Honey Badgers: being left of center (politically) is incompatible with the MRM

dunesfrank · 2019-03-14T23:54:21+00:00

http://honeybadgerradio.com/going-through-big-joels-the-red-pill-movie-review-wkaren-and-alison-help-hannah-fundraiser?tdest_id=196158 The troglodyte Brian...

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]xNOM 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RolfMjau 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]xNOM 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cristi_Tanase -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]RolfMjau 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cristi_Tanase 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]RolfMjau 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cristi_Tanase 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Take a moment and think about it. Who pays that "right"?

Why if I told you that here, in Communist Romania, we had free housing! We also had free education and free healthcare!

Guess you from the west are thick in the head to not understand what are you demanding from your own state. You're demanding that the state tax the living shit out of you, gets most of your money and decides in your place what to do with your money!

Guess what happens next?

Why pay a system when you can just chill and get shit for free? Why work hard when you get taxed more and more? Why bother when others will profit?

The second you ignore that half the people are scumbags and the other half barely have free time to see their kids and are overworked then you get this demented communist ideas of "free shit for all".

There is no free shit! Every single damn thing is limited and has a price. Every second of someone's time, every atom of resource that someone else collected and or manufactured, every drop of energy spent.

Who is paying for all of it? The ones that WORK!

Already the working class is over-taxed. The brunt of the entire taxation system is on their backs. How much more taxes do you want them to pay before they say "fuck this I give the fuck up" and start ditching the system?

Look at NY today, they promise free shit, they get bankrupt! How many more examples do you need?

And again, there is no free "all health care for all". There is free "some health care for all". If you want proper healthcare you still have to pay, even in Sweden.

[–]RolfMjau 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

You can't chill just because everyone has healthcare. Cmon.. Its not the same as communism. You know what happens in Sweden when someone who can't pay a dime gets sick? They get treated anyway. No there is still fees and some costs, but everyone is covered and gets the best treatment. It wont ever happen that you wont get help because you don't have money. I like the system we have in sweden/denmark/norway. We wont let people slip through the cracks completely. Thats not communism. Sure, high taxes. But drive through europe and tell me there isn't a big difference in the countries where they pay high taxes, infrastructure and public places are many times better and entertained in those countries, it really shows. Most scandinavians are proud of paying tax. Everything went smooth until the refugee storm. But besides that, it's the best system there is.

I get that youre afraid of communism since youre from romania.. but i dont think the answer is in the complete opposite of communism where everyone has to fend for themselves. Then you get america, where some parts are living way below the povertyline, and families are stuck there for generations.

[–]Cristi_Tanase 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I tell you again so that you understand.

They get "some" treatment, they do NOT get the best possible treatment. No where not even in the most putrid rich country or the more pure bread communist one the poor don't get the best treatment for free.

The illusion of "free shit" is nothing but an illusion. It comes with many many many many fine prints like:

"increase taxes for working class people", "increase state control over business", "over regulating the people's lives" and so on.

The fact is this, the "free" part is fake. In Canada or Sweden you get the treatment, but you may have to wait for years.

They refuse to say how many die on the waiting list. They refuse to say how corrupt is the system, as many people with connections pass ahead in the line while the idiots that believed in "Free" get postponed to hell and back.

For each person that profit from the "free" health care there is one that the system failed. They don't tell how many died, how many got botched treatments and so on.

What is even worst is that in a capitalist health care system (not the US sham btw, but rather the Austrian/Swiss systems), you know what the hell you pay. They get everything printed, each and every damn little crap they spent on you.

In a "free" system they can ramp up the bills because in the end, the patient does not care, the assurance company does not care and the STATE will either BORROW or TAX more to pay the costs.

Btw, here we have "free health care". And it works. The catch? It costs EVERY worker a monthly tax either you use it or not. You will gonna pay 30+ years for something you may or not use once!

Add this over other costs, other taxes and see how suffocated we, the so called "middle class" actually the "slave class" is!

And if you want to solve a medical issue, guess what, you have the privilege to WAIT IN LINE for years after you have payed for 15 years!

So here you go, you get a loan, you go to a PRIVATE hospital and solve your problem. Come back home, go to work, pay out the bills, pay out the loans, and in the end THE STATE comes and taxes you so that others that NEVER EVER WORKED a single day in their entire life get FREE SHIT!

