Election Day 2012

[DGFone]

Nationalised healthcare is, more often than not, a great thing to have. The NHS in Britain is a prime example of that. Instead of being turned away by a private company for having a certain condition, the NHS treats you no matter what. It's free for anybody so even the poorest people can have treatment. Take me, for example. Just a few months ago I had an operation for major reconstruction of my foot. I'm still recovering from it now. That was completely free. Imagine how much it would have cost if I needed to have it done with a private company. Easily at least £1000. We still have private healthcare companies in Britain such as Bupa, so if you really want, then you can go for them.

I'm just going to say here that I'm not suggesting the NHS has no faults. It does. Nothing's perfect.

Do correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I heard, the British system, while it provides good care when it gets around to it, the wait lines are a thing on international infamy. For instance, if you find out you have cancer, and unless you get immediate help it will become terminal, and you are placed on a month-long waiting list to get help... Yeah.

So do correct me if I am wrong (for instance, how long did you have to wait for your leg operation), but long waiting lists are a very bad thing.

[Regulus]

Okay. So consider this. Let's just say that welfare *does* allow people to live comfortably. So, DGF, why would you work, if you can live off the government without working?

This is not a rhetorical question. I'm being totally serious. Why are you going to school, and why do you want to get a job as an aerospace engineer, when you can literally sit at home all day, and live comfortably off of welfare without having to worry about anything?

I can probably guess what you're going to say, but I'll allow you to speak first. Surely, there must be some reason why you don't want to live off the government.

Do correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I heard, the British system, while it provides good care when it gets around to it, the wait lines are a thing on international infamy. For instance, if you find out you have cancer, and unless you get immediate help it will become terminal, and you are placed on a month-long waiting list to get help... Yeah.

So do correct me if I am wrong (for instance, how long did you have to wait for your leg operation), but long waiting lists are a very bad thing.

I know how it is. Some people walk into the doctors office just to get out of work, and they'll make up an excuse like 'I have a runny nose.'

My dad is a physician's assistant within the military (so basically, nearly everyone he sees has free healthcare coverage provided by the government already). I hear his stories every day. Believe me, Obamacare isn't going to change anything. People who are seriously ill will always have priority over the many with chronic laziness. Why? Because my dad tells those who fall into the latter category to GTFO of his office.

[TheGunner18]

Nationalised healthcare is, more often than not, a great thing to have. The NHS in Britain is a prime example of that. Instead of being turned away by a private company for having a certain condition, the NHS treats you no matter what. It's free for anybody so even the poorest people can have treatment. Take me, for example. Just a few months ago I had an operation for major reconstruction of my foot. I'm still recovering from it now. That was completely free. Imagine how much it would have cost if I needed to have it done with a private company. Easily at least £1000. We still have private healthcare companies in Britain such as Bupa, so if you really want, then you can go for them.

I'm just going to say here that I'm not suggesting the NHS has no faults. It does. Nothing's perfect.

Do correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I heard, the British system, while it provides good care when it gets around to it, the wait lines are a thing on international infamy. For instance, if you find out you have cancer, and unless you get immediate help it will become terminal, and you are placed on a month-long waiting list to get help... Yeah.

So do correct me if I am wrong (for instance, how long did you have to wait for your leg operation), but long waiting lists are a very bad thing.

You're right, waiting lists aren't exactly things to be desired, and it's probably one of the biggest flaws of the NHS. For example, if you need an organ transplant then that waiting list can be very, very long. Sometimes up to a year. That's not acceptable, of course it isn't, and I can understand how frustrated and angry people can get with it. However, if you ask anybody in Britain if they'd want to see the NHS go or stay, I think only very, very tiny minority would want to see it go. It's immensely popular and there's a reason for it. Admittedly, the government spends a heck of a lot on healthcare (around £121 billion. Source: http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/year_spending_2012UKbn_12bc1n_10#ukgs302) but that's a good thing.

In terms of my own operation: I could actually choose when to have it (it would need to be in the summer, but I could choose if I wanted to delay it) but I chose this year and then we got given an exact date and time. So in my case I didn't really have to wait. Although I'll admit that I didn't really pay too much attention to it (because it was my parents who handled it) so I just played it by ear. I have sympathy for those who have to wait and have no choice. Again, if you can afford it then private healthcare is always there.

[DGFone]

Okay. So consider this. Let's just say that welfare *does* allow people to live comfortably. So, DGF, why would you work, if you can live off the government without working?

This is not a rhetorical question. I'm being totally serious. Why are you going to school, and why do you want to get a job as an aerospace engineer, when you can literally sit at home all day, and live comfortably off of welfare without having to worry about anything?

I can probably guess what you're going to say, but I'll allow you to speak first. Surely, there must be some reason why you don't want to live off the government.

Yes, there is a reason: Look at Cuba. Look at what became of the USSR. Both of these nations tried to allow their citizens to live comfortably off Government issued wages that are guaranteed, in other words, where do you think the phrase "we pretend to work and the government pretends to pay us" came from?

