Dismayed Americans contemplate Canada

[questionnaire]

The way Ron edits and selects things to contribute to the tissue of lies and nonsense that he is trying to construct is just odious.



This is Dr. Borman's statement that Ron deliberately omitted from his edited transcript of the BBC article:



"There are also concerns the proposed EU Services Directive could bring an excessively business-oriented approach to healthcare."



This was at the beginning of the article, and in fact is the main criticism that Dr. Borman is making. The British healthcare system is publicly owned and free at the point of delivery for all UK citizens. Dr. Borman is worried that the EU approach might be too market-orientated - i.e. too much like the American model - which might result in poorly-trained medical staff.



Why do you think American hospitals advertise for staff trained in the UK? I think that UK medical staff trained over here at public expense should be made to pay back their college fees with an additional fine if they move to America to tend to the wealthy for higher wages.



Saving people's lives regardless of who they are is a moral obligation not a f*cking business opportunity for greedy profiteers.



The main reason that public health services around the world are struggling is that the drug and medical supplies corporations are operating cartels and charging extortionate prices whilst giving favourable terms to private hospitals in a deliberate attempt to encourage privatization. It's a subtle form of operating 'sanctions' to bankrupt the 'evil socialist' public services and force privatization.

[DreamTone7]

q - "Saving people's lives regardless of who they are is a moral obligation..."



OK, Steve...whose moral obligation? Yours? Mine? Because that's what it boils down to. It should be left up to the people to vote on what kind of system they want. Morality cannot be legislated...I'm surprised at you Steve, because as wise as you seem to think you are, you seem to have not yet taken this lesson from history.



The truth is that when you go to a system where everybody gets equal care, some people are not satisfied with the quality or quantity (availability). The choice needs to be left to the people to make a moral choice...but then we get into what is moral? Is it saving the kid who would have died under social health-care due to lack of availability or quality, or saving one who did not have the insurance to pay? Either way, somebody loses.

[questionnaire]

What a load of rubbish.



Read the French philosopher Emile Durkheim and the German philosophers Niklas Luhmann and Jurgen Habermas, who will show you how legislation should be a direct product of underlying moral codes rather than doing the dirty work for greedy free-marketeers. Moral codes are socio-cultural phenomena, they are not just products of the individual conscience. Your ideas are stuck in the 17th century.



No kids die unnecessarily in Britain's public health system. Its primary medical services are funded directly from taxation, with some of its ancillary services put out to private tender. The quality of care is generally excellent, especially with an aging population putting more pressure on it, and it could be improved even more if drug corporations stopped charging extortionate prices.



Civilized nations have a moral consensus about the need for public healthcare because health is the bottom-line, a matter of life and death. You have no right to sacrifice people's health to the vagaries of the free-market. It is totally barbaric and un-Christian.



The American Right lack both the moral compassion and the intelligence to be true Christians.

[DreamTone7]

q - "Read the French philosopher Emile Durkheim and the German philosophers Niklas Luhmann and Jurgen Habermas, who will show you how legislation should be a direct product of underlying moral codes..."



Totally agree...what you, Steve, have already proposed is the exact opposite...that legislation produce morality. I sincerely hope that you can see the difference.



As for your comments about Christianiy, Steve, perhaps I'll be more inclined to listen when you can show me that you know what you're talking about (ie. what it means to follow Christ). You haven't done that yet.

[questionnaire]

"Totally agree...what you, Steve, have already proposed is the exact opposite...that legislation produce morality. I sincerely hope that you can see the difference."



I said nothing of the sort. You constantly distort and misrepresent what other people say. It is very irritating.



I said that free health care is a moral obligation, and therefore obviously any legislation put in place by a democratically elected government represents the moral consensus of the majority. People who think that health care should be a commodity for exchange and profiteering are in the minority. If they ever become the majority in my country and their version of morality rules, then I will be forced to abide by it, resist it or get out. Until then, I'm content that the taxation laws and the what the tax is spent on in my country represents my morality and the morality of most people I know.



Even Thatcher did not dare disrupt the British NHS, the jewel in the crown of British social democracy. What I don't want are oafish corporate American free-marketeers moving in and trying to interfere in the running of my country.



Now, forget the distraction and back to the main question.



Why does America spend more per-capita on health-care than any other country, yet the life-expectancy rate for its working-classes ranks #29 in the world, worse than some 3rd world developing nations?

[DreamTone7]

q - "I said that free health care is a moral obligation, and therefore obviously any legislation put in place by a democratically elected government represents the moral consensus of the majority."



Sorry, Steve..."moral obligation" is a contradiction in terms. Where there is obligation, there is no moral decision to be made. You must have the freedom to choose what it right/wrong in order to make a moral choice. When you take away the choice (as in an obligation), you take away the morality therein. What you are referring to is a social obligation...hence the term "Social Health Care".



But if you insist on calling it a moral decision and place the government in charge of running this system, then you are, in effect, legislating morality. The public is just making a choice to legislate morality...even though I wouldn't call it a moral decision.