How about this:

working parents cover their own kids, after all you want them covered
working adults cover their elders
the few (very few btw) orphans get covered by the state (hey, free shit, see, I am human after all).
basic healthcare and emergency are free

Btw, almost forgot, because our system was collapsing, (free shit never ever works, who is surprised by this, apparently the western capitalists that never ever lived in communism, lmao), so because the system was collapsing, they started to limit all kind of stuff.

For example, elders get no more than 6 days in hospital for free... and in dire cases 10, after that they either pay or leave.

Half of the medicine gets payed by the hospital, half by you, even if you're covered.

Now they created a system where unemployed people can PAY an assurance as much as the workers and they get covered for 1 year. If you want you go there an pay up each year, just like workers do.

Other various "reforms" are proposed as the system is still collapsing due to rampart costs.

Also remember this, the entire planet is getting older and older. In the current environment young people refuse to have kids, therefore no more idiot overtaxed workers to milk dry.

As you get more elders, you get a bigger proportion of healthcare issues to deal with. Elders also don't pay to the system as they only collect pension..... you cannot tax something you give them.

So, who the hell will pay for an elder that has a chronic issue that requires 25.000$ per year in medicine and treatment for the next 5 years?

Who will pay for all the elders?

[–]RolfMjau 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

People waiting in line for years is horror stories, you have the very most pessimistic view, i hope you realize that.. it happens that people have to wait too long mostly since of late the system is stressed (mostly in sweden) in all sorts of areas because of the immigration, Denmark and Norway are better in that regard. Of course its not "free", we pay for it with our taxes. But still, It doesn't happen that poor people just get pushed aside, and left to rot on the sidewalk. if they can't pay, they just sign some papers that they have no income and then its completely free. It really shows that you come from one of the most corrupt countries in Europe, your outlook is so pessimistic and grim. Yes you will pay tax, and you might live your entire life without ever needing to even visit the hospital. thats how it works here.. You seem very obsessed with all these people who "don't work"... and they getting part of your money. We pay for all sorts of things through our tax, that we might never really use that much. thats just how it works. Every american i've met who've come here to study and ive talked to, are always completely struck with how nice things are here, and impressed with the way things work in the scandinavian countries. Every part of the world has their problems, our ones stem from immigration.. close that shit down, and you got as close to perfect system to live in. then again we are also small countries, and i don't expect it would work to change for example the american system to something we have here, its very much ingrained in our culture. Most elderly have worked, and payed their taxes, thats how it works..

[–]Cristi_Tanase 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

they explicit banned any release of statistics on deaths while waiting on queues, they did this so that the people don't know the truth
all of these "socialist utopias" countries promote themselves, literary they promote their own model to others. Just like communists they use state money to actually brad on the mass-media from abroad about their "accomplishments". How insane is this? Why are they doing it?
All these socialist Utopian countries use migrant force to balance their collapsing welfare systems, and do this despite rising social costs. The main reason they are so avidly promoting their fake utopia to foreigns is that they need investment and cheap labor force so the system resist one more decade.
All of them run increased debt, each decade they pass more debt to the next decade. Canada public debt doubled since they gone socialists, but what's even worst, they pass the debt to the people. The state debt is still around 100% GDP but the private owned debt surpassed 300% GDP and they do not report (as usual) the corporate/bank debt.
All these happened in the last 20 years. It took over 50 years to get the economic wealth to a point where the SOCIALISTS came to power and started to consume and borrow and consume and tax. Now, in less than 15 years their balance looks worst than ever before and the public and private debt is a scandal.

UK debt is rising as their welfare programs and healthcare costs increase. They flood the country with cheap migrant workers trying to boost the tax collection, they increase the taxes, collapsed the pension system, twice, and after all that what they got?

a huge poor angry migrant population that has absolutely no chance to progress
a huge poor angry native population that has to compete now with the newcomers for the same poor payed jobs
a collapsing welfare system that already borrow to the limit, together with a inefficient and corrupt, and collapsing healthcare system
an increased debt issue, that grows year after year
an increase tax on middle class
a slow down economy that dropped a lot in efficiency ratings due to unskilled workers and high taxes
and the poor still do not have access to their promised "healthcare"

[–]RolfMjau 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Cristi_Tanase 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, they use state sponsored propaganda.

For any of you that have no clue about it, Canada, Sweden and couple more countries have state agencies to "promote" the country abroad. They use state funds (tax money) to pay out both western media and others to praise their shitty countries.

Why?

Since 1965 they found that each migrant worker that is fooled to migrate to their paradise countries adds some money to their country coffins. Therefore using the taxpayer's money they actively promote their own country, and they praise themselves.

