Despite soaking up more than -u200 billion of taxpayersrCO money per year, (over 40% of all UK government day-to-day departmental spending,
around 11% GDP)
the NHS and health policy more widely are two areas which have gone
ignored. Since the coalition governmentrCOs half-baked reforms, BritainrCOs approach to health policy can be summarised as: give the NHS money and
hope for the best.
This approach is running out of road. Over the last few years, the NHS
has faced unprecedented pressure. A combination of bad winters and the shocks of the pandemic have left it in a poor state, with high waiting
lists and demoralised staff. Clearly something isnrCOt working. The
current government has continued where the Tories left off, papering
over the cracks. Something has to change. But what? The NHS is spoken
about like a national religion, and reforming it is believed to be a
third rail of British politics.
In the pandemic, the public were implored to rCyprotect the NHSrCO, rather than expect the health service to protect the public. The establishment
of the NHS was treated like one of BritainrCOs founding myths, akin to Alfred the Great or the Battle of Hastings, in the opening ceremony to
the 2012 Olympic Games. This sentiment also manifested itself in public opinion, such as the Clap for Carers initiative in 2020 and 2023 polling which found more than half of British citizens believed the NHS made
them proud to be British.
But if both taxes and NHS spending are at record highs, and yet the
health service refuses to improve, then something has to give. That is
why Prosperity Institute conducted a 5,000-person poll with Merlin
Strategy this winter. We wanted to find out whether the public still do treat the NHS like some kind of sacred cow, whether they believe it is working and what should be done.
The findings reveal a country finally in the mood to try something different. The public are disillusioned with the NHS, its funding model,
the quality of its services and its priorities. Anyone who wishes to
grasp the nettle of NHS reform should take heart in the results, as they suggest the British people are far more willing to roll the dice and try something new.
Naturally, the NHS is one of the publicrCOs highest priority issues. Forty-nine per cent of voters said the NHS was in one of their top three concerns, behind only the economy, chosen by 66 per cent, and
immigration, listed by 50 per cent of the population. Though it may seem obvious, these three issues remain the central concerns of the voting public, and they overlap in many ways.
While our polling found that the public believed funding is one of the biggest challenges the NHS faces, 59 per cent of voters believed that
NHS reform should be prioritised over increased funding. Private
healthcare has become remarkably popular, with 60 per cent of voters reporting that they would use it if they could afford it and, if recent figures are anything to go by, a large and growing proportion of the population is doing just that: more than 8.4 million people had private health insurance as of 2024.
Of course, it is worth examining if people are turning to private
healthcare as a last resort, using the market where the NHS has failed, which is what many have claimed regarding the high levels of
out-of-pocket expenditure on private healthcare these days. But our
polling revealed high levels of trust in private practitioners as well.
Similarly, when asked about the publicrCOs preferred healthcare systems
from around the world, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany and
Australia came out on top. All are countries with a mixed model of provision, where the state, the private sector and charities deliver healthcare in a more competitive system with better results than the NHS.
While it is worth bearing in mind that the publicrCOs awareness of the details of these countriesrCO health policies may vary rCo Switzerland is generally assumed to be a well-run, efficient country rCo thousands of British doctors have moved to practise in Australia recently, and it is highly likely that many British people will have heard about the better state of their health service from friends or family. Unsurprisingly,
the public remain hostile to an American-style model, which is still associated with expensive treatments and insurance costs.
These findings are a useful reminder that the public understand that the health policy dichotomy of rCythe NHS or AmericarCO often posed in British politics is false, and there is a whole world of functioning, accessible healthcare out there, much of it on our doorstep.
In a sense, it is hardly surprising that the public are ready for
reforming the health service. Taxes and immigration are at record highs,
two policies which the government claims were chosen to support the NHS,
but without the public seeing a notable improvement in care as a consequence. Indeed, our polling reveals that the public believe that immigration is a burden on the health service rather than a net benefit
by a significant margin rCo 49 per cent versus just 22 per cent respectively.
This is a view shared by Reform, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, SNP and Plaid Cymru voters. Whether this reflects public dissatisfaction with immigration because it increases demand on the health service or because
of poor-quality care deserves further research; however, our survey
revealed a strong public preference for training more British doctors
and nurses, and around 42 per cent of voters believe that the quality of care provided by foreign staff in the NHS is worse than that offered by British doctors.
The public have a far greater appetite for reforming the delivery and funding of the health service than ever before. BritainrCOs politicians should have the courage to re-establish a new social contract with the public when it comes to public services, one which respects British taxpayers and strives to create the finest public services for British people in the world, taking inspiration from best practice in other countries. The public, evidently, are running out of patience, and wonrCOt forgive the political class if it passes the buck to the next generation once more.
Fred De Fossard
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
Despite soaking up more than -u200 billion of taxpayersrCO money per year, >> (over 40% of all UK government day-to-day departmental spending,
around 11% GDP)
the NHS and health policy more widely are two areas which have gone
ignored. Since the coalition governmentrCOs half-baked reforms, BritainrCOs >> approach to health policy can be summarised as: give the NHS money and
hope for the best.
