>>26155249 Because I'm not self-serving and believe others deserve to get equality and he is much more human than our current faces of government. Look at all of the recent PMQ's - cameron never answers a single question. Most of the questions come direct from actual members of the population, yet Cameron feels a comedic quip is more suitable than a proper answer. Also who gives a fuck about the falklands? The nuclear deterrent we'll never use?
The reason we don't need to use our nuclear deterrent is because we have a nuclear deterrent. David Cameron is liked by the public, evident by the fact he won one election and then five years later CRUSHED a second one. Admit it, you just want more 'free' money, right?
>>26155456 Not him, but I also support Corbyn. I make over 80,000 pounds per year. What use is free money? I would rather keep the NHS and have our rail lines de-privatised. The nuclear deterrent is something I disagree with Corbyn on. But David Cameron seems more interested in protecting the elite as corporations avoid tax and we sell off state assets.
>>26155456 >The reason we don't need to use our nuclear deterrent is because we have a nuclear deterrent
I suppose that's why every country without nukes is a radioactive wasteland.
Also, sure, the English like Cameron, but being liked does not equal being a good thing for the people. Lastly, though I'm not the guy you were responding to, I already get free money, the reason I want Corbyn is because I'm a utilitarian. The Greatest Happiness for the Greatest Number.
So you would rather these companies were taxed so scrounging lay-about a can have more 'bennies'?
Classy. Luckily Corbyn has no chance of ever being elected so your commie fantasy will never come true.
Also the very nature of the NHS kinda deters competition, don't you think? Imagine if it was cute back by say, 50%, and private corporations could come in, pick up the slack and start some healthy competition.
>>26155637 >So you would rather these companies were taxed so scrounging lay-about a can have more 'bennies'?
Yes, if that increased general happiness. Also, Corbyn is pretty cool, but he could never pull of actual Socialism if he was elected, putting the means of production into the hands of the workers would just be too hard in our current corporate dystopia. Thankfully, the impending environmental catastrophe, among other things, will radically reshape the world.
>>26155637 There'll come a day where you realise that the Tories only exist to perpetuate and further the status quo. Yes, I would rather the companies get taxed properly so those who need it can get the support they need. We need a more robust system for weeding out those who abuse this. A generally happy population is better than one that has a happy elite and stressed poor.
The tories won by what? 30% of the vote. You'd be surprised what Corbyn can manage. And what do you mean competition? Are you trolling? How would a private corporation compete against free? Move to America if you want to pay for your healthcare.
>>26155663 The thing with Socialism is, although the very few past iterations have failed, it is the only economic philosophy that is even theoretically capable of promoting general happiness. Capitalism, by nature, benefits the few, to the detriment of the many.
The environment is ours to do what we want with. Better a rainforest disappears half the world away if it means cheaper chairs for us.
But then again, you've just advocated giving other people's taxes to lay-about because it makes them happy. You know what might make them even happier, giving them the chance to get jobs carve their own path out in life. Which is what Cameron does.
And you know why it works? Because the people love Cameron. That's why he was elected with those landslide numbers he is always quite modest about.
>>26155782 I'm not talking about rainforests, but things that will be a detriment to everyone, like climate change.
I'd agree that people having a job is better than being reliant on benefits. However, some people are "lay-abouts" because of physical/mental illness/disability, which makes them unable to work, or only sporadically.
>>26155861 Nah, those who cannot work due to serious mental/physical illness/disability. Besides, I believe the super-rich should bear the brunt of taxation, given they have more than enough money to do anything they could ever want.
And those spastically are protected. All Cammers has done is make it easier to kick the scrounges and those who fake illnesses, like those with 'social anxiety' off disability benefits. Those who really need it still have it, those who could work but won't are forced to work.
People shouldn't be rewarded for simply existing. Cameron has engendered a system that rewards those who work.
They earned their money, they get taxedz they shouldn't get taxed to extreme just because they're successful. Why are you entitled to more of their money? Or some fucking cripple? Or someone who could work but they don't because they get a little sad sometimes?
>>26155971 I support Corbyn and I fully agree with you here. The benefits and support systems we have has a lot of people who take advantage of it. The system needs to be fixed in order to remove those who abuse it. Endless cuts to social programs doesn't help. Selling off state assets massively harms the general population.