Google for example "Canada promotes itself" and be amazed. Besides the money spent, they also have governmental agencies that work day and night to create the image of a perfect society, just like communists had in the past.

And btw, the funny part is that the same search results shows... "multiculturalism" or in other words "modern diverse wage slavery".

The majority of the people of these countries do not know why the people outside want to come. They want to come because they get fouled by these "Canada/Sweden is a paradise utopia, come here" programs.

The system is so corrupt and broken that even conservatives when they get in power they continue the same charade so they push the welfare and the healthcare debt another decade, they add more migrants and they just live with the problem.

Norway, a giant oil exporter, tries these days to "reform" their healthcare system, another "free" one, due to increased costs. Even for them, a huge rich oil exporting country, a "free" healthcare system is too much.

There is much to say about the taxation, all of these countries tax the living shit out of their own people while in the same time trying to trap inside as many migrants as possible in slave jobs.

There is also the issue of piggybacking.

All of these "utopias" are piggybacking an economic market. Canada, UK and Australia are piggybacking US that literally has it's internal market open to them, sponsoring their insane welfare systems.

Sweden and the Nordic States are piggybacking EU. They live by exporting goods to the common market, while restricting the imports. The huge trade imbalance helps them stay socialists.

The huge irony is that their self promotions made US and parts of EU think that Socialism and "free shit" works.

Therefore as US and others move towards left, the original scumbag socialist piggybacking economies now are feeling the decline as their entire lie is based on piggybacking capitalist economies that actually produce some value.

As we move forward the "free shit" mentality will eventually decrease the added value due to lack of incentives for poor to work due to welfare and for corporations to invest due to raising taxes.

Today the most competitive countries sponsor the lazy socialist piggybacking utopias with their huge internal markets and surplus capital.

Tomorrow, one after another, these markets will either collapse, become more and more sheltered or have little or no surplus.

Then we will see how the hell you can run an economy like Canada without a huge trade balance with US, massive sponsored migration and increased public and personal debt.

Until then, they will continue to pump out propaganda about their perfect utopia, import cheap migrant slave wage workers and borrow and borrow and borrow.

All socialist countries run deficits and lie the hell out of it, and when the money runs out, is Greece time, is Argentina time, is Venezuela time...

Free shit is for idiots. Everything costs, and if you are paying for it with your OWN money then you are cutting the middle man aka the STATE from the equation.

[–]Cristi_Tanase 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Everyone wants to label MRM in one way or another. Staring with the left and far left, the feminists, the "moderate left", the right and the conservatives.

For some we are evil as hell, for others we suppose to blindly vote just because the side spits on us.

Guess what, the conservatives started all this shit 20 years ago! It was all nice after the 2nd feminist wave of stupidity ended. They managed to eat themselves, as usual, and the society moved on. Man, woman, gay, all had fun and it was nice.

But starting in the late 90's the conservative media created a huge sexual violence narrative constantly attacking men as pedos, child rapists, molesters and so on.

Then guess what, people got afraid, and a moral panic was created. New laws put in place, everyone kept their kids indoors, sheltered from "evil". Everyone was afraid as hell.

From the insanely exaggerated "Amber alerts" to the insanely abusive "sexual offender registry" where even a selfie can land you there for 25 years, all these were created not by the feminists, not by the left, not by the sjws... they were all created by conservative media that "want to keep girls and women safe".

15 years of constant media exaggerations and they created a generation of snowflake teens that are afraid of men! They lived sheltered indoors because their parents watched Fox all day long and believed that "men" are lurking outside that kidnap and rape their shitty kids!!

And here we are.

Instead of defusing the situation, enforce the police and the law and create a SAFE environment, most conservative media in the past added fuel to the fire, scaring the living shit out of parents and teens alike.

What do they thought it will happen after you are sheltering an entire generation of kids from the world? You get confident self reliant adults? No! You get snowflakes that want more shelter and more state control and more rules and regulations!!

As a somehow conservative centrist myself I got to say that half of the entire shit we have to endure today was created by the conservative media and their focus on exceptional sexual assault cases!

This and the entire "men are evil predators" narrative was THEIR making as they knew is no longer "cool" to attack girls for being promiscuous therefore it was a field day on boys and men!

Each time a conservative demands your vote ask him/her when it will repeal or reform the human rights monstrosity called "sexual offender registry" that has boys as little as 9 on it's records!

Sorry for the long rant, but many conservative now pose as die hard MRMs while they don't dare to assume at least part of the blame of what went wrong!

