. But, if Paul would pay Peter a fair wage in the first place then Peter could pay for his own healthcare.

"ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to demand that our children risk their lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience. We hate oppressive governments and won’t lift a finger to stop you from going to fight if you’d like. However, we do not enjoy parenting the entire world and do not want to spend so much of our time battling each and every little tyrant with a military uniform and a funny hat. "


While I understand the sentiment, I also recognize that by its design, the United Nations may be called upon to quell threats of global implications. If we as a group are resolved to stand together for the greater good, this must be a consideration the United Nations must be willing to accept. It is better to make sure that CERTAIN NATIONS do not try to place themselves in the driver's seat for forcing the UN's hand into battle, but we must accept that our help may be called upon some day against hostile nations.

If a country has already been invaded it is self-defense/defense of a third-party which is justified. Article VIII merely condemns things like the US invasion of Iraq.

Actually, Paul is robbing Peter, by refusing to pay his fair share of taxes to pay for the healthcare. But, if Paul would pay Peter a fair wage in the first place then Peter could pay for his own healthcare.

Taxes are robbery. They are taking somebody else's property by the use of physical intimidation. If you don't pay taxes, you will be fined. If you don't pay the fine you will be thrown in jail. If you try to escape from jail you will be shot. Therefore, all taxes are the result of putting a gun to someone's head. Fair wages are determined by a mutual contract between employer and employee.

Fair wages are determined by a mutual contract between employer and employee.

That's false. If someone has no money to start with, then they must accept any offer made to them. They have no power in negotiating a contract. So, they will be taken advantage of to the financial benifit of the employer.

Fair wages are determined by a mutual contract between employer and employee.

That's false. If someone has no money to start with, then they must accept any offer made to them. They have no power in negotiating a contract. So, they will be taken advantage of to the financial benifit of the employer.

They have their labor. This is why penniless Wharton students are paid on average $60,000-$75,000 right out of college.

The Bill of No Rights merely makes those items listed privileges and not rights. In other words, if you wish to provide healthcare or you wish to censor speech, you may still do that, but it is no longer a requirement.

In other words, it is worthless...

The Bill of No Rights merely makes those items listed privileges and not rights. In other words, if you wish to provide healthcare or you wish to censor speech, you may still do that, but it is no longer a requirement.

In other words, it is worthless...

No. There are currently resolutions that require some of the things outlined in teh Bill. That just supercedes those resolutions when in conflict.

Besides this is the UN making a statement!

They have their labor. This is why penniless Wharton students are paid on average $60,000-$75,000 right out of college.

Actually they have a few hundred thousand dollars worth of education, that most people never have the opportunity to avail themselves of.

They have their labor. This is why penniless Wharton students are paid on average $60,000-$75,000 right out of college.

Actually they have a few hundred thousand dollars worth of education, that most people never have the opportunity to avail themselves of.

Or they go there on full need based scholarships like one of my mom's freinds who's mother is near-poverty did.

Ivy League schools grant substantial financial aid to between two thirds and 80% of their students, depending on the school. Very few people pay the asking price for colleges... any guidance counselor will tell you that.

None the less. If you've had a poor education up through high school, for whatever reason, you'll never have a chance at those scholarships.

The basic point is that there isn't an even playing field out there, and more unfair than that, is that the starting line for some people is much further back through no fault of their own.

It's only right that the government supply the basic services needed since companies can't be counted on to pay fair wadges. A worker makes his company many times more then he is paid. And the only reason that money is not shared fairly with him is because of corporate greed.

None the less. If you've had a poor education up through high school, for whatever reason, you'll never have a chance at those scholarships.

The basic point is that there isn't an even playing field out there, and more unfair than that, is that the starting line for some people is much further back through no fault of their own.

It's only right that the government supply the basic services needed since companies can't be counted on to pay fair wadges. A worker makes his company many times more then he is paid. And the only reason that money is not shared fairly with him is because of corporate greed.

None the less. If you've had a poor education up through high school, for whatever reason, you'll never have a chance at those scholarships.

The basic point is that there isn't an even playing field out there, and more unfair than that, is that the starting line for some people is much further back through no fault of their own.

It's only right that the government supply the basic services needed since companies can't be counted on to pay fair wadges. A worker makes his company many times more then he is paid. And the only reason that money is not shared fairly with him is because of corporate greed.

Yeah right. That girl I was talking about went to an inner-city school. She's grossing something like 60k at Johnson & Johnson.

