Argh, another multi-quote discussion. Oh well, these are fun as well as good brain exercise, so if the OP will pardon a slight derail (anyone feel free to kick our butts back on track at any time ) and if nobody objects... I'm all for psych testing too as long as someone comes up with a system that doesn't discriminate those who are mentally ill but still retain the full capacity of mind and are no danger to themselves or others, like someone suffering of mild depression with no suicidal tendencies, for instance: to a lot of people here, hunting and shooting are the only things that bring them some joy and happiness. Take those away from a person with a tendency for depression and things won't end well. Anyway, I was referring more to your choice of words than the idea behind them since you used the term "man-child," as if you were either condemning an entire group of people (firearm enthusiasts or collectors of military weapons) or specific individuals. No prob, but it does misrepresent my views. To me, Vermont is just about the ideal place when it comes to gun laws: there are no firearms permits there. As long as you're a US citizen, you can carry concealed or open. You can purchase pocket pistols, snubbies, full-size handguns, shotguns, hunting rifles, semi-automatic rifles, even full-autos as long as you have a class 3 permit (btw, according to statistics, class 3 permit holders are the most law-abiding citizens in all of USA). Yet... Vermont has the lowest (or almost lowest, depending a bit on the source, but it's always at the very bottom tier) violent crime rates in all of USA. And they have a ton of guns per person. How do you explain that if your vision of a country with similar gun laws is a violent cesspool of anarchy where gangs rule the land? I'll give you a few quick statistics to support my arguments so you'll know I'm not just coming up with stuff. I know statistics are a poor representative of the truth by themselves, but I believe they are a good tool if used as just one of many in our quest for The Truth: CDC statistics: Deaths per year per cause: -death by doctor's maltreatment (I hope that's the correct term, i.e. a doctor makes an honest mistake or treats a patient poorly), wrong medication etc. - around 800,000 -heart disease - 597,689 -cancer - 574,743 -accidents (no firearms involved) - 120,859 -flu - 50,097 -firearms - 13,636 Of those firearms-related deaths: -handguns - 6,452 -shotguns - 418 -rifles - 348 The rest fall under "other," meaning they don't know what type of firearm was used. The vast majority of all firearm-related deaths were gang-related (drive-bys, territory disputes etc). As you can see, rifles, i.e. "assault rifles" are the lowest cause of death of all firearms-related deaths and are much rarer than handgun-related deaths not to mention all the above-mentioned non-gun-related deaths which I listed only to give context to these numbers which were taken from CDC's research in 2009. FBI statistics of the same year show more interesting numbers regarding murders per year: -knives (the kitchen knife was the most common weapon) - 1,825 -hands, feet etc. - 801 -blunt objects (bats, crowbars etc. with the hammer being the most common weapon) - 611 Comparing those to the 348 of rifles, which most people are focusing on when it comes to gun control, is rather interesting. A few more statistics from the FBI: -when Chicago implemented the complete firearm ban, firearm-related murder rates rose 40% in one year with 96% of those murders being committed by criminals using illegally owned and acquired firearms, mostly using them against each other, but also against now unarmed civilians who actually followed the law and gave up their firearms they used to carry for protection -when Texas allowed concealed carry, murder rates fell 30% in one year -the average rate was a 23% drop in murder rates whenever concealed carry was legalized in a state -in Tennessee (sorry, can't recall which one), the murder rates dropped 87% in the first year of allowing concealed carry -38% of inmates in all of USA said they had been scared off, wounded, or captured by an armed civilian at least once while attempting to commit a crime -40% of all inmates in USA reported to having abandoned a planned assault upon noticing the intended victim was carrying a firearm (such as a hiking woman carrying a fanny pack or the infamous open carry) -most firearm-related deaths happen in "gun-free states" -mass shootings, such as school shootings and e.g. the Fort Hood shootings (in 2009, 13 people were killed and 30 wounded before an armed guard shot and killed the shooter whereas in 2014 the shooter killed 4 people and injured 16 before killing himself: in neither case, talking down the shooter didn't work) mostly occur in "gun-free zones" such as schools and military bases where people aren't allowed to carry firearms, so the shooters know there will be nobody present who could reliably stop them According to the CDC, people with firearm permits prevent approximately 490,000 