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Xemnas81 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigmanAgain 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Maito_Guy 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (50 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mac4491 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]Maito_Guy -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigmanAgain 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Maito_Guy -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Maito_Guy 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Maito_Guy 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

If you have no idea how cost effective the NHS is then you have no grounds to criticise the cost effectiveness of private healthcare as an argument against it.

I'm not comparing anything, I'm talking only about private healthcare. I'm also not arguing against the NHS, I have not said a single thing about it. Did you read any of the words I posted? Your response above says you did not.

Obviously like any other industry insurance companies would be regulated and with a small government corruption would be all but eradicated. For instance if everyone has health insurance from birth and providers are not allowed to drop customers that get serious conditions there would be no problem.

An idealist. In reality big businesses tend to lobby the government a lot, and they tend to pay huge sums into politicians election campaigns, and they keep track and let the politicians know when they do things they don't like and that they are unwilling to donate to their reelection campaigns. In some industries (like power generation) there are revolving doors between the industry and PUCs that are supposed to be regulating them.

[–]ThePigmanAgain 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Maito_Guy -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigmanAgain 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Maito_Guy 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigmanAgain 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Maito_Guy -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigmanAgain -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Maito_Guy 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There are significant differences. If they are privatised they are not run by the government. The government wastes money, manages too many institutions at once to be efficient, lacks the customer client relationship that improves and regulates service quality, lacks competition that drives improvement, micromanages institutions and taxes people and spends their money for them when the they could afford insurance without being taxed. If paying for those that can't afford insurance where to be government funded it would be a way smaller percentage of the population that they where funding.

It is a strange point to make that private charities are overburdened. The NHS is massively overburdened. These would be newly created charities to fit the purpose and you can't make a claim that they would be more or less overburdened than the NHS. I am not sure about this option anyway as the libertarian model has not been tried but in theory it is a workable model and is much more ethical than taking money from people by force.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Maito_Guy 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago* (14 children) | Copy Link

Brian -- the Honey Badgers emissar -- claimed that you need to be right wing to be an MRA. That's so absurd as to barely warrant comment, but here we are, and my post is being downvoted.

I have stated repeatedly that I have certain beliefs that would be classified as "right wing" and certain "left wing." Imbeciles like Martinez are unable to grasp the 4-quadrant matrix.

There where no wars fought over healthcare and just because a generation fought for something doesn't make it good.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Tens of thousands of men died to establish basic rights, whether union rights of health care rights, both for themselves and their families. Hell even Karen Straughan -- whom I assume would like to abolish health care for "underserving" people -- even talked about this in one of her speeches.

Trying to paint someone as immoral for disagreeing or using shaming tactics is a sign of intellctual weakness.

There's a difference though. I (and many, many others) consider if fundamentally immoral to deny people health care. Like, immoral on the scale of being obscene. I don't even think this should be controversial; as mentioned, even "primitive" societies provide health care to the sick and elderly.

Far right wing douche bags are okay with the idea that the sick and elderly go without health care, provided the "market decides."

All in all, I'm completely disgusted with Honey Badger Radio, and like I said, will never donate again. HBR is a far right wing outfit.

[–]Maito_Guy 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

You are getting downvoted because you are full of shit. None of the badgers are far right, Brian is a libertarian. None of them want the sick and elderly to go without healthcare, that is just typical tribalistic "the other side is evil, mentality". The people you are trying to describe believe that if people had little or no tax to pay and nobody got government assistance that private charities would take care of them. Private charities are way more efficient.

Your kind of emotionally manipulative strawman used demonise people for their political outlook is exactly the kind of bullshit that is dividing people politically. I could easily make the argument that "you hate humans because you believe that without social welfare we would let people starve, die and suffer. You far-left people are so immoral and think so little of human nature that you want the government to rob people at gunpoint to pay for the less fortunate because they wouldn't voluntarily donate to private charities."

You claim to hold left wing and right wing and right wing beliefs and smugly proclaim "ibeciles like brian are unable to grasp the 4 quadrant matrix" and yet you have labeled him far right based on one position. You realise that I could do that with one of your positions right?

Wars where not fought for healthcare, you are using that argument in such a vague sense it could apply to any policy. I have already clearly demonstrated why it is a terrible argument to begin with.

