I'm not sure if many of you remember, or even know, but a few years back there was a group of the most active forum members in a group called the Forum Gang. Most of them have left now, with very few older members remaining.
So I wish to make a new Forum Gang, and if you want to join, just post here and I will add you to a private chat on the forum.
Also, we've got an alliance now too which hopefully will be active.
Post a Reply
Please log in to post a reply.
58 Replies
8 Mar 2018, 11:23
MontanaBB wrote:
Quasi-duck wrote:
I think if you look back on nearly every major suggestion in 2015/16 it turns into a debate of either Capitalism vs Communism or Nazi Germany vs USSR lol
From my perspective, the outcomes of those debates were definitively determined 27 and 73 years ago. Not much left to debate, unless you're some mush-brained college professor who still believes "socialism" is a viable alternative to representative government and free markets.
Heh... maybe we should let those old days relive then... because I think "Soviet Union" and "socialism" are only related in the sense that the term "socialism" was hijacked in the Soviet Union to create something that had very little to do with the original concept of it. The mitigated "social democracy" version that is still strong in Europe has proven to be a soother for some of the more... erm... brutal?... effects of raw capitalism as it is practiced in America.
8 Mar 2018, 11:40
The use of food stamps in the US is a failure of capitalism and trickle down economics don't work when you can just hire cheap illegal immigrants.
8 Mar 2018, 16:30
K.Rokossovski wrote:
. . . effects of raw capitalism as it is practiced in America.
The social welfare differences between Europe and America are only a matter of degree and not substance.
In the United States, genuinely poor mothers and children already received free healthcare via Medicaid and state programs, long before the Obamacare controversy arose. And senior citizens were already eligible for government-paid medical care via Medicare, and also received a government pension called Social Security (regardless of prior income). And while the United States does have freer markets with fewer government subsidies and less government regulation than the EU, calling the American economic model "raw capitalism" ignores reality. Ill-conceived and often unnecessary government regulation is omnipresent here, just not as overwhelming, enervating and ultimately counter-productive as it is in Europe. The only places I'm aware of that permit what you might call "raw capitalism" are Singapore and maybe the People's Republic of China (ironically), and in both cases their form of government is far less representative and far less free than that of the United States.
And, yes, I do have two degrees in economics, so I do have some educational basis to make these gross generalizations.
8 Mar 2018, 16:37
MontanaBB wrote:
In the United States, genuinely poor mothers and children already received free healthcare via Medicaid and state programs, long before the Obamacare controversy arose. And senior citizens were already eligible for government-paid medical care via Medicare, and also received a government pension called Social Security (regardless of prior income).
The problem imo with the US healthcare system over in the US isn't so much the fact that it costs money. Doctors do have to be paid. It is more so that the cost is exuberant and is incredibly focused on profit. I myself have heard stories online of people being sent into debt because of the cost of healthcare.
Then there is also people like Martin Shkreli who are on a whole other level....
8 Mar 2018, 16:41 (edited)
Quasi-duck wrote:
. . . trickle down economics don't work when you can just hire cheap illegal immigrants.
Don't even get me started.
Suffice it to say I think Donald Trump is an @##hole of epic proportions, but he's right about one thing: illegal immigration is out of control, and it has been for 25 or 30 years. Worse yet, one of the two major parties is committed to essentially endorsing illegal immigration and open borders. Personally, I'm the great-grandson and great-great-grandson of immigrants, so I believe in America serving as a beacon of economic, political and religious freedom. But I'm also a student of history, and I know that no country survives which cannot control its own borders, and without limits and cultural assimilation, the future United States will be no different than any one of several failed European multi-ethnic empires that dissolved after World War I.
I believe in my country, its founding ideals, and the example of freedom and democratic values that it offers to the rest of the world. I also believe that its first obligation is its own survival, not suicide by cultural and linguistic balkanization.
I've said enough.
8 Mar 2018, 16:51
Quasi-duck wrote:
The problem imo with the US healthcare system over in the US isn't so much the fact that it costs money.
True. And most of those costs are the result of misguided government interference and regulation in the healthcare markets. Before 1965, most American families could afford to pay cash for their healthcare requirements, and did not even require medical insurance to cover most expenses. Healthcare costs began their upward climb when the federal government began its major healthcare initiatives shortly thereafter. The second major cost problem, of course, is that American patients, and consumers of prescription drugs in particular, are effectively subsidizing the development costs of new and innovative pharmaceuticals, which U.S. companies in turn sell to everyone else in the world for less than they do in their home market. The third major cost problem is largely the result of government subsidies and newly created "rights": we spend something like two thirds of all of our healthcare money on people in their final six to twelve months of life. Once upon a time in America, the doctor would have pulled a dying 75-year-old man aside and explained that he had six months to live, and the doctor could stretch that six to 12 months but it would bankrupt his family. The dying person would choose death with dignity. Now we routinely engage in "heroic measures" to extend the lives of dying patients for a few more months, and the government cuts a check. It's remarkably stupid. Instead of bankrupting a family, we're slowly bankrupting a nation, while the overall measures of healthcare barely move.