There's lots of inner city kids that go on to the best schools. Going to an elite prep school helps but it isn't a gurantee. Even Andover Prep only graduates about 11% of its students to the Ivies.

And your last statement about fair wages, can you prove this or are you just reciting communist doctrines from 150 years ago?

A company needs a worker just as much as a worker needs a company. Which is why skilled workers unions have been so successful.

This is an arrogant, ignorant, silly proposal that should have been laughed out of existence when it first was raised. I urge all to vote against this proposal, and to reject such hate-filled rants in the future.

Pogue Mahone

This is an arrogant, ignorant, silly proposal that should have been laughed out of existence when it first was raised. I urge all to vote against this proposal, and to reject such hate-filled rants in the future.

Pogue Mahone

Any reasons for this?

It is little more than a rant -- and not even a good one at that. It does not deserve serious discussion.

Pogue

at least it will give birth to a new word.

Analchy.

Síochán leat

CPOWSOS
(Central Politburo of Workers Soviets of Stakanovia)

On a side note, it doesn't matter who pays for a 100K education, if you got it, you got it. If you don't got it, you don't got it. So being penniless with a 100K education compared to with no education is like being broke and owning the rights to a diamond mine compared to a midden.

I think this is a silly bill for three reasons.

First of all, it merely is used to supercede older bills; this is silly but only because we should be able to simply vote and repeal old bills through the NSUN.

Secondly this bill gives something for nothing. It increases your democratic freedoms for no real statistical cost. Pretty cool eh? But silly.

Thirdly it challenges the legitamacy of non-democratic goverments.

But mainly it's just another piece of paper that makes the NSUN a more confusing and needlessly complicated place.

Oh yeah! It also pseudorepeals the FIGHT THE AXIS OF EVIL bill.

Kinda funny in a sort of "it's 3am and most things are funny" way.

High Cardinal Raziel, Arch-Magus of Azariel.

On a side note, it doesn't matter who pays for a 100K education, if you got it, you got it. If you don't got it, you don't got it. So being penniless with a 100K education compared to with no education is like being broke and owning the rights to a diamond mine compared to a midden.

I think this is a silly bill for three reasons.

First of all, it merely is used to supercede older bills; this is silly but only because we should be able to simply vote and repeal old bills through the NSUN.

Secondly this bill gives something for nothing. It increases your democratic freedoms for no real statistical cost. Pretty cool eh? But silly.

Thirdly it challenges the legitamacy of non-democratic goverments.

But mainly it's just another piece of paper that makes the NSUN a more confusing and needlessly complicated place.

Oh yeah! It also pseudorepeals the FIGHT THE AXIS OF EVIL bill.

Kinda funny in a sort of it's 3am and most things are funny.

Well nobody likes that bill anyways...

The Bill of No Rights merely makes those items listed privileges and not rights. In other words, if you wish to provide healthcare or you wish to censor speech, you may still do that, but it is no longer a requirement.

Our nation is a free nation. We don't believe that all actions are illegal unti a law is passed making them legal. We believe people have freedom of action until a law is passed forbidden particular actions. Therefore, we find your proposal contrary to our entire history and legal system. We must vote "no" on such a bizarrely backwards document.

The Bill of No Rights merely makes those items listed privileges and not rights. In other words, if you wish to provide healthcare or you wish to censor speech, you may still do that, but it is no longer a requirement.

Our nation is a free nation. We don't believe that all actions are illegal unti a law is passed making them legal. We believe people have freedom of action until a law is passed forbidden particular actions. Therefore, we find your proposal contrary to our entire history and legal system. We must vote "no" on such a bizarrely backwards document.

This isn't about actions at all, this is about entitlements. You aren't entitled to free stuff unless someone gives it to you.

In addition, my nation is one of hte freest in the game...maxed out personal freedoms and economy and high political freedoms so there.

In addition, my nation is one of hte freest in the game...maxed out personal freedoms and economy and high political freedoms so there.

But you have already admitted that you didn't write this bill. You admitted you copied if from a third party source. Therefore, my criticism stands: the bill is written from an entirely anti-freedom stance.

In addition, my nation is one of hte freest in the game...maxed out personal freedoms and economy and high political freedoms so there.

But you have already admitted that you didn't write this bill. You admitted you copied if from a third party source. Therefore, my criticism stands: the bill is written from an entirely anti-freedom stance.

ahem. Capitalism.com is a relatively Libertarian website.