All in all you are being hypocritical, idiotic, divisive and are strawmanning political positions. How about you provide a timestamp for exactly what Brian said? If it bothered you so much maybe you should quote exactly what he said, have the intellectual honesty to provide a timestamp and start a thread discussing the ideas you want to argue against instead of this disingenuous bullshit?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

None of the badgers are far right, Brian is a libertarian.

That's the same thing, dumbass. The word "libertarian" was first used by a French anarchist to describe people who opposed both capitalism and the state. So anarchists. The word was later appropriated by billionaires who funded a laughable movement know as "libertarians" -- who support capitalist exploitation above all else. Get it, kiddo? Good.

Wars where not fought for healthcare

Wars are absolutely fought for healthcare. Son, your father/grandfather/ etc. fought for your right to have a weekend, healthcare etc. Don't you realize that? If it weren't for the people you hate you would work all day, every day.

All in all you are being hypocritical, idiotic, divisive and are strawmanning political positions

Did I ever claim that right wingers shouldn't be involved in the MRM? No, no I didn't. But someone claimed that left wingers shouldn't be involved in the MRM. I'm right, you're wrong. "Brian Martinez." Sucks I know, but at the end of the day the important thing is to promote men's rights.

[–]Maito_Guy 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

No, far right and libertarian are not the same thing. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of libertarianism. They are not anarcho capitalists, the vast majority believe in regulation of business and not allowing monopolies. We are practically living in an olligarchy now. Far right is authoritarian and anti immigration which are both antithetical to libertarianism. So smug yet so ignorant.

Keep asserting all you like there was no war over healthcare, provide a source for your claim. It is a moot point anyway as I demonstrated that just because a generation fought for something doesn't make it desirable. What do you mean people I hate? sounds like projection to me, you are the one that sounds hateful towards people that disagree.

Brian made no such claim, provide a quote and timestamp or GTFO. He and HBR criticise the left and right for the ways in which they negatively impact men. You absolutely are engaging in the same divisive rhetoric that is polarising countries. You are strawmanning and demonising people that disagree with you. I never said that you said right wingers can't be MRA's but you are absolutely making out people to be evil because they have a different political philosophy to you.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

As mentioned, the first time the word "libertarian" was used in the US was by a French anarchist. Back then it described people who condemned both the appalling violence of the state but also the appalling violence of capitalism. Later, in the early 20th C, capitalists appropriated the word. And so now people like you call yourself "libertarians" when you are better described as propertyists, because at the end of the day (and let's be honest here) all you care about is property. You don't care about men, boys, women, children, you care about property.

This is easily provable. Eg you value property rights more than human beings/health care, even your own grandmothers! Amazing stuff.

And if Brian is such a tough guy why doesn't he debate me? Because he's a coward. Like all right wing libertarians.

[–]Maito_Guy 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Free_kittens2468 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

So when you say you want privatization is a good thing, do you like the US system? I live here, and I'll be honest it's terrible for everyone below upper middle-class families. The US is the only modernized 1st world country without one form of single-payer healthcare. 45,000 people diedie every year because they can't get good enough healthcare. When people don't have it, and choose not to go to the doctor out of fear of unparalleled de[debt.](http://)bt.

I'm not gonna say the U.K.s system is the best or whatever, but not keeping everyone covered with some form of single-payer healthcare completely goes against any idea of equal opportunity to make money (because if you get sick from no fault of your own, and can't work, and don't have the time to argue with the state for Medicaid) which is a goal of capitalism. I'm definitely a capitalist, and I agree that privatization can make things more efficient, but a privatized healthcare system only gives care based on your wallet, and companies do absolutely everything in their power to weasel out of paying. For example before ObamaCare private health insurers frequently used a loophole where when someone needs an expensive treatment they find a trait that they could argue was a pre-existing condition so they can deny care. One woman was denied coverage for cancer, because she had acme in her teens, and the company argued it wasn't acme but "cancerous shin lesions". Finally it's important to mention that for the US at least a single-payer system would be overall cheaper, because the private insurance companies act as middlemen that take money people pay them and use at least half for keeping a profit, while the government model focuses on giving the care over being profitable.

[–]Maito_Guy 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Getting care based on your wallet is awesome. As long as you ensure that there is not a monopoly and that there are different companies running hospitals in every city then they will compete to give you the best possible service to get your money and you have a customer business relationship with the hospital which is vital for good service.

The solution to the problem of those that cannot afford it is for the government to pay their insurance for them or for a private charity depending on how libertarian you want to go. The vast majority of people would be able to afford insurance in the US if the government stopped taking open bribes, sorry "campaign donations"

The problem with insurance companies is easily solved by regulation and getting money out of politics. If governments only job was to uphold law, secure the borders, maintain a military and regulate business it would be much more manageable and they would be much less corruptable.