break-ins/burglaries per year simply by being armed: many caught perpetrators admitted that had they known there was a firearm in the house, they would've gone to the next house because they search specifically for houses with no firearms. The CDC also found that the more firearms are bought within an area, the more violent crime rates drop. According to a nation-wide research published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology: -legally owned firearms are used to save lives 989,893 times a year -people defend themselves with legally owned firearms approximately 498,000 times a year Now, if we compare these numbers to annual deaths caused by firearms, we have these results: -firearm-related deaths - 13,636 VS. lives saved by legally owned firearms - 989,893 -firearm-related deaths - 13,636 VS. people defending themselves with legally owned firearms 498,000 And of all firearm-related deaths, only 348 were committed by rifles, and of those rifles, a portion were hunting rifles, sharp-shooting rifles, and only a portion were semi-automatic rifles (or, as dubbed by the demonizing media, "assault rifles") I know statistics can be read this way and that, but these do indicate that an abundance of firearms doesn't inherently cause a society to become violent. Otherwise Vermont would be the most dangerous state in all of USA. Then the more or less personal anecdotes: My sister has been to different parts of Vermont several times and has always ended up returning to her hotel from the conferences at the late, dark hours, but she said she never felt any danger there, not like she does every time she is out alone in Finland's capital area. She's never been harassed, cat-called, or groped in Vermont whereas in Finland, she's endured all of those since she was 14 (no, she doesn't dress like a prostitute), from men old enough to be her grandfathers to teenage boys and crazed lunatics (one of whom once grabbed her ponytail in a bus when she was sitting in front of him and wouldn't let go or stop tugging until she struck his hand as hard as she could). Likewise, when she saw rifles hanging on the walls, pistols bulging under people's shirts or strapped to their belts (in open carry), pocket knife clips on their pockets etc, she never once felt threatened because the people were exceptionally polite, friendly, and helpful (one man even drove her and her boss, a guy, back to their hotel when their car broke down in the middle of nowhere as there aren't really taxis you can call in Vermont). Note that she is a person who doesn't like firearms or knives and abhors all violence and even shuns martial arts, yet in every place in Vermont she visited, being amidst firearms, she never once felt threatened or like she was in any danger. Instead, she felt safe. Furthermore, once she wondered aloud why the owners of one hotel (an old couple who ran a mom & pop inn) never locked their doors, kept them open all day even when they were out doing their shopping, not even at night, and she asked don't people ever steal anything there? The old couple laughed and said any such criminals would be either caught or gunned down before they had the time to run with the loot, and not just by the owners of the house, but by their neighbors, the neighborhood watch, and, of course, the police, but since the police can't just teleport there in a second, it's mostly armed civilian presence that deters crime in the area: people in Vermont know that if you do dumb shit like break into a house, assault a woman, try to mug anyone etc, you get shot. That is my ideal home country. That, to me, represents a free nation. That, to me, represents a safe, comforting environment where I would feel right at home, just as I do every time I go to my shooting club's practice sessions or to an IPSC competition: I'm around all kinds of people, young, old, male, female (mostly male, though), yet I feel the safest I ever feel in Finland. I feel safer than I do in my own neighborhood taking out the trash even though there are 20 guys loading their 9mms, .40SWs and .45s around me because everyone are super-polite, friendly, and helpful. Sure, not all gun owners are angels, these people aren't either, but the presence of firearms tends to make people polite: you don't want to piss off a guy who has a pistol strapped to his belt. I wouldn't either. That creates a very friendly, open, and relaxed atmosphere where people have a great time and, frankly, there's more smiles and laughter at my club's practice session than at my university faculty's parties (that doesn't say much, but you get the gist). The inherent flaw in all three types of tear/pepper sprays (CS, CN, OC) is that they all rely on pain compliance, not incapacitation. A determined assailant can fight through the effects of the gas and keep going. There are plenty of demo videos on YouTube where a willing participant is sprayed with any of the three and shown attacking a guy holding a kick pad. Likewise, there are plenty of CCTV clips of bad guys kicking a police or correctional