Every article deals with PROTECTING a true right (life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness).

Please explain why this is anti-freedom.

In addition, my nation is one of hte freest in the game...maxed out personal freedoms and economy and high political freedoms so there.
Impressive stats to be sure. However, your nation has accomplished this by pretty much destroying the environment and creating a poverty and crime stricken underclass of many of its citizens.

In addition, my nation is one of hte freest in the game...maxed out personal freedoms and economy and high political freedoms so there.
Impressive stats to be sure. However, your nation has accomplished this by pretty much destroying the environment and creating a poverty and crime stricken underclass of many of its citizens.

Many = 4-5%. Okay. And they have the chance to move up. The reason my crime is somewhat high is because I don't put an armed government thug on every street corner and violate the right to due process. And even then it is just 'a problem'. It's not that bad.

And the environment exists to serve humanity. We protect it only insofar as it is in our self-interest to do so. Just like every other species that has ever existed and ever will exist.

In addition, my nation is one of hte freest in the game...maxed out personal freedoms and economy and high political freedoms so there.
Impressive stats to be sure. However, your nation has accomplished this by pretty much destroying the environment and creating a poverty and crime stricken underclass of many of its citizens.

Many = 4-5%. Okay. And they have the chance to move up. The reason my crime is somewhat high is because I don't put an armed government thug on every street corner and violate the right to due process. And even then it is just 'a problem'. It's not that bad.

And the environment exists to serve humanity. We protect it only insofar as it is in our self-interest to do so. Just like every other species that has ever existed and ever will exist.
And when you can't breathe the air, you'll let corporations sell oxygen.

In addition, my nation is one of hte freest in the game...maxed out personal freedoms and economy and high political freedoms so there.
Impressive stats to be sure. However, your nation has accomplished this by pretty much destroying the environment and creating a poverty and crime stricken underclass of many of its citizens.

Many = 4-5%. Okay. And they have the chance to move up. The reason my crime is somewhat high is because I don't put an armed government thug on every street corner and violate the right to due process. And even then it is just 'a problem'. It's not that bad.

And the environment exists to serve humanity. We protect it only insofar as it is in our self-interest to do so. Just like every other species that has ever existed and ever will exist.
And when you can't breathe the air, you'll let corporations sell oxygen.

Actually you'll die if you breathe pure oxygen.

Actually you'll die if you breathe pure oxygen.
Be sure that they put that on the bottle.

Actually you'll die if you breathe pure oxygen.
Be sure that they put that on the bottle.

We do have universal education through a very well-managed system of private schools and tax credits. I was in the top 10,000 for best-educated citizens.

Just out of interest, weren't you the same person who proposed the Cato Acts, and called a thread endorsing it "Protecting Our Rights and Liberties"


Article III- That the right of free speech and press shall not be abridged, except when such speech or press violates a contract (such as software piracy) or poses a clear and imminent danger (such as deliberately inciting a riot).
Article V- That all persons shall have the right to petition the government and assemble nonviolently.
Article VI- That government shall neither directly endorse nor censure any religion.
Article VIII- That all private individuals and businesses shall have the right to emigrate from any nation, though individual nations shall reserve the right to create their own policy on immigration and naturalization.
Article X- That government shall neither abridge nor expand the rights or responsibilities of any citizen on account of "race".

ahem. Capitalism.com is a relatively Libertarian website.

They are not libertarian if this is what they think ought to be crammed down the throats of all nations whether the nations want it or not.

Please explain why this is anti-freedom.

I already did. Did you bother to read what i wrote before you started to disagree?

In a free society, people have the right to do whatever they want unless that action is forbidden. Understand?

What you want is a situation where states have no freedom except what your high and mighty dictator doles out to them.

Actually, Paul is robbing Peter, by refusing to pay his fair share of taxes to pay for the healthcare. But, if Paul would pay Peter a fair wage in the first place then Peter could pay for his own healthcare.

Can't Paul get a better rate through the economics of scale?

They have their labor. This is why penniless Wharton students are paid on average $60,000-$75,000 right out of college.

Actually they have a few hundred thousand dollars worth of education, that most people never have the opportunity to avail themselves of.

Or they go there on full need based scholarships like one of my mom's freinds who's mother is near-poverty did.

Ivy League schools grant substantial financial aid to between two thirds and 80% of their students, depending on the school. Very few people pay the asking price for colleges... any guidance counselor will tell you that.