You are advocating for a corrupt and incopetent entity to take control of your healthcare system from the top down. It doesn't work well, you have a much higher standard of healthcare in the US even with your problems(which are caused by government incompetence and corruption)

[–]Free_kittens2468 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Getting care based on your wallet is awesome. As long as you ensure that there is not a monopoly and that there are different companies running hospitals in every city then they will compete to give you the best possible service

No they're private companies, and their sole purpose is to make money, and so they always no matter what instinctively care more about money than the lives they could save. Not to say they're evil, businesses don't work/grow when they don't prioritize money. The U.S. current system is still chok full of people dying, because their care is too expensive, and while not monopolies the current corporations don't mind simultaneously raising prices for mutual benifit. Duallopollies exist, and there's no limit to big guys all working together to screw over everyone else. The nice system of effectively small local business est health insurers won't be achievable.

to get your money and you have a customer business relationship with the hospital which is vital for good service.

Yes and no while yes people can definitely ruin you via boycott and the like, it shouldn't be hard to notice that every single corporation ever has become unaturally good at suppressing negative press, or staying on the edge of public hate, and getting away with doing *very * unpopular things with only short-term loss This should be obvious.

The solution to the problem of those that cannot afford it is for the government to pay their insurance for them

Yes! Somewhat. I want single-payer for everyone, and if someone wants a special private thing on top of their regular single-payer coverage that's fine. If rich people hate waiting lines they can buy all the extra coverage they want, but they need to pay the taxes so no one gets no coverage, and even if the coverage is bad in your opinion it's still necessary that everyone has a bottom line that private companies will then have to outdo to remain competitive.

~~or for a private charity depending on how libertarian you want to go.~~

let's not go libertarian unless you honestly think it'll work.

The vast majority of people would be able to afford insurance in the US if the government stopped taking open bribes, sorry "campaign donations"

I completely 10000% agree that that is the biggest internal problem America is facing, and it has been suffocating our democracy for many years. Everything will be better once we leave this 2nd gilded age.

The problem with insurance companies is easily solved by regulation and getting money out of politics. If governments only job was to uphold law, secure the borders, maintain a military and regulate business it would be much more manageable and they would be much less corruptable.

I dunno about that, I love privatization in consumer products, and non necessary services. but schools, healthcare, military, infastrucure, and some other things are overall better government run, or at least it's crucial for the government run version to be there so they can set a bar companies compete to outdo. Think mail the U.S. mail service is constantly outdone in the many nice high value urban ares of the US, but Amazon for example simply won't deliver with their service to much of rural America, because it's not worth setting up a route for every small southern town. The fed postal system is legally required to pick up the slack, and deliver to any small town, you just can't do that profitably without insane unaffordable mark-ups.

You are advocating for a corrupt and incopetent entity to take control of your healthcare system from the top down. It doesn't work well, you have a much higher standard of healthcare in the US even with your problems(which are caused by government incompetence and corruption)

You are advocating for a corporation owned profit>lives conglomerate that will only end up bringing more money into politics the same exact way the oil/steel captains of industry gave us the gilded age. I don't want librarian Banana republicsrepublics

Also the high standards only apply to the wealthiest who can afford it. If you have the money it is definitely the best care, but for literally everyone else they have to fight for coverage on every single health problem ever. I'm American, and have to deal with them trying to weasel out of paying for literally everything.

[–]Maito_Guy 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I don't know how you can deal with the cognitive dissonance, you recognise that corporations do things better, you recognise that government corruption is the problem and yet you want the government to have more power and run the healthcare system.

Government do not make things cheaper. They waste money and drive up cost. They compensate for this by taking out loans on our childrens futures.

This would be a libertarian system regardless. I happen to believe in human nature and that people would give to charities. Bill Gates has done more for third world countries than all the first world governments combined. Private charities put 70% of money recieved to the cause and 30% to cost, government puts 70% to cost and 30% percent to the cause. Governments are wasteful and inneficient.

It is not profit over lives at all. Without a corrupt government, inneficient top down management of too many institutions and wastage of money. With good regulation and financial aid for those that can't afford insurance you have the highest standard of healthcare(and other institutions) possible, everyone covered and a much smaller and more manageable government that is held accountable more easily.