officer's ass after getting a full blast of spray in the face. One video shows a police officer accidentally spraying his partner in the face while getting manhandled by a rough thug. Another flaw is that the sprays are heavily reliant on external factors such as weather: a strong gust of wind can blow the spray right back on the defender's face, incapacitating her instead of the assailant (unless she's as big of a badass as the folks in the videos and can fight through the pain, but even then she's only made her situation worse: now she has to not only fight the assailant who was attacking anyway, but to do it under the effects of gas). The third flaw is that because of the above-mentioned flaws, the sprays just aren't really feared by thugs. Sure, a guy might have a hard time getting it up after a faceful of spray, but that doesn't mean he won't hurt the girl/woman just the same, even retaliate because even if you can fight through the burn, it hurts like hell and pisses you off like nothing else when you're in "attack mode." Firearms, knives, and impact weapons, however, rely on incapacitating the attacker. They render the attacker physically incapable of continuing the assault. No matter whether they're really aggressive and pumped up, horny, drunk, on PCP, cocaine, or whatever: a solid whack to the jaw from a sap, a knife to the throat, a bullet to any critical area (these are all just examples) will drop any guy. They don't rely on the pain they inflict to be enough to deter or stop the assailant. That is why those sprays should never be treated as anything more potent than what a Texan ex-narc and current self-defense guru said: "an eye-jab in a can." Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. It's good to have in your arsenal, but bad if it's the only thing in it. As for fixing the area... it's the whole damn country. Besides, our schools and Kat's job are here: we can't afford to move. We are planning to migrate stateside when we can, but that won't happen for at least a few years. In the meantime, realistically speaking... the country isn't going to be getting any safer. Even if there was development for the better, it would take years to make e.g. Helsinki as safe as, say, any Swiss town. So what is a girl to do in the meantime? Stay indoors? Head out unarmed and just chance it? Don't get me wrong: this place isn't a war zone, it's not a ghetto, but things happen. Not too long ago we heard at night a guy beating on a girl while refusing to let go of her (a feud between a couple) whereas a female friend of mine has a permanent scar on her forehead because, when she was 15, she was "stupid" enough to stand up for a friend who was harassed in central Helsinki, and one of the several male assailants smashed a beer bottle into her face. So yeah, we have great schools and all, but... stuff happens. It's in the culture, the notion of "oh, he was just so drunk, so let's give him a pass," and that is a very deep-rooted culture that won't be eradicated even in decades because a part of it is a part of the Finnish national identity. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by an awful life, but my life didn't change in any way after I bought my pistol except that now I have a much better capacity to deal with threats I was previously incapable of handling (e.g. multiple opponent scenarios which don't usually end quite so luckily as the one I described). It's happened before to plenty of my friends (one guy had his leg in a cast, so while waiting for a train, five guys attacked him, grabbed his crutches, and beat him with them and stomped and kicked him, including his broken leg... for shits and giggles: he didn't know any of them while another friend, 15yo, was sitting at our most popular beach, waiting for his friends when 6 guys came up to him, the "leader" told him to give him his sunglasses, so when my friend simply said "no," the guy grabbed his head, kneed him in the face, and left him there, unconscious), so my logic tells me it can happen again, that it is within the realm of possibilities that it can happen to me a second time, so I'd rather be prepared for it. Note that I don't live in fear anymore than a driver who puts on a seat belt: to me it's just a precaution. That's the thing: we don't tremble in some corner, just waiting for some horde of ogres to assault us. We're "mindful of potential stupids," as you put it, but we are so even outside of the car. Why should pedestrians be less mindful of their surroundings than drivers? Sure, a collision between pedestrians isn't as lethal as between two drivers, but at least around this part of the world, pedestrians do face threats, be it vehicles (one guy got squashed against the wall of the shopping center where I used to work and on the way home I had to walk over the bloody cobble stones with bits of his brains and skull still between the stones) or two-legged "stupids." Around here people tend to get rowdy (in a bad way) when they drink, and a lot of Finns as well as tourists I've spoken