You should considering this as an opportunity, if your views are more sensible than other and you can defend them logically and rationally, you can show people why what you think is best when you justify your views.

True that. Don't wanna get complacent

Reply 24

999tigger

Original post by HeroinAddict

I'm for a hyper localized form of government that respects people's rights to Life, property, self ownership free from intrusion.

That doesnt really throw much light on anything or why people might find t controversial.

Where do people not respect right to life, property ownership or rights to privacy?
How does that translate into people allegedly calling you a racist, fascist, bigot?

Reply 25

WhoElseButMe

Original post by 999tigger

Well folks realize that intrusion include government aid, welfare, regulation, healthcare, so on and so fourth. So they make a false assumption that I'm against the legitimate functions of the state.

For example, healthcare was provided for the poor and working class for cheap before the government did that.
This essay illustrates how it was done.

"
Medical Insurance that Worked — Until Government "Fixed" It by Roderick T. Long

Today, we are constantly being told, the United States faces a health care crisis. Medical costs are too high, and health insurance is out of reach of the poor. The cause of this crisis is never made very clear, but the cure is obvious to nearly everybody: government must step in to solve the problem.
Eighty years ago, Americans were also told that their nation was facing a health care crisis. Then, however, the complaint was that medical costs were too low, and that health insurance was too accessible. But in that era, too, government stepped forward to solve the problem. And boy, did it solve it!
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, one of the primary sources of health care and health insurance for the working poor in Britain, Australia, and the United States was the fraternal society. Fraternal societies (called "friendly societies" in Britain and Australia) were voluntary mutual-aid associations. Their descendants survive among us today in the form of the Shriners, Elks, Masons, and similar organizations, but these no longer play the central role in American life they formerly did. As recently as 1920, over one-quarter of all adult Americans were members of fraternal societies. (The figure was still higher in Britain and Australia.) Fraternal societies were particularly popular among blacks and immigrants. (Indeed, Teddy Roosevelt's famous attack on "hyphenated Americans" was motivated in part by hostility to the immigrants' fraternal societies; he and other Progressives sought to "Americanize" immigrants by making them dependent for support on the democratic state, rather than on their own independent ethnic communities.)
The principle behind the fraternal societies was simple. A group of working-class people would form an association (or join a local branch, or "lodge," of an existing association) and pay monthly fees into the association's treasury; individual members would then be able to draw on the pooled resources in time of need. The fraternal societies thus operated as a form of self-help insurance company.
Turn-of-the-century America offered a dizzying array of fraternal societies to choose from. Some catered to a particular ethnic or religious group; others did not. Many offered entertainment and social life to their members, or engaged in community service. Some "fraternal" societies were run entirely by and for women. The kinds of services from which members could choose often varied as well, though the most commonly offered were life insurance, disability insurance, and "lodge practice."
"Lodge practice" refers to an arrangement, reminiscent of today's HMOs, whereby a particular society or lodge would contract with a doctor to provide medical care to its members. The doctor received a regular salary on a retainer basis, rather than charging per item; members would pay a yearly fee and then call on the doctor's services as needed. If medical services were found unsatisfactory, the doctor would be penalized, and the contract might not be renewed. Lodge members reportedly enjoyed the degree of customer control this system afforded them. And the tendency to overuse the physician's services was kept in check by the fraternal society's own "self-policing"; lodge members who wanted to avoid future increases in premiums were motivated to make sure that their fellow members were not abusing the system.
Most remarkable was the low cost at which these medical services were provided. At the turn of the century, the average cost of "lodge practice" to an individual member was between one and two dollars a year. A day's wage would pay for a year's worth of medical care. By contrast, the average cost of medical service on the regular market was between one and two dollars per visit. Yet licensed physicians, particularly those who did not come from "big name" medical schools, competed vigorously for lodge contracts, perhaps because of the security they offered; and this competition continued to keep costs low.
The response of the medical establishment, both in America and in Britain, was one of outrage; the institution of lodge practice was denounced in harsh language and apocalyptic tones. Such low fees, many doctors charged, were bankrupting the medical profession. Moreover, many saw it as a blow to the dignity of the profession that trained physicians should be eagerly bidding for the chance to serve as the hirelings of lower-class tradesmen. It was particularly detestable that such uneducated and socially inferior people should be permitted to set fees for the physicians' services, or to sit in judgment on professionals to determine whether their services had been satisfactory. The government, they demanded, must do something.
And so it did. In Britain, the state put an end to the "evil" of lodge practice by bringing health care under political control. Physicians' fees would now be determined by panels of trained professionals (i.e., the physicians themselves) rather than by ignorant patients. State-financed medical care edged out lodge practice; those who were being forced to pay taxes for "free" health care whether they wanted it or not had little incentive to pay extra for health care through the fraternal societies, rather than using the government care they had already paid for.
In America, it took longer for the nation's health care system to be socialized, so the medical establishment had to achieve its ends more indirectly; but the essential result was the same. Medical societies like the AMA imposed sanctions on doctors who dared to sign lodge practice contracts. This might have been less effective if such medical societies had not had access to government power; but in fact, thanks to governmental grants of privilege, they controlled the medical licensure procedure, thus ensuring that those in their disfavor would be denied the right to practice medicine.
Such licensure laws also offered the medical establishment a less overt way of combating lodge practice. It was during this period that the AMA made the requirements for medical licensure far more strict than they had previously been. Their reason, they claimed, was to raise the quality of medical care. But the result was that the number of physicians fell, competition dwindled, and medical fees rose; the vast pool of physicians bidding for lodge practice contracts had been abolished. As with any market good, artifical restrictions on supply created higher prices — a particular hardship for the working-class members of fraternal societies.
The final death blow to lodge practice was struck by the fraternal societies themselves. The National Fraternal Congress — attempting, like the AMA, to reap the benefits of cartelization — lobbied for laws decreeing a legal minimum on the rates fraternal societies could charge. Unfortunately for the lobbyists, the lobbying effort was successful; the unintended consequence was that the minimum rates laws made the services of fraternal societies no longer competitive. Thus the National Fraternal Congress' lobbying efforts, rather than creating a formidable mutual-aid cartel, simply destroyed the fraternal societies' market niche — and with it the opportunity for low-cost health care for the working poor.
Why do we have a crisis in health care costs today? Because government "solved" the last one.
"