I'm English and you have a massively idealised vision of what universal healthcare is. We still have better care for the wealthier as the nicer the area the higher, the tax rate and the better the services. We still have people dying because their care is too expensive(we have death councils to decide if they will pay for treatment), we have ridiculous waiting lists for treatment, a service that treats us like a nuisance rather than a customer, they waste money, they are top down managed with way too many admin staff, too much red tape and absolutely no freedom to innovate(which is why the US is propping up the rest of the west in terms of medical innovation). Copy paste my criticism of the NHS to any British person and bar the death councils and the innovation issue which are not widely known at least 8/10 will concur with every single point I just raised.

All of your arguments are against the current American governments interference, not private healthcare or the model I am proposing.

[–]Free_kittens2468 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I don't know how you can deal with the cognitive dissonance, you recognise that corporations do things better, you recognise that government corruption is the problem and yet you want the government to have more power and run the healthcare system.

I guess I haven't been good at making my point. Yes corporations do many things better, but their quality of work, depends entirely on money So people who don't have lots of money will not get care! Wealthy people overpay for great care, and everyone else struggles to get the bare minimum.

Government do not make things cheaper. They waste money and drive up cost. They compensate for this by taking out loans on our childrens futures.

In healthcare specifically when compared the the U.S. current system it does, because the private companies act as middlemen that take in between. They're middlemen, because they need to worry about being profitable, and doing their job, instead where the government just has to focus on doing the job. The current system is quality of care is money over need. Which I think is terrible. People need medical care weather their poor or not, and even though everyone is treated in hospitals those that can't afford it get crippling debt, and it's almost common practice for hospitals to literally leaving patients outside to die after doing the bare minimum treatment, and finding the patient can't pay.

This would be a libertarian system regardless. I happen to believe in human nature and that people would give to charities. Bill Gates has done more for third world countries than all the first world governments combined. Private charities put 70% of money recieved to the cause and 30% to cost, government puts 70% to cost and 30% percent to the cause. Governments are wasteful and inneficient.

Charities to third-world countries are not the same as domestic charities. It's good work yeah, but it's often not reliable enough. No legal set in stone amount people have to give. Besides private charities are pretty much always just used for PR, and don't seem to have cut poverty in America. It's nice to give around the world, but I care about my home country more.

with good regulation and financial aid for those that can't afford insurance you have the highest standard of healthcare(and other institutions) possible, everyone covered and a much smaller and more manageable government that is held accountable more easily.

Single-payer is just the bare minimum keeping everyone covered, so they don't go into horrible debt when health is out of their control. Also what's to say that getting money out of politics will solve the problems I've listed? It's still first priority though.

I'm English and you have a massively idealised vision of what universal healthcare is. We still have better care for the wealthier as the nicer the area the higher, the tax rate and the better the services. We still have people dying because their care is too expensive (we have death councils to decide if they will pay for treatment), we have ridiculous waiting lists for treatment, a service that treats us like a nuisance rather than a customer, they waste money, they are top down managed with way too many admin staff, too much red tape and absolutely no freedom to innovate(which is why the US is propping up the rest of the west in terms of medical innovation).

I think you have just as much an idealised version of the American heathcare system, and there's nothing to say that removing the corruption in the English system can't fix the problems your saying.

Copy paste my criticism of the NHS to any British person and bar the death councils and the innovation issue which are not widely known at least 8/10 will concur with every single point I just raised.

All of your arguments are against the current American governments interference, not private healthcare or the model I am proposing.

The American governments interference?! Private companies are the ones who slowly brought us into this mess of corruption. They lobbied, and bought their way in. Same thing with private prisons. They focus on money which they can only make by taking in more prisoners which makes them lobby for longer prison sentences on crimes that usually have easier to contain non violent criminals. Their entire incentive structure is wrong. It's good we can both agree about lobbying ruining everything.

[–]Maito_Guy 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Only a total idiot, a dirty politician or a CEO would be pro lobbying. The problem is not with the corporations at all. Corporations will always look out for their own interests. The government sets the rules, it allows lobbying, it sets the regulations and it is the cause of the problems. It is the governments job to keep corporations in check.

Getting money out of politics will do nothing to fix the NHS. It will stop rampant corpratism but will not solve the fact that a large centalised top down management of multiple institutions is ineffective, wastes a ton of money and doesn't work. Those stats apply to domestic charities as well.

Again all your criticisms boil down to corporatism sucks and the current American system has flaws due to that. And people that can't afford cover will get it. Either the government or private charities will pay for their insurance depending on the model.