about it with have commented that they didn't feel as safe e.g. in Helsinki at night as they did in another country, e.g. England, USA, Switzerland, Bulgaria, Norway etc. It's an oppressive atmosphere even when nothing happens. Nothing quite like waiting for your "drunk train" (the last of the night/morning) between a group of skinheads and another of Africans, all itching for a fight. I'm sorry, but you do walk around with the capacity to kill. Most of us do: all it takes is one light shove, a guy falls, hits his head, and dies or you can choke him to death, bash his head into the pavement, stomp his throat when he's down etc. It's just that certain items improve that capacity and allow us to deal with a broader range of threats such as multiple opponents. Unfortunately kung fu -movies aren't like real life: you can't take on a group and kick ass unless 1) they don't really want a fight, 2) they really, really suck, fighting like 10yo kids or 100yo grandads. Don't get me wrong: avoidance is always, always the first and foremost option. I choose flight whenever I can (like I did in the jogging incident), but you gotta admit, sometimes it's just not possible. Sometimes a guy has just decided he wants a fight (i.e. won't listen to any reason), and either blocks your exit (e.g. in a bar's bathroom, corridor, train, bus etc.) or keeps following you, still picking a fight, and you can't run because you have a busted knee or you got the kids with you or the Mrs. is in heels and an evening dress after coming from the opera or whatever (luckily Kat doesn't do heels and she's an ex-competitive sprinter and was her school's 100m sprint champion among girls and boys, so no worries there ), you get the picture, i.e. an unavoidable physical confrontation. Now, multiply that one guy by, say, two (let's say you're lucky, since statistics say more than 2 is more common): two guys who won't let you leave or keep following you, gathering courage to take you out for whatever reason (a few years back at the local train station when I was out with my friends I saw a guy get KO'd simply for having a pretty girlfriend: an ugly, barn-sized pig-lookalike booted him in the face, tried to hit on the girl, and called her all the cunts in the world when she didn't jump in his neck and join him in the horizontal while her bf lay on the ground groaning). If the guys are clearly bigger and more muscular than you and in whatever way won't let you leave the situation, your option of flight is taken away. The only remaining option is fight, since they can't be talked down in this scenario (one I saw a lot in high school when the guys just wanted a fight for the kicks, no pun intended). You don't know if they're armed or not even if they have nothing in their hands at the moment, so at any moment, one or both could draw knives, pistols, whatever. Do you believe that scenario (or one similar to it, just alter the parameters, like the number of guys, their size, armament etc) is realistic? That is has happened in a 1st world country enough times that it's not the umpteenth wonder in the world? Do you believe that scenario has happened in your country in, say, the last year more than, say, 10 times? If you answered yes to all questions... doesn't that mean that, statistically improbable as it is, it could possibly happen to you as well? Or someone you care about? Or to you when you're out with someone you care about? If the answer is an affirmative... why not prepare for it just like you would for any injury by, say, going to a first-aid course so you can help someone in need or even yourself? Or learning to swim and rescue drowning victims so if your kid falls off a boat, you can save them instead of just watching them drown? I don't see learning self-defense and gearing up for it the best you can as any different than e.g. learning first-aid or "rescue swimming." Wohoo, I've almost died too! Thrice! We're near-death buddies! I don't fear death either: the first time I was fully conscious, rational, calm, and more excited than anything since it was an interesting experience; I'd never almost bled to death before, after all. The two other times I was unconscious most of the time and then very groggy, but even then I didn't fear death; what happens, happens, but... now that I'm with my wife, I have a responsibility to her: 1. I don't want my time on this planet with her to end yet because I enjoy our time together more than anything ever before, so I don't want to lose that because some asshats thought it'd be funny to see how well my head bounces off the pavement and I couldn't prevent them from trying it over and over. 2. She doesn't deserve the hurt of losing her husband simply because I was unprepared or careless. If I do die, it'll be because of bad luck or overwhelming odds that nobody could've realistically survived, guns or no guns. At least it'll be a relief from chronic pain as well as an interesting adventure, even if it'll end in nothingness. However, because now I have someone in my life I actually