So I would really not want to live 'comfortably' off of welfare, because comfort is impossible to reach. You can either live miserably and do something about it, or live miserably and not be able to do anything about it. There needs to be incentive for you to go and get that college degree - because if you don't, your life will suck.

[Regulus]

I was actually looking for a more personal answer, but ok.

Let's suppose there is absolutely no incentive for you to go to school or get a job. You can have all the money you wish, without ever having to work for it.

Wouldn't you still want to go to school? Wouldn't you still want to work, just to have something to do?

You know just as well as I do that science is freaking awesome. We need money to build spacecraft, but we don't need to make a profit to have an incentive to build spacecraft. We can do it, just for the sake of doing it, right?

The thing is, life isn't about money at all. It's about doing what we enjoy. And to anyone who is going to school to do something you won't enjoy: you're wasting your life away.

I've noticed that there are three main things that lead to happiness. A sense of importance, a sense of freedom, and a lack of mind-numbing repetition. No matter how much welfare pays, nobody wants to live off of it. Why? Because it doesn't provide any of those things.

Of course, there's always the rebuttal that some people are okay with living off the government and contributing nothing, but maybe I just have too much faith in humanity. Or is it that others have too little?

[DGFone]

Let's suppose there is absolutely no incentive for you to go to school or get a job. You can have all the money you wish, without ever having to work for it.

You will never get that through government help. EVER. The only way to live like that is if you are born into a very wealthy family - one that somewhere , somehow, worked hard to get to where it is now. And if you feel like wasting it all away and not doing anything useful, fine. Just don't expect to be happy.

And yes, Science is freakishly cool. Which is why, if anything, I want Obama out. What he is doing to NASA right now is just insulting. To America, to the entire world.

[Regulus]

Let's suppose there is absolutely no incentive for you to go to school or get a job. You can have all the money you wish, without ever having to work for it.

You will never get that through government help. EVER. The only way to live like that is if you are born into a very wealthy family - one that somewhere , somehow, worked hard to get to where it is now. And if you feel like wasting it all away and not doing anything useful, fine. Just don't expect to be happy.

That is irrelevant to my point, which seems to be completely ignored. My point is that even if we totally ignored the economy, and said that everyone could have anything they wish, we would still have progress as a society. This is because, as humans, we seek happiness, which does not come from wealth.

And yes, Science is freakishly cool. Which is why, if anything, I want Obama out. What he is doing to NASA right now is just insulting. To America, to the entire world.

Let me get this straight:

You're against paying (or raising) taxes, but you think NASA deserves more funding?

If that is the case, don't you think we'd be better off cutting funding for NASA altogether, and privatizing the space industry? You claim that it would be far more efficient to let the invisible hand take over for other issues, so why not interstellar exploration as well?

[DGFone]

And yes, Science is freakishly cool. Which is why, if anything, I want Obama out. What he is doing to NASA right now is just insulting. To America, to the entire world.

Let me get this straight:
You're against paying (or raising) taxes, but you think NASA deserves more funding?
If that is the case, don't you think we'd be better off cutting funding for NASA altogether, and privatizing the space industry? You claim that it would be far more efficient to let the invisible hand take over for other issues, so why not interstellar exploration as well?

Now let me set you straight:

I am only for more NASA funding if it's useful. As NASA is right now, it either needs funding to develop a rocket to get Orion into space, or NASA needs to be put on hold entirely. Right now, we are developing spacecraft that can't go to space, Lunar Rovers that can't go to the moon... It's a big, bloody mess.

About privatized space industry: Start reading the news. SpaceX is the first private company to start resupply missions to the ISS, and I think this is a huge step forwards. Private companies compete, so ISS missions will get cheaper, while at the same time, it frees up money for NASA to spend on deep-space missions, like a Lunar or Martian exploration mission.

In fact, this is what the immediate future should be: Private companies take charge of all activities related to Earth Orbit, while the huge government backed organizations can focus on the New Frontier.

[Regulus]

So you're okay with cutting funding for NASA, and allowing SpaceX or any competing companies to take over? I don't necessarily disagree with that but...

Does SpaceX really care about safety? They are a corporation, and they will cut corners wherever possible to save money. As long as their butts are covered legally, they won't get in trouble for saving $10 for not replacing a broken seal which could lead to a loss of dozens of lives. NASA would probably not be willing to take that chance, simply because they are not trying to make a profit. Remember, that's basically what happened with the BP oil spill. They tried to cut back on their safety measures to save money (because Bush and friends let them), and look what happened.

Is space travel really profitable to begin with? I think it can be, considering the asteroid belt is rich in rare-earth minerals, which cost thousands of dollars per ounce. But what if it's not? Then, we won't have any sort of space program.

What if SpaceX monopolizes the industry somehow? This one is kind of a stretch, but I'm throwing it out there anyway.

[Azdgari]

Remember, that's basically what happened with the BP oil spill. They tried to cut back on their safety measures to save money (because Bush and friends let them), and look what happened.

The dagger to the heart of people who argue against govt. regulation.