:roll: Economy is more than money. It's possible to write a trade off diagram between further studies and working. Further studies are economically beneficial for a while, but deciding to study until you're 30 is a bad idea (unless of course you have great enjoyment in studying, in which case studying would not increase your wealth, but your well-being).

However, following your reasoning, it wouldn't even be economically beneficial to be studying at all. This is because you fail to take a number of things into account:

-time: has an economic value. Investing time in studies is a good expression: it's an investment. Your economic value rises because of it.
-knowledge: in this case, closely related to the previous. Knowledge is power, another good expression.

Hence, it is irrelevant if people have or have not paid to study. They have paid anyway, but not with money. In fact, government who give scholarships are also investing, in human capital; another good expression. Apparently, governments seem to think that it's a good trade off to give money in return for knowledgeable people. This is also the reason why scholarship students are generally not allowed to fuck up; that would make their economy value diminish.

Besides, you object against free health care, but you agree with free education? Your plea is neither coherent nor consistent, and hence I vote against the bill.

Michael Malthus,
Minister of Communications,
Dominion of Walt Dixie

Actually, Paul is robbing Peter, by refusing to pay his fair share of taxes to pay for the healthcare. But, if Paul would pay Peter a fair wage in the first place then Peter could pay for his own healthcare.

Well you could say no. Again with my job I worked in manual labor, I agreed and they like most companies pay for at least some of the health care they give to you. I broke my foot and went to the doctor five times for a month. I saw no bill and was given workman's comp. Most businesses do this. Oh one more thing...

Why is it that whenever someone makes an argument against this resolution they use the word fair? The world is not fair, and in no way is the government supposed to make it fair. The government is there to make sure your true rights are protected.

I am curious to know what those rights are.

Besides, you object against free health care, but you agree with free education? Your plea is neither coherent nor consistent, and hence I vote against the bill.

Michael Malthus,
Minister of Communications,
Dominion of Walt Dixie

Free education is one of those compromises that was made with pragmatism. A tax credit-funded education system would be very cheap and reliabel.

But ain't it sad? The free education act was made to end at age 18. Sad. I mean, if you miss a year the education system can ask you to pay up. Same if your retarted or some such impediment to your education.

If your going to pay for someones education why make it a half hearted attempt that is just begging for more legislature to preserve the heart of the law after the letter ends?

Why not have it free to a certain point in the schooling system?

In addition, my nation is one of hte freest in the game...maxed out personal freedoms and economy and high political freedoms so there.
Impressive stats to be sure. However, your nation has accomplished this by pretty much destroying the environment and creating a poverty and crime stricken underclass of many of its citizens.

Many = 4-5%. Okay. And they have the chance to move up. The reason my crime is somewhat high is because I don't put an armed government thug on every street corner and violate the right to due process. And even then it is just 'a problem'. It's not that bad.

And the environment exists to serve humanity. We protect it only insofar as it is in our self-interest to do so. Just like every other species that has ever existed and ever will exist.

Ok, you've now got me started. The environment does NOT exist to serve humanity. That statement itself doesn't even make sense linguistically. Humanity is part of the environment. I'm very curious how you are going to explain how humanity serves humanity. I'm even more curious how you are going to explain that in a capitalistic way.
In the main time, I'll just tear your argument to shreds. The whole of environment is composed of ecosystems, which are amazingly tuned. It's this finetuning that has made the waste of energy in ecosystems minimal, hence making an economically efficient system. What is waste for one species, is useful for another. One's death is another's bread.
However, you seem to claim that humanity doesn't have to involve itself in this fine-tuning. Instead, humanity should be commited to activities of thoughtless overproduction and overconsumption, which is nothing more than bad economics; we don't stop at break-even points, we consume so much it isn't good for us anymore. And we create waste without reasons, 'waste' which could also be recycled is thrown away or burnt.

It is in our self-interest to preserve the environment. It's in our self-interest to tend to a more symbiotic attitude towards nature. It's only in this manner that we will have an efficient use and recycling of energy. Economy has turned into a science about scarcities. I'm not an economist, but I know this much. Perhaps someone who claims to be "Global Market" needs to be re-educated.

Respectfully,
Michael Malthus

Re-Education;
The spice of life under a totalitarian state.

Walt, can I please watch?
:lol: :lol: :lol:

our position, the Allied States of Good-Morality, is that no resolution who tell how do things should be exist. It's against the independance of all nations.