care about more than I do of my own life, I see it as my duty to do whatever I can to make sure she has the person she loves the most to bring her happiness for as long as humanely possible. That means I'll fight tooth and nail to stay on this muddy ball as long as I can. Not because I fear death (after all, 'tis but another great adventure, like Dumbledore said ), but because it's an act of love. The nice bypass product of that resolution is that I'm doing what I can that my parents and sister won't have to bury their son/brother prematurely either. I'm pretty sure a lot of people who have kids feel the same responsibility to stay alive to be there for them even if they otherwise wouldn't shy away from death. Having someone that important in your life brings along that responsibility (at least to me). I can't remember who said it, but I thought it was a lovely way to summarize the last two paragraphs: "Self-defense is an act of love."
Then you'll have to excuse my choice of words. My use of 'man-child' was not referring to firearm enthusiasts or weapons collectors at all. I used to be one, and couldn't really care less about the other. The type of person I was referring to are the sort of person who would cry and kick up a stink if they had their weapons taken away from them without seeing the larger societal picture. I'll cut out the statistics, but it does seem I've just not understood what you were picturing. But I'm sorry, I just can't agree with the essential premise still. If I thought my neighbors had access to arms and hadn't had to prove they could be responsible with them I just wouldn't feel safer. I can't say, also, I found a lot of meaning in those statistics but I'm not going to contest them - frankly because I don't know enough about the subject. Social clubs like that tend to be that way, while a university faculty (I know from personal experience) there is a lot more going on there than just a mutual enthusiasm. Then how about a taser? Having a lethal capacity is for me the last resort, and should not be something you rely on at all. I know this is my culture using me as a conduit, and Finland has not just a different culture but a historical need for an armed citizenry, but here in the UK I suppose things are different. It might work well there, and you are right for where you live, but I'll just say it, I don't think British people think in that way. Yeah, I'm beginning to get the strong impression this is a difference in culture, because the UK has (obviously) a big drinking culture, and ... I actually out of interest looked this up on the directgov website and since 2003, gun crime in the UK has effectively halfed, reducing pretty much every year - aside from two years, 2006 and 2007, and knife and other weapon crimes have reduced every single year since 2011. The risk of violent crimes is at it's lowest since the 1980s, with for some reason a big spike in violent crimes around 1995, but since then (except for 2007 for some reason - 2007 must have been a really bad year) violent crime has pretty much plummeted. Obviously the need for self defence isn't such an issue here, which is why I never really think about it. I mean basically I'm aware if you live in some slum there is more chance of you encountering violence on a daily basis. That's all really. From the way you described it it is something you think about, even if it's just being mindful, most of the time. While for me it's very rare I'm careful on a street. It's only when I see someone who's 'look' or 'feel' I don't like - they could make me nervous, and I'll focus on avoiding them. Again, this seems like a cultural thing, because here in England it's common for people to walk on the roads unmindful of cars (especially in the country like where I live) and it's never thought of. Most of the time I'm not thinking about anticipating what someone else might do and acting accordingly, I'm thinking about bacon. Ha, well like I said - and this might surprise you I don't know, but I've never been in a fight in my entire adult life. Ever. I've never even had to threaten it. Well, by 'capacity to kill' I meant purely a weapon, not my own physical force - because physically I'm not particularly strong. On the average day, only my keys are something I could use as a weapon if I needed to. Or a pen. I just carry my keys, my phone, a wallet, my wallet, and if I'm in uni my campus card. That's it. Well, sure it's realistic. You'd be a fool to ignore the possibility of things like that happening, but since it's improbable for me, given my experience with living in the UK it's not something I honestly think about. I've never needed to worry, because as far as I'm concerned it's rare in my experiences, I've never had to worry. I know that seems naive, but if you've lived so long without any real need to worry too much you don't tend to worry if you know what I mean. Well, I can understand, but I just don't see it that way. But again, this might be a difference in cultural thinking, as I strongly think it is now.