Even so, there is no guaranty that people will make a social decision regarding this...they may make an economic one, or a quality-based one. In fact, they may see the quality of care as the social issue. There are many Americans who don't want to see a Social Health Care system because of all the troubles with other such systems that have been seen.



And after all this, since this is a democracy, your opinion really matters nothing unless you are a member of this society. To foist your ideals onto somebody else is exactly the thing that you spend half of your time arguing against. This is known as hypocrisy.

[questionnaire]

"Sorry, Steve..."moral obligation" is a contradiction in terms. Where there is obligation, there is no moral decision to be made. You must have the freedom to choose what it right/wrong in order to make a moral choice. When you take away the choice (as in an obligation), you take away the morality therein. What you are referring to is a social obligation"



This is child's play. You say that morality is based on the freedom to choose. So if someone chooses Satanism that would in your mind be moral because it was the product of a free choice?



Y'see, all moral values oblige us to adhere to them, otherwise they would not be morals, they would be simply be suggestions. This is what the most respected of all moral philosophers, Immanuel Kant, famously called the 'categorical imperative'. Moral values are noumenal and universal ideals, and they exist outside the realm of individual choice, as Plato's famous analogy of the cave demonstrates. As Kant went on to argue, collectives of rational beings can do nothing else but agree to follow universal moral obligations otherwise they become irrational and thus offend God's gift of reason (he was a Christian himself). Thus, for Kant, if helping others to save others' lives without first demanding payment was agreed as a categorical imperative by the rational collective, then it became a moral obligation for all and the basis of new law.



Thus sophisticated European thought moved towards the more civilized form of social democracy. The idea that morality is the product of the free choice of individuals was a con-trick invented by Puritans in Early Modern Europe so that they could convince themselves that their new religion was not just a new variation of medieval Catholicism. It was a trick clever enough to fool the rather stupid recruits to Puritanism. Tricking people into believing that the belief-system that has been inculcated in them by indoctrination is a product of their own choice is a very crude but highly effective way of creating incredibly fervent and self-righteous believers who can maintain and reproduce the belief-system in their own minds without the need for the sort of massive institutions and mass-rituals that the medieval Catholic church needed.



This con-trick was adopted by utlitarians and classical economists in the 18th century, and people came to believe that their tastes and desires for commodities were the products of free-choice and a 'free-market'. There is of course no such thing as a 'free-market', because the commodity market was an artificial construct of European states' establishment of private property laws from the 14th cemtury onwards, and it continues to need intensive state activity, including military intervention as we are seeing today, to keep it working.



Thus early Puritanism became an effective portable religion, good for spreading around like a bacterium, because people who believed they had 'chosen' the true way after their personal 'calling' from god acted as the individual 'cells' in which the code could be carried. Catholicism was forced to change its tactics or risk being overwhelmed, so it loosened its moral strictures considerably by the 18th century, allowing a lot more indiscretion (especially sexual) that could be forgiven at the confessional in order to make itself more attractive and stay competitive.



So y'see, only people indoctrinated by the cult of 'free choice' believe that their morality is a matter of free choice, or indeed that there is a 'free market' that is simply an aggregate of individual 'free choices', or that the 'free market' exists in opposition to the state. It's all just a myth, DT, like the 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' and you and your god-fearing pals just lack the brain-power required to see through it.

[RonOnGuitar]

Quote:

---

sad, very deluded, very ignorant, badly educated, crazy supremacists, unthinking

---

Certainly missed such reasoned discussion ever since the most recent instance of the now-patented stomping of feet and storming off with the vow "an' I ain't never, ever coming back, really, really, really!! I mean it this time!!!"



I had hoped you would take up my offer that you have the hosts of attorneys, high muckity-mucks and whatever other elites you threatened contact me via sending an EZboard note. Apparently the elite were unable to master the difficult and perplexing task of sending EZBoard notes. Ah, well, it can be a daunting effort.



I had hoped that we (your elites and me) could arrange an intervention to assist you with whatever personal issues causes such emotional explosions. For example, your monotopical obsession with denouncing individuals and demographic groups is - in most such cases - very usually rooted in a deep sense of inferiority, personal insignifigance and/or a rage due not "being appreciated", (i.e. your deep desire for recognition & afformation vs. the norm MO of others (norm=communication.)



I am aware that Northumbria has a counseling centre and, I'm sure, a more than competent psychiatric staff (Mon - Thurs 9.00am-5.00pm, Fri 9.00am- 30pm, (0191) 227 4576.) I would be more than glad to assist someone there with just having a talk with you about your issues, for a start. I have names, titles, contacts for the various dept heads, but I believe it would be more effective if you supply me with the info of the specific contact person you spoke of before your most recent tantrum/storming off.