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 26

WhoElseButMe

Original post by Mathemagicien

Ewww, gross.

Yes, go to the US, don't pollute Europe.

Funny, the idea of limited government originated from Europe. Heard of John Locke before? What about Frédéric Bastiat? Europeans spreading the same "polluted" ideas

Reply 27

WhoElseButMe

Original post by Mathemagicien

And the US's religious fundamentalists originated from Europe. We are far better off without them.

I agree. But not all ideas are created equal.

Reply 28

999tigger

Perhaps the reason you are alone isnt because you are socially ostracised, but because its more specialist. Why not find some of the US political forums to make friends on? I dont think its being realistic to for friendly societies to take on the role of the NHS and the level of medical care currently afforded. Anyway the US healthcare system is distinctive and you will be able to enjoy it when you get there.

Maybe a gofundme page might help you pay for a ticket?

Reply 29

AperfectBalance

Original post by AishaGirl

The last thing we need is your kind infecting our capital.

The capital belongs to Britain and its culture and views not to you

Reply 30

VATS

Original post by Mathemagicien

lmao, unless you are ethnically Chinese, moving to China would be a silly thing to do :rofl:

The UK will be out of the game on its own, but the EU would be among the superpowers.

Reply 31

WhoElseButMe

Original post by 999tigger

I'm all good @999tigger thanks, really. But I'm just whining about it cause it's fun. I have no plan to leave the UK anytime soon. I might consider it after finishing this school stuff. But I'm fine, it's not like I'm having a crisis because folks don't agree with me.

And the US healthcare system is horrendous for many reasons.

Reply 32

WhoElseButMe

Original post by VATS

kek. Hate when that happens

Reply 33

username2808800

Original post by HeroinAddict

And that's why I'm here!

Do you want to join the tories in the model house of commons?

Reply 34

EternalLight

Original post by AperfectBalance

The capital belongs to Britain and its culture and views not to you

I never said it belongs to me :s-smilie:

I just don't want to see my beloved capital turn into Trump City.

Reply 35

AperfectBalance

Original post by HeroinAddict

I'm for a hyper localized form of government that respects people's rights to Life, property, self ownership free from intrusion.

I am all for localized govt that feeds into westminister and I roughly agree with what you say.

If you had to allign yourself with one politician from the UK who would you choose, I would go with Thatcher

Reply 36

999tigger

Original post by VATS

Go on get it all out and dont hold back. I think the UK will manage ok without you.

Reply 37

VATS

Original post by AishaGirl

I never said it belongs to me :s-smilie:

I just don't want to see my beloved capital turn into Trump City.

What's wrong with Trump?

Reply 38

WhoElseButMe

Original post by fleky6910

Do you want to join the tories in the model house of commons?

Not a fan of the tories.

Reply 39

AperfectBalance

Original post by AishaGirl

I never said it belongs to me :s-smilie:

I just don't want to see my beloved capital turn into Trump City.

I mean look at london we have a stupid mayor and london has many areas that are just horrible if you look beyond the nice shops. and why must you think that anything right wing is "trump" like