I'd prefer to not grow facial hair, it would save me time when I'm getting ready to go out. I also don't find facial hair attractive on other men (or on women for that matter, but I don't imagine many people like that...)
Never voted, and won't until I get offered some money to do it. If next week every hoodrat with a felon is given a government issued gun, then well, I guess I better poison all the koolaid. AHAH! I'm sorry, my humor... I'd just pick a new country if things got in my way too much. Or flee to the wild. The only opinion I have is government is too big. Okay, I have another opinion. Traffic cops and correctional officers should be decommissioned and flogged in the town center. Someone please let me know when that's on the ballet so I can register.
[QUOTE=" In my case the UK (like my home country, Finland) is simply too controlling: ban this, ban that, i.e. trying to fix a software problem (people's desire to hurt others) with hardware solutions (e.g. banning firearms, knives etc). I prefer freedom even if it means some jackass might gun me down with a legally owned, legally carried firearm. Hence the preference of the US over the UK and Finland.[/QUOTE] I'm surprised you think America is free. I agree that the UK is often referred to as a 'nanny state' as you can feel babysat as a citizen. But America is ruled by fear and paranoia, which their media feeds. The UK tabloids do a lot of this also, but the majority are level headed. Take the recent Ebola scare, the USA reported it as if it were Armageddon, the UK kind of said 'meh, perhaps 10 of us will die'.
I'm British and I'm personally against flat out gun bans from a personal freedom point of view, but I am in favour of pretty stringent licensing and background check requirements for owning guns, along with the ability to prosecute owners for negligence (maybe even manslaughter) if their guns are used in crimes and it can be shown they didn't store them properly. I think the UK laws were written in too much haste after Dunblane and could be liberalised somewhat without making the country any more dangerous.
I agree with @T.Trian that our country is too controlling like UK. USA is the best country for libertarian and especially if you are christian.
I'm surprised you think America is free. I agree that the UK is often referred to as a 'nanny state' as you can feel babysat as a citizen. But America is ruled by fear and paranoia, which their media feeds. The UK tabloids do a lot of this also, but the majority are level headed. Take the recent Ebola scare, the USA reported it as if it were Armageddon, the UK kind of said 'meh, perhaps 10 of us will die'.[/QUOTE] Media should be allowed the spread paranoia if they choose to do so. That is part of freedom. People aren't forced to watch them (or pay for them like here in Finland). Media out of control is better than media in control of the state.
Not too long ago I was passionately considering emigrating to Australia. However, to be honest, I'm beginning to find I like living in Britain. Autumn and Winter are my two favourite seasons in this country, I like the cold naturally. And even if I didn't like the UK still, I'd have to disagree with the idea that the US is the best place for a libertarian. Maybe if you are the sort of right-wing, Ayn Rand libertarian then yeah you are right, however if you are like me, a left-wing libertarian, the UK is better. We aren't so far to the right in our political culture, and we do have our Randiods (honestly, we do). Thankfully we still have a strong Socialist movement that is keeping things nice and diverse, and also nice and open, where people are not scared to say they are a Communist on TV, and I like that a lot. Imagine saying you are a Communist on American TV! If I understand Libertarianism at all it is about diversity, and allowing the debate, not saying 'No, the Free Market is god, and you are evil if you say otherwise! Now la-la-la-la!'