You see, Steve, contrary to what you believe, the problems with your attitudes and actions are not caused by the outside world: geopolitics, strong-willed women, ethnic-religious groups - or anything else for that matter. It's all internal - and through such means as counselling and therapy, you can take back control of your emotions, of your thoughts and - most importantly - of your life.



So, rather than the usual online irrational explosions which provide you some temporary relief, you can address the cause; in lieu of dealing with the symptoms only.



And you'd feel much better about yourself in the process!



I'm sure those physically around you would be more than happy to be there to help and offer encouragement, if would just let them. I've assisted before in instances of such intervention and am available to "cyber-assist" the contact person you mentioned before, but for whom you failed to provide specific contact info. The issues you're dealing with can be helped: but they can be helped only to the amount of your willingness.



The explosions of emotion and irrational tirades also obviously impact a person's ability to make objective judgments and reach factual conclusions.

e.g.

Quote:

---

Dr. Borman's statement that Ron deliberately omitted from his edited transcript of the BBC article

---

If you scroll back, you will see that's not only a false claim, but - in addition - you actually copied and re-pasted the "omitted" part from the transcript I posted.



See whutti mean?

[DreamTone7]

q - "You say that morality is based on the freedom to choose."



No Steve. Didn't say it. Check again...and keep in mind the word "hipocrisy" when you come to realize the fact that I didn't say it. I believe the word you used was "irritating"?



What I do say that you must have the freedom to chose in order to be able to make a morally based choice. Where that freedom does not exist, there is no such thing as choice...is there.

[questionnaire]

Ron, f*ck off, you right-wing loony Christian supremacist. My anger is perfectly rational and very well-targeted ..... straight at you and all others who use message-boards to spread dangerous, toxic lies around the world.



DT, I'm sorry but I can't keep the word 'hipocrisy' in my mind. I could perhaps keep the word 'hypocrisy' in my mind, because, as it is spelt correctly, it would mean something. By the way, you did say that - by now it's probably obvious to all who read this board that you just don't really know what you're saying at all because yiour ideas are nowhere near being fully worked-out before you express them.



Listen, Dumb and Dumber, neither of you would come anywhere near being able to pass the introductory political philosophy course taught to 16-18 year olds in Britain. The fact that people as ignorant as you are running America is f*cking terrifying. I've decided to go for long spells - because I can tolerate arguing philosphy and politics with a bunch of uneducated gobshites such as yourselves only in short bursts - but also to come back occasionally to expose your gross stupidity and lies in public for the benefit of the board readers. I consider it a public service.



Although it should continue to embrace intelligent liberal America, Europe needs to get rid of extreme American Christian and free-market ideas as soon as possible, and I consider humiliating people like you to be entirely justified. The vast majority of people can see you as complete loonies who come on this board because nobody else will listen to you, but I'm just making sure that the small number of slightly gullible people around here don't get unduly influenced by you.

[questionnaire]

Ron-boy, if transatlantic law was more co-ordinated I would certainly sue you for your many accusations of 'anti-semitism' and 'therapeutic needs'. I would also sue that other person for threats of violence and rape. It's a good job I'm not a complete a*sehole like you and your pals (someone 'reported me to the FBI', remember?), otherwise I would have sent that post to his commanding officer and the board of school governors that employs him.



However, I won't even bother threatening to do that, even if any one of you causes trouble with my employer, because in the liberal-rationalist world of British academia, just the initial mention of American bible-thumpers like yourself and DT would be enough to send people spinning off their seats in fits of laughter. Y'see, the vast majority of them agree with me that people like yourself are victims of a paranoid psychotic religion, with all your 'reds under bed' scares, 'war on terrorism', biblical literalism and 'end of days' theses. Of course we would never suggest that you are suffering from an individual psychiatric condition, because we are not professionally qualified to do so.



I'm quite happy to stick with the judgement that you are quite simply stupid, ignorant and misled. Oh, and a dangerous threat to future life on the planet.



I'm not prepared to sit back and let you disseminate your dangerous propaganda, boys.

[questionnaire]

Ron, by the way, I think I know how to seek affirmation, but I'm not sure how to seek afformation because I don't know what it is.







OK, I give up for a while. Hopefully a very long while. There's really no point in arguing with semi-literate ignoramuses, their stupidity just grinds you down.

[questionnaire]

"... you actually copied and re-pasted the "omitted" part from the transcript I posted."



No, I got it from the BBC website.



It was not in your post.



I don't know how to go back and edit posts on this board.



Do you?



Just a parting shot for the time being.

[questionnaire]

It's definitely in there now. If I did miss it, I apologize to the board members, but if Ron did put it in his original post this shows how stupid he actually is - this statement directly contradicts his general claim that the US free-market system is better, and the criticism of the free-market system was of course one of Dr. Borman's central arguments, as I said. D'oh.



Either way, Ron is not to be trusted.

[DreamTone7]

q - "...I consider humiliating people like you to be entirely justified."



Ahhh...I see...so the end justifies the means, eh? Now where and when have such things been said before...and by whom?