>>26155971 >>26156017 Go and visit China and similar Asian countries. Look at their infrastructure. How are we supposed to compete with them in 20, 30 years time when we're already fifteen years behind their infrastructure programs.
>>26155971 Just one point here. Social Anxiety Disorder can be very serious, some can suffer from panic attacks that can literally induce unconsciousness. It's commonly co-morbid with agoraphobia, an intense fear of outside spaces. Some can be suicidal, and require hospitalisation. Though usually amicable to treatment, some cases are treatment-resistant.
Private corporations can do anyhing the government can, at a fraction of the cost and with half the buerocracy.
How many NHS hospitals have the CQC rated inadequate? 30%?
You think 30% of the hospitals in America, where private healthcare is everywhere are inadequate? Of course not. The free market, and an unrestricted free market, will always be superior than anything a socialist government could compete with.
>>26156140 Then how come our train system is one of the most expensive of a developed nation in the entire fucking world?
Look at our internet speeds too - lack of investment. Thanks BT & british gov!
NHS hospitals are going to start looking more and more inadequate the more we make cuts to the services. It's an unfortunate downward spiral under the tory government - who will continue making such cuts, and as the cuts are implemented, the service begins looking worse and worse before suddenly, it's time to privatise it and sell it off. The elite and upper classes can afford paid private healthcare, but for the middle-class and poor they'll be driven further into the ground.
How are those from lesser statuses able to begin to make money and live happy lives when they are under threat from cuts and removal of social programs whilst we let tens of billions of pounds go missing as we turn a blind eye to missing corporation tax.
Sure, the system might work for you just now. It works for me very well (as I make close to 100k per year anyway) - BUT, god forbid you ever need help or support. Then you'll feel left in the cold - look online, there's plenty of similar case scenarios. Conservatism is a nice ideal but isn't implemented correctly in Britain. Programs of the left can live happily side by side with programs of the right. Unfortunately those who are right-wing feel very threatened by challenges to the status quo - even when it may benefit them in the long run.
This isn't a good argument. You can go to a private hospital in the UK if you have the money. The reason they are generally higher quality is because they are funded by their members. NHS hospitals are free at the point of access though, they are provided by the government as a public good. The market delivers care to reletively few people, and so gets to choose what it does and doesn't do. The Nation as a whole would be worse off under a private system, because with fewer people accessing healthcare the workforce, economy, social cohesion and education would all suffer. Also the market hasn't proved its self. Aericans pay the most for their healthcare, and get the least for their dollar. Also the government isn't there to compete, it's there to provide base level services. Companies are there to compete. Competition to provide base level essentials like healthcare lead to a race to the bottom. Again net detremental to society as a whole
If it's "tumblr-tier" why is it recognized as a psychiatric disorder by every psychiatric authority in the world, including the DSM?
Really, it's very odd that you can believe that a disorder that can cause serious loss of function, panic attacks, and even suicide, is not capable of being serious. But, then again, it's clear you know nothing about psychiatry, or psychology, and allow your uninformed feelings, and disreputable sources to inform your views on very complex matters. So, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.
>>26156303 >Americans pay the most for their healthcare, and get the least for their dollar No, see all your healthy taxpaying people pay for everyone's healthcare. If you don't get sick, you get NOTHING for your dollar.
>>26156367 >No, see all your healthy taxpaying people pay for everyone's healthcare. If you don't get sick, you get NOTHING for your dollar. not even an argument >"Free" healthcare is not free. Nothing is. cool non sequitur you're not smart
>>26156400 Myself and others have stated how we need to look at the system to avoid people abusing it. We need a system that works as an incentive for those who are able to work but aren't, and supports those who can't work. Why do you keep focussing on benefits? The fact people scrounge off the system infuriates me too as someone who pays over 30,000 per year in fucking tax. That doesn't mean I'm not allowed to care about those who are less fortunate about me. It's a selfish argument to take support away from those who need it because of a few who abuse it.
>>26156418 >You'd rather not pay a few hundred pounds per year and that many people would suffer as a result Costs are only so high because big pharma can charge whatever they want, since the government will cover it. If there was no government funded healthcare, they'd have to lower prices. If they didn't, no one could buy their drugs and they'd go out of business. The ENTIRE reason healthcare is expensive is fags like you trying to "help".