I'm almost 30 and female. Sufficeth to say, I am middle ground with social issues, I believe in the Constitution, less government intrusion, and fiscal responsibility. I think my country is going to be bankrupt in my lifetime, that putting programs on the credit card for the sake of altruism will result in the drastic reduction or elimination of social programs in the future out of necessity. Inflation is due to rise now that quantitative easing is finally over, and interest alone will be a heavy tax burden on my generation. And if our currency keeps getting devalued (our dollar has lost 40% of its value since 2000- did YOU get a 40% raise in that time? No? Yeah, neither did I), we could find ourselves no longer the oil standard. We could also have another credit rating drop that could impact our ability to borrow. To be frank, I wouldn't lend to this country. Not with over a hundred trillion in unfunded liabilities. All it takes is one more depression at some point between now and 2050- due to war, a solar flare, economic collapse, etc. and the tax base will drop significantly. Who's going to pay those social security checks when no one has a job and the government can't borrow as much as it use to? Don't rely on future generations for today's expenses. You SAVE for the future, not gamble that everything will be fine. We are walking a tight rope. Fiscal irresponsibility for the sake of social justice is disastrous. Take for example, the laws back a few years that required banks to lend out high-risk loans (because not giving people the chance to buy a house was racist- never mind that those people were harmed by the banks in the process). The whole ordeal only added to the housing bubble and subsequent recession after it burst. And giving everyone subsidies for healthcare that just have to be paid back later via taxes (with interest), means that taxes must keep going up up up because healthcare costs were NOT reduced by the ACA $2500 per family on average as promised. We still have 6% rising cost in healthcare this year, which will outpace wage increases even if the rate by some miracle freezes there (wages and real wealth for the middle class are down the since 2008 right as we are asked to share a much higher burden of our own healthcare costs in the form of higher deductibles, copays, and hidden gems in the ACA like "reference pricing", not to mention high gas costs and the effects of loose monetary policy set to raise the costs of everything within a year when inflation kicks back in). Spreading the cost of care across the population means higher costs for everyone, not lower. Because everyone will eventually need costly care at some point. The problem is, the previous generations didn't have such high costs at my age. They were able to save for retirement, yet I am asked to forgo my ability to save in order to offset their costs. It's wealth redistribution from the youngest and less wealthy demographic, to the older and wealthy. On top of that, Social Security at this point will only be able to cover 75% of promised benefits, meaning I need to save even MORE than they did. But how can we? Private market rates (we are ineligible for the exchanges), are $900 a month for a family of 5 in my state. Factor in a typical family deductible of 10 grand, and you've got a product you must spend $20,000 A YEAR on in a family that only makes 50K before the wretched thing even kicks in. You still have to pay 30% to 40% of the bill after that. If a family couldn't afford it and saved instead, they'd have $100,000 saved in 5 years, but families don't have that much cash in 5 years. How does the government expect us to find it? And then label us criminals because we can't afford it. In a couple of years the full penalty kicks in for not having insurance. $695 per person. Awesome, so a family can't afford theses outrages 20 grand a year policies and what does the government do? It fines them thousands of dollars for being too poor. That's just peachy.
I've noticed there are not many people here with children--or at least kids that are young or at home or taking up time in their parents' lives (i.e. not yet independent). This makes sense since people with kids don't usually have time to hang out on forums, but it definitely colors a lot of the opinions here. It is easy IMO to pick out who does, and does not have children on WF.
I'm on the west coast and I have 3 young kids. XD Oh, and I am more right-leaning than left. Therefore I defy all stereotypes of the site- ha! Though it should be noted I do not identity as republican, but third party. I consider myself a moderate- with passionate stance on financial responsibility and the Constitution.
The issue I, also a left-Libertarian, have with the Labour Party is how authoritarian they got under Blair and especially Brown. And some of the things Harriet Harman has come out with are insane (wanting to ban all hoodies in public places following the London riots, for example).