Then you really should quit the NSUN as you'll find that's what all the resolutions do.
What could would they be if they didn't tell you what to do?
I mean if you want to be independant then why join the NSUN?

Besides, you object against free health care, but you agree with free education? Your plea is neither coherent nor consistent, and hence I vote against the bill.

Michael Malthus,
Minister of Communications,
Dominion of Walt Dixie

Free education is one of those compromises that was made with pragmatism. A tax credit-funded education system would be very cheap and reliabel.

In the same way, privatised health care has a distinct chance to be unreliable. Doctors charge you 'services' they offer which you never asked for. If you don't like it, go to another doctor. Eventually, when all the doctors with benefits are rejected because it exceeds your budget, you'll end up with the same poor health care you would get in your hypothetical nation where public health care is subsidied, and poor results follow. I for one am confident that well-managed public health care is a good support for citizens who can't afford any better, even though it shouldn't be the main solution.

To be honest, it is a myth that privatizing public services leads to higher quality due to competition. It only leads to higher rendability. For instance, privatisation of public train transport will lead to small stations being closed, certain routes being cancelled, and only 'popular' routes remaining. This isn't beneficial for the country, as it will increase automobile traffic unnecessarily : people who will have to go the farthest, will also be located near the smallest train stations, and hence if that station is closed, that'll make a significant addition of kilometers, a significant addition of traffic jams, and lastly, of pollution.

Then you really should quit the NSUN as you'll find that's what all the resolutions do.
What could would they be if they didn't tell you what to do?
I mean if you want to be independant then why join the NSUN?

Yes, what could? 8) You can even partake in the re-education if you like.

Besides, you object against free health care, but you agree with free education? Your plea is neither coherent nor consistent, and hence I vote against the bill.

Michael Malthus,
Minister of Communications,
Dominion of Walt Dixie

Free education is one of those compromises that was made with pragmatism. A tax credit-funded education system would be very cheap and reliabel.

In the same way, privatised health care has a distinct chance to be unreliable. Doctors charge you 'services' they offer which you never asked for. If you don't like it, go to another doctor. Eventually, when all the doctors with benefits are rejected because it exceeds your budget, you'll end up with the same poor health care you would get in your hypothetical nation where public health care is subsidied, and poor results follow. I for one am confident that well-managed public health care is a good support for citizens who can't afford any better, even though it shouldn't be the main solution.

To be honest, it is a myth that privatizing public services leads to higher quality due to competition. It only leads to higher rendability. For instance, privatisation of public train transport will lead to small stations being closed, certain routes being cancelled, and only 'popular' routes remaining. This isn't beneficial for the country, as it will increase automobile traffic unnecessarily : people who will have to go the farthest, will also be located near the smallest train stations, and hence if that station is closed, that'll make a significant addition of kilometers, a significant addition of traffic jams, and lastly, of pollution.

Education is still PRIVATELY OWNED AND OPERATED, but it is publically funded. Private healthcare is better than public healthcare nine times out of ten. For instance, many Canadians come to teh US to do major surgery. Because we have better doctors and technology. Thanks to private systems.

Walt, it all depends, I like to dish out Re-Education, I am not a big fan of taking if you know what I mean :wink:

This bill will rid us of stupidity. For while the tree of life is self-pruning, it doesnt work fast enough. This is a great way to rid us of out idiots. Unfortunately I don't think that it will pass.

Hmm, I am curious, Blitzkrieg, who do you think the idiots are?

Private healthcare is better than public healthcare nine times out of ten. For instance, many Canadians come to teh US to do major surgery. Because we have better doctors and technology. Thanks to private systems.

You keep using this example, when all it really is an example of is the rich living off the poor. Canadians can get the better healthcare, if they can afford it. Healthcare should be affordable to everyone. Otherwise, as Walt Dixie stated, the privatization creates the same problems you had before, where the average person is still not getting quality healthcare - in fact, it becomes worse as the rich people continually add to the separation between the better privatized services from the poor and now under funded public services.

I hate those EVIL rich people, they should be beaten up and robbed. They think they are so much better than me, why should they get stuff I don't have?

:lol:

And next up, 3 Angry Commies, a play.

I see your humor. I'm not blaming the rich people of this example for getting better healthcare for a better price. I would too - if I had the money. But "if I had the money" shouldn't be the main concern when it comes to healthcare.