>I suppose you also believe we should privatise our roads and bin collection services and pay only for what we use? I live in the US. We have tons of toll-roads, and they work fine. I also have to pay for garbage collection. Works fine; there isn't trash littering the streets or whatever bullshit you think would happen.
It's a perfectly valid point. Why should my taxes pay for other people's illnesses. If Grant decides to drink 8 cans of Stella everyday while smoking 20 fags and inevitably gets cancer, why am I obliged to pay for his bad decisions?
Don't give me shit about feelings, directly answer my question. Why am I obliged to pay for his health issues?
>>26156598 You're (unfortunately) obliged to pay because the majority of people using the system aren't using it as a result of bad decisions. I'd also rather not pay for Grant due to his decisions either.
This is what marriage actually was back in the day.
Be a good, hard worker, help the economy, fight in wars, etc, and you get a wife in exchange.
The problem with this of course is the fact that most people on r9k don't have jobs, are out of shape so they couldn't fight in a war, and generally are not the kind of people you would reproducing or being offered free pussy.b
>>26156598 >Why should my taxes pay for other people's illnesses. so society continues to function. The man who changes the bulbs in the lights on the way to work, or empties the bins, or teaches skills to the ext generation you're flat retarded if you think any man in society is an island
Apart from the fact it makes people ultimately responsible for their action, which I know socialists hate, why is the government paying for health care better than private insurance companies, in which the individual has a stake?
>>26156774 >American society functions quite well It doesn't really American society is falling apart. Look how far you've slipped down the league tables in education, crime, literacy etc. Since the end of the cold war. Look who's running for president. American society is coming apart at the seams
>>26156676 This is why they will get no woman under any such system. Some government worker will look at their employment history and decide that this motherfucker should never get a free gf because he is nothing but a leech and him reproducing would only lead to more leeches.
>>26156499 >Costs are only so high because big pharma can charge whatever they want, since the government will cover it.
Holy fuck nigger are you seriously this retarded? You realise that Brits pay significantly less than Americans for the same drugs because the government negotiates for it, as well as the fact that we aren't shafted by massively overinflated prices, which exist because of insurance companies?
Generics are used a lot more in the UK because we don't have big pharma advertising the latest branded drug. They have the same active ingredients at a fraction of the cost. Where there are no risks present, we will almost always prescribe generics, unlike America where you can be prescribed brand name drugs and you're expected to pony up whatever price is asked for.
And even with brand name drugs the UK gets a way better deal. Since you, for instance, are a fucking retarded autist who probably can't let himself get too triggered by socialism lest you have an asthma attack, you probably use something like a Pulmicort Flexhaler. In the US, you're expected to spend ~$170 on one, no matter the dosage. In the UK, the NHS buys one for just over ~$16 because the NHS does the negotiation with the manufacturers on behalf of the entire population. Not your fucking insurance company doing it each and every time.
For expensive things like artificial limbs, the NHS essentially has a contract that goes like this:
"We need (x) quantity of these limbs. Whichever company can produce the amount we need which at the lowest price and are at or exceed specification xyz will provide all of these artificial limbs to pts in NHS Eng/Wales." and then the winner of the contract makes a lot of money while the NHS spends as little as they can while providing the best service for the price.
The free market does not work for health. Enjoy spending 17% of your government's GDP while my government is spending 9% of our GDP with healthcare for all. Fucking Americucks.
>>26157023 You're heavily subsidized by the US Healthcare system. Big pharma invents new drugs expecting to turn most of their profit from the US market. The UK is pocket change to them. If we paid as little as you fags, medical advancements would grind to a standstill.
>>26157102 >implying losing heavily biased and poor quality American research riddled with conflict of interest would be a terrible loss to the medtech and bio industries >implying some massive companies like Pfizer aren't moving to China because the US medical research is grinding to a standstill >Still spending 17% of your GDP mostly on Medicare and Medicaid on old people, rather than research
This really means that it's illegal to be a robot or a MGTOW. They'll assign you a washed up old stacy to provide for wether you like it or not. She won't be required to like you, be faithful to you or even have sex with you. As soon as a chick hits the wall she just goes to the government to get a free provider.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.