I agree - but I think I'm still voting for them, either them or the Greens. Though, what comedian put Ed Miliband in charge, I'll never know.
I'll be voting for the Greens assuming they stand here, or a local guy called Paul Baggaley who has been campaigning to keep services at Newark Hospital.
Well, you guys have universal healthcare, and it still amazes me the US doesn't. It's really a godsend if one has severe health problems. Sure, neither the UK nor Finland has things in that department as nicely covered as Norway (damn their oil), but it is still a relief. While I do believe in personal responsibility, the leftist in me supports the idea of a welfare state because I just find it more humane than this survival-of-the-fittest type of running of affairs that abandons people who've fallen on hard times.
That's because there's no Constitutional basis for universal healthcare. The ACA passed because it relied on private insurance exchanges propped up with taxpayer money- and even that was a monumental stretch to get passed. They had to mask the bill as a tax on the people, but the true purpose is not a tax but a fine. There is no Constitutional basis for fining citizens for not purchasing a third party product. It sets an unimaginable precedent. We can now be fined at the behest of the government for any number of grievances- so long as they call it a "tax" but that's an entirely different debate. There will never be universal healthcare in the US so long as the justices refrain from pulling anymore rights out of thin air, but who knows. I will say that the VA does not engender trust, nor medicaid. We already know that the ACA which cut from medicare will have to reduce or ration care to make up the difference. Smaller networks save costs be result in longer waiting times. This will only progress as our healthcare costs continue to rise year after year (because the actual cost of care was NOT addressed at all in the ACA). Back four years ago, I was expecting my second child. Surprise surprise, Washington State didn't have maternity coverage for the program I was on, so I was kicked to medicaid even though I was above the income threshold. I tried to get nausea medications. Medicaid wouldn't pay for them. So then I decided I wanted to buy my own because my life was MISERABLE. I couldn't get off the couch. But the pharmacy told me by law they couldn't sell me any, because it was an "undue hardship" on me to have to pay for my own. Never mind that my income was above others on the program. Never mind that I am a sovereign citizen and ought to have the dang right to buy my own medication to help the quality of my life when the government refused to help. I had to suffer for months. Now imagine if that had been life-saving medication not approved by medicaid. I would have had to have gone out of country to save my own life if we had universal healthcare. NO THANK YOU! Plus I couldn't afford the crippling taxes that would come out of our paycheck to pay for it- neither could the economy take the loss of disposable income of its patrons. No no no universal healthcare! Our country cannot afford it. It also cannot afford the ACA, but pushed it through anyway. Now with the gutted mandates that the president keeps waving, it's even less sustainable. Universal healthcare is rationed care. If I lived in the UK and was going blind, they wouldn't eve pay for simple eye surgery because it's not seen as "vital" to one's health. I don't know what it is now, but back a couple of years the cost to benefit ratio cap was set at something like 40grand before they rationed your care.
Yes, but they are not without their rationing and high-costs. The waiting time in Canada for a simple CAT scan or MRI procedure is up to one to two months. People die waiting. You all have access to equal care, but it will be of lower and lower quality as costs continue to rise. Plus, fee-for-services are banned (like my story above), meaning if something isn't covered, you are not legally able to purchase care for yourself because that would be unfair to everyone else who couldn't afford to do so. It's a way of punishing the "rich". What it really does is cost lives. I'd rather have my freedom any day.
I'm looking at Norway with very envious eyes right now. I live in the UK, and I was born with slight collaboma in one eye and bad collaboma in the other, which is a condition that leaves you blind, and you vision if you can see can start to deteriorate over time. I got the surgery when I was a baby, my bad eye is basically unsavable but the eye I can see out of will never go blind now - it was entirely on the NHS, my parents never paid a penny for it. The standard is will it affect your quality of life, and going blind kind of would. There are also private practices in the UK too, if you really must pay for it all yourself.