The system I am proposing is contingent on a small government which is easier to hold accountable and the eradication of corporatism(no campaign donations over $100)

[–]Free_kittens2468 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Only a total idiot, a dirty politician or a CEO would be pro lobbying.

They all take lobby money, and avoid talking about it even if they're not pro lobby in a lobbying system they have to use it to get any power.

The problem is not with the corporations at all. Corporations will always look out for their own interests. The government sets the rules, it allows lobbying, it sets the regulations and it is the cause of the problems. It is the governments job to keep corporations in check.

Yes they don't keep the corporations in check, and it's their job sure, but lobbying is just as much corporations fault as the government. Both aren't being held accountable. You want smaller government, but you want more regulation on corporations? Good I want more regulation on them too, but that's bigger government which do you want?

Getting money out of politics will do nothing to fix the NHS. It will stop rampant corpratism but will not solve the fact that a large centalised top down management of multiple institutions is ineffective, wastes a ton of money and doesn't work. Those stats apply to domestic charities as well.

How come basically every other modern industrialized country has a form of single-payer then? Does it just not work for everyone else then, and how come none of them see it's so bad, and change it back?

Again all your criticisms boil down to corporatism sucks and the current American system has flaws due to that.

Yea good that's what I'm saying, I'm also trying to say you can't separate rampant corpratism from the system when people don't have the choice for an adequate alternative. The alternative is needed to set the bare minimum standard which companies have to do better than or face everyone turning to the government instead.

And people that can't afford cover will get it. Either the government or private charities will pay for their insurance depending on the model.

Why can't we just expand medicare as an option to everyone? If you want to pay extra for a private company that's fine great, and like I said a bottom line for everyone drives the competition between the government, and private companies. With your logic of government services being inefficient what else would you privatize? Schools, firemen, prisons, mail delivery, all of which have private institutions, I'm totally fine with, but they're also provided by the government, and so areas that the private sector won't touch, are handled by the gov.

The system I am proposing is contingent on a small government which is easier to hold accountable and the eradication of corporatism(no campaign donations over $100)

I dunno bout that man, but i'm thankful for you being so eloquent here.

[–]Lethn 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lethn 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -7 points-6 points-5 points 7 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lethn 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 7 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]Zimi231 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Zimi231 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lethn 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]N19864 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lethn 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I agree with you which is why I get so pissy with American left wingers especially who try to praise the NHS as this sacred cow and think everything in Europe is amazing and people are frolicking in town centres with each other.

I knew dunesfrank was full of shit the moment he used the term 'far right' because he probably doesn't know about the issues that migration is certainly causing the NHS as well. In my town they're actually having to ask people for passports because it's a migrant town and of course you don't know for certain which people are actual U.K citizens and which aren't, no joke.

Bet he's going to call me far right next for daring to even bring that up as an issue and yes, it certainly won't help the NHS much that kids in London and other high crime areas have taken to stabbing each other as their new hobby now though knife crime has always been a problem generally in the cities.

By the way, Bernie Sanders got into so much trouble for this sort of crap where he proclaimed europe 'Socialist' and the danish prime minister actually went out of his way to correct the idiot for saying something so wrong and pointed out it was a market economy.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lethn 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]alc0 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]alc0 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]user_miki 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

I live in an universal health care country.The health care contribution is a hidden tax imposed on us and money used by the government and pharmaceutical companies .You benefit nothing.When you go to hospital you still have to pay. Medicines still have to pay(insufficient funds all the time),Clinics that offer services are overwhelmed. There are 2 queue lines one for free and one with money.The one for free is overcrowded and people fighting.The one with money only few fast and quality.If you are terminal ill there is waiting list because insufficient funds.So you still have to pay.Any money collected by government is a waste.There is an entire clients list that take government money.This is corruption.People in countries without universal health care think that the grass is greener elsewhere.It is not.Who wants to control everything in the end controls nothing.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]user_miki 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]user_miki 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]RolfMjau 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]user_miki 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RolfMjau 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]user_miki 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]RolfMjau 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]user_miki 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]RolfMjau 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Razorbladekandyfan 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Xemnas81 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Xemnas81 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Honey Badgers: being left of center (politically) is incompatible with the MRM
Author	dunesfrank
Upvotes	9
Comments	103
Date	March 14, 2019 11:54 PM UTC (7 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/b17ro8/honey_badgers_being_left_of_center_politically_is/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/honey-badgers-being-left-of-center-politically-is.881660 https://theredarchive.com/post/881660

Comments