After an unfortunate accident Joe Regular says, "I wish I could afford the transplant of the damaged organ that will save my life, but transplants have been a fad among people who can afford them arbitrarily to 'extend their lives' and has driven up the costs. Now, I must rely on the under funded public healthcare, which can't even promise me that the organ will arrive in time because they can't make the same bid for the organ as the privitized hospitals can. It looks like I'll die either way."

Obviously this is an extreme example, but what mechanism would be in place to prevent this scenario from happening?

You keep using this example, when all it really is an example of is the rich living off the poor. Canadians can get the better healthcare, if they can afford it. Healthcare should be affordable to everyone. Otherwise, as Walt Dixie stated, the privatization creates the same problems you had before, where the average person is still not getting quality healthcare - in fact, it becomes worse as the rich people continually add to the separation between the better privatized services from the poor and now under funded public services.

Plus, let's see the relativity of region here; Canada is largely dependent on the US for many things; this is less to do with the quality of the US institutions than it has to do with poor management of the Canadian government.

Here's another regional example, which in my view holds more ground. The Netherlands were, up to 2 years ago, an economically stable country, with a high life standard. However, their health care sucks; and it was privatized.
What was the main problem there? Well, remarkably enough, it was based on the same principles as my railroad example. Hospitals were(are? not sure) gigantic buildings there. Instead of multiple smaller hospitals, few gigantic hospitals were placed. And you know what happens when you centralize things: administration is a total mess. If this argument drags on, I'm willing to talk to some specialists which can tell me (and indirectly) exactly what disadvantages there are to centralized hospitals; in the mean time you will just have to do with the administration point, and the assurance that health care was an issue EVERYBODY complained about. I don't know if you have followed politics outside of your nation, but we in Walt's Dominion have, and we noticed that Pim Fortuyn, a very popular political figure in the Netherlands, who was shot last year, was talking about going to a system with smaller but more hospitals, and had a similar reform for the education system, which was also centralized in the Netherlands. The government before Fortuyn spent no attention to exactly those themes, and was totally defeated. Just something to think about.

I don't see how healthcare is an exception.

Joe Regular, wanting to buy a new car, thinks "I wish I could afford a new 4wd with a chopper pad and a spa, but the rich people wanting them has driven up the price, oh well, I'll have to hope that one day I'll find a station wagon with a towbar" The problem is not the healthcare, but that you allow hospital to charge for organs. Personnally I think in cases of life and death the person in question can always recieve treatment as long as they are willing to accept that they owe their lives to the government and become high tech assassins or ninjas or work on road crew or some other usefull function.

I don't see how healthcare is an exception.

Joe Regular, wanting to buy a new car, thinks "I wish I could afford a new 4wd with a chopper pad and a spa, but the rich people wanting them has driven up the price, oh well, I'll have to hope that one day I'll find a station wagon with a towbar" The problem is not the healthcare, but that you allow hospital to charge for organs. Personnally I think in cases of life and death the person in question can always recieve treatment as long as they are willing to accept that they owe their lives to the government and become high tech assassins or ninjas or work on road crew or some other usefull function.

Rrright... so that person is basically the government's slave. Okay.

Either that or dead. I like it, but then again, I am the government.... so maybe you should think twice about my ideas :D

Either that or dead. I like it, but then again, I am the government.... so maybe you should think twice about my ideas :D

Luckily we don't actually have to live in our fictional nations, eh? :lol:

Maybe for you, but I am in charge so I can do as I damn well please :D
I think it is lucky we don't live in MY country

Maybe for you, but I am in charge so I can do as I damn well please :D
I think it is lucky we don't live in MY country

*looks at Azariel* yeah I know what you mean :lol:

I don't see how healthcare is an exception.

Really? A car isn't necessary to live - your health is.

See my above post.
Free will is not a nessicity to live either.

See my above post.
Free will is not a nessicity to live either.

I agree with you on this. Which is why I support Psychotic Dictatorships, and don't think they should be ruined by a proposal which forces a strong effect on the furtherment of democracy.

Cool, want to be one of my high tech assasssin ninja road crews?

No thanks, according to my nation's laws I'm required to serve in the military instead.

I could write them a note if you would like it?

"Dear Military,
Aegonia cannot attend the war today because Aegonia is acting as one of my high tech assassin ninja road crews.
Signed Azariel"

That okay?

Well, maybe if Aegonia can contract one of your high tech assassin ninja road crews for military purposes, we could work something out. You know, A-Team style.

Did the A-Team use Nuclear weapons? Cause my road crews aren't very... um.... subtle.