8 Mar 2018, 17:07
I understand wanting to keep the elderly alive, but I have had to watch my grandmother die as she was hooked up to machines in a hospital, pumped up on drugs to keep her alive but barely sane for a few more days. Dying in her own home, in her own bed, in relative comfort and not constant pain would have been much better imo, and much more dignified.
Keeping people alive just because you can is pointless. It is the same weather it is due to an injury in war, a car crash, or a birth complication. A gravestone and a person in a vegetated state are much the same imo, except I would rather be in a grave than in a diaper.
8 Mar 2018, 17:11
Quasi-duck wrote:
Dying in her own home, in her own bed, in relative comfort and not constant pain would have been much better imo, and much more dignified.
And when the family bears the costs, and the elderly patient is still lucid, the overwhelming majority would make the same choice.
When the government pays, families completely disregard the costs and focus on stretching granny's remaining few days. As I understand it, the way this is dealt with in the UK is that the hospital board simply does not approve the "heroic measures" nor even offer them as an option because the costs would break the NHS.
8 Mar 2018, 17:34
MontanaBB wrote:
the way this is dealt with in the UK is that the hospital board simply does not approve the "heroic measures" nor even offer them as an option because the costs would break the NHS.
I'm not too sure how the NHS works but they do some pretty weird stuff. I remember there was a big issue a few years in the newspapers because the NHS was funding breast enhancement surgery for women for free because of "medical issues" or something iirc.
8 Mar 2018, 18:32
MontanaBB wrote:
Before 1965, most American families could afford to pay cash for their healthcare requirements, and did not even require medical insurance to cover most expenses.
Hmm... I wonder who caused that to change?
looks at timeline, sees Vietnam war posted at around the same time.
8 Mar 2018, 18:39
NovaTopaz wrote:
MontanaBB wrote:
Before 1965, most American families could afford to pay cash for their healthcare requirements, and did not even require medical insurance to cover most expenses.
Hmm... I wonder who caused that to change?
looks at timeline, sees Vietnam war posted at around the same time.
Was it the war or rampant drug use amongst youths, or something else?
8 Mar 2018, 18:57
Quasi-duck wrote:
NovaTopaz wrote:
MontanaBB wrote:
Before 1965, most American families could afford to pay cash for their healthcare requirements, and did not even require medical insurance to cover most expenses.
Hmm... I wonder who caused that to change?looks at timeline, sees Vietnam war posted at around the same time.
Was it the war or rampant drug use amongst youths, or something else?
Well, who made the "Great Society" legislation(and whatnot) and also was the one to declare war(IE Vietnam war. Dang it Congress, you had ONE job, and you handed it off to the president)? Lyndon. B. Johnson. Don't think I need to say more.
8 Mar 2018, 19:44
NovaTopaz wrote:
Quasi-duck wrote:
NovaTopaz wrote:
MontanaBB wrote:
Before 1965, most American families could afford to pay cash for their healthcare requirements, and did not even require medical insurance to cover most expenses.
Hmm... I wonder who caused that to change?looks at timeline, sees Vietnam war posted at around the same time.
Was it the war or rampant drug use amongst youths, or something else?
Well, who made the "Great Society" legislation(and whatnot) and also was the one to declare war(IE Vietnam war. Dang it Congress, you had ONE job, and you handed it off to the president)? Lyndon. B. Johnson. Don't think I need to say more.
Good point actually. The returning vets no doubt put a strain on it too, and opened up a new avenue for profit from healthcare.
8 Mar 2018, 21:02
K.Rokossovski wrote:
MontanaBB wrote:
Quasi-duck wrote:
I think if you look back on nearly every major suggestion in 2015/16 it turns into a debate of either Capitalism vs Communism or Nazi Germany vs USSR lol
From my perspective, the outcomes of those debates were definitively determined 27 and 73 years ago. Not much left to debate, unless you're some mush-brained college professor who still believes "socialism" is a viable alternative to representative government and free markets.
Heh... maybe we should let those old days relive then... because I think "Soviet Union" and "socialism" are only related in the sense that the term "socialism" was hijacked in the Soviet Union to create something that had very little to do with the original concept of it. The mitigated "social democracy" version that is still strong in Europe has proven to be a soother for some of the more... erm... brutal?... effects of raw capitalism as it is practiced in America.
YES!!! I KNEW we could do it!!
27 May 2018, 01:57
Whats this about? Rebellion Quasi? Didn't I lead the Forum Gang?
Forum Gang Divine Entity
Taking over the Forum 1 post at a time.
27 May 2018, 11:20
Ellio_98 wrote:
Whats this about? Rebellion Quasi? Didn't I lead the Forum Gang?
I can't remember but if you were, you have been usurped in your absence, same as what happened to BBB.
