«12. . .1,6501,6511,6521,6531,6541,6551,656. . .2,1812,182»
Yes, it is worse. Because human life is the highest value. I have never claimed that lockdowns were worse for the economy. It is you essentially claiming that a year or so of lockdowns did more damage to the economy than six years of WWII with carpet bombings and nuclear strikes.
This is a lie. Our democracy almost fell to the president of the United States trying to keep his power by sending a group of terrorists to attack Congress during the counting of electoral votes. It did not fall precisely because the men actually commanding F-16s and nukes made it clear they would stand by the Constitution and disobey illegal orders from the president.
Why do you use this bizarre comparison? Some run of the mill riots last year had absolutely nothing in common with the unique in our history violent coup attempt (carried out by none other than the outgoing president). Will you next start drawing parallels between Gabby Petito case and the Holocaust?
Not for long. They started (very) late (because the locally designed vaccine had the unfortunate side effect of occasionally causing a false positive HIV test - so it got cancelled to avoid freaking people out). But now they are picking up. They are already talking about opening the country for tourism by Christmas.
Yes. But what if the government was good? Then would you say taxes are bad?
Yes. That is true. Also just saying, I had my 2nd jab yesterday.
They would also be a lot less useful. And still there would be too few customers. I don't have the latest numbers, but a decade ago half the US population accounted for 3% of all health care spending in a given year, while half of all spending was just on 5% of the population. Furthermore, just 1% accounted for 22% of spending. In other words, most of the time you really don't need health care (at least in any significant quantities). But when you do, it costs a lot (those 5% spend roughly 100 grand per person in a year, and that 1% spends a quarter million), and you are unlikely to afford it. The insurance business model won't work because many who end up among the 5% are predictable (in the first decade of this century I actually worked on those predictions. and genetic advances since then made those predictions only more accurate), so the premiums can't be affordable. The only solution is redistribution. It's that simple. You just can't square the circle and make free market work in health care. As a fan of free markets, I wish it weren't so. But as an experienced scientist in HEOR (Health Economics and Outcomes Research) I have to face the truth. Back in the USSR I rejected Communist ideology because it plainly contradicted the observed reality. And I reject Libertarian ideology for the same reason.
Most people do not pay effective 30% tax rate. And still, even with zero taxes most people would not be able to afford health care (if they really needed it).
Look, I reject the Left's claim that health care is a right. It's a privilege. However it's a privilege that in wealthy societies everybody should be entitled to.
If someone were to remove themselves from a system of redistributed or collective healthcare (ie, no usage of it and no payments towards it), whilst leaving the rest of the collective alone, would it still work just as well?
For example, if 100 citizens pay and use a healthcare system that can support 100 people, and one person leaves, would those 99 remaining still be able to use a system that only supports 99 people?
I had it in first half of April.
The Aussies (and everybody else) better fix the pandemic. Some time in the next decade I will retire. And I have this idea of flying to NZ (perhaps with a stop in Tahiti) and then Australia and spending quite some time there. Now it's not very practical as I'll be jet lagged half of vacation. At least with Europe the time difference is just 6 hours.
The Babes Without Borders and Maxcorp
For small number - yes. For a large number - no. Especially if the rich leave.
Ok, don’t complain about the roads…
But apart from roads, public order, sanitation, education, health care, rule of law, stable currency, retirement security, fire protection, air traffic control and intellectual property protections, what have the governments ever done for us? (should be read in the voice of John Cleese)
Yasss
Post self-deleted by Anchillas.
And don't forget Joe Biden is a puppet for the World Economic Forum. His administration and campaign has the same slogan as The Great Reset, which is "Build Back Better". Many other world leaders as well. Do you really want to live in a Global Totalitarian Elitist government? Then don't vote for Joe Biden in 2024.
Divided Wastelands of America and Avelnia
Governments should only handle emergency services, such as the police force, ambulances (but not actual healthcare), and the fire department.
Avelnia and The Babes Without Borders
I never said lockdowns did more damage to the economy than WWII. My older relatives lived through it in Fascist Italy for God's sake! 75 million people died in WWII globally, compared to Covid-19's 4.7 million globally! The economy wouldn't matter in a world War, only military spending and life preservation would.
«12. . .1,6501,6511,6521,6531,6541,6551,656. . .2,1812,182»
Advertisement