This approach is running out of road. Over the last few years, the NHS
has faced unprecedented pressure. A combination of bad winters and the
shocks of the pandemic have left it in a poor state, with high waiting
lists and demoralised staff. Clearly something isnrCOt working. The
current government has continued where the Tories left off, papering
over the cracks. Something has to change. But what? The NHS is spoken
about like a national religion, and reforming it is believed to be a
third rail of British politics.
In the pandemic, the public were implored to rCyprotect the NHSrCO, rather >> than expect the health service to protect the public. The establishment
of the NHS was treated like one of BritainrCOs founding myths, akin to
Alfred the Great or the Battle of Hastings, in the opening ceremony to
the 2012 Olympic Games. This sentiment also manifested itself in public
opinion, such as the Clap for Carers initiative in 2020 and 2023 polling
which found more than half of British citizens believed the NHS made
them proud to be British.
But if both taxes and NHS spending are at record highs, and yet the
health service refuses to improve, then something has to give. That is
why Prosperity Institute conducted a 5,000-person poll with Merlin
Strategy this winter. We wanted to find out whether the public still do
treat the NHS like some kind of sacred cow, whether they believe it is
working and what should be done.
The findings reveal a country finally in the mood to try something
different. The public are disillusioned with the NHS, its funding model,
the quality of its services and its priorities. Anyone who wishes to
grasp the nettle of NHS reform should take heart in the results, as they
suggest the British people are far more willing to roll the dice and try
something new.
Naturally, the NHS is one of the publicrCOs highest priority issues.
Forty-nine per cent of voters said the NHS was in one of their top three
concerns, behind only the economy, chosen by 66 per cent, and
immigration, listed by 50 per cent of the population. Though it may seem
obvious, these three issues remain the central concerns of the voting
public, and they overlap in many ways.
While our polling found that the public believed funding is one of the
biggest challenges the NHS faces, 59 per cent of voters believed that
NHS reform should be prioritised over increased funding. Private
healthcare has become remarkably popular, with 60 per cent of voters
reporting that they would use it if they could afford it and, if recent
figures are anything to go by, a large and growing proportion of the
population is doing just that: more than 8.4 million people had private
health insurance as of 2024.
Of course, it is worth examining if people are turning to private
healthcare as a last resort, using the market where the NHS has failed,
which is what many have claimed regarding the high levels of
out-of-pocket expenditure on private healthcare these days. But our
polling revealed high levels of trust in private practitioners as well.
Similarly, when asked about the publicrCOs preferred healthcare systems
from around the world, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany and
Australia came out on top. All are countries with a mixed model of
provision, where the state, the private sector and charities deliver
healthcare in a more competitive system with better results than the NHS.
While it is worth bearing in mind that the publicrCOs awareness of the
details of these countriesrCO health policies may vary rCo Switzerland is
generally assumed to be a well-run, efficient country rCo thousands of
British doctors have moved to practise in Australia recently, and it is
highly likely that many British people will have heard about the better
state of their health service from friends or family. Unsurprisingly,
the public remain hostile to an American-style model, which is still
associated with expensive treatments and insurance costs.
These findings are a useful reminder that the public understand that the
health policy dichotomy of rCythe NHS or AmericarCO often posed in British >> politics is false, and there is a whole world of functioning, accessible
healthcare out there, much of it on our doorstep.
In a sense, it is hardly surprising that the public are ready for
reforming the health service. Taxes and immigration are at record highs,
two policies which the government claims were chosen to support the NHS,
but without the public seeing a notable improvement in care as a
consequence. Indeed, our polling reveals that the public believe that
immigration is a burden on the health service rather than a net benefit
by a significant margin rCo 49 per cent versus just 22 per cent respectively.
This is a view shared by Reform, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, SNP and
Plaid Cymru voters. Whether this reflects public dissatisfaction with
immigration because it increases demand on the health service or because
of poor-quality care deserves further research; however, our survey
revealed a strong public preference for training more British doctors
and nurses, and around 42 per cent of voters believe that the quality of
care provided by foreign staff in the NHS is worse than that offered by
British doctors.
The public have a far greater appetite for reforming the delivery and
funding of the health service than ever before. BritainrCOs politicians
should have the courage to re-establish a new social contract with the
public when it comes to public services, one which respects British
taxpayers and strives to create the finest public services for British
people in the world, taking inspiration from best practice in other
countries. The public, evidently, are running out of patience, and wonrCOt >> forgive the political class if it passes the buck to the next generation
once more.
Fred De Fossard
WerCOre in trouble as well. Our system started to have problems in late 80rCOs/
early nineties. Before that, it was stellar. How it happened is ? How to
fix it is ? as well. WerCOre looking at Switzerland and Australia, Germany etc.
typical market fundie whining
uk/canada both pay less for it's system vs us/switzerland/austria/germany
because it's funded by taxes ya'll can just increase taxes in a
progressive manner instead of whining about muh reform endlessly, and it >will hit ur average person less
why are you such a fking psychopathic retard julian?
On 2/25/26 8:50 AM, Tara wrote:--
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
Despite soaking up more than u200 billion of taxpayersA money per year,
(over 40% of all UK government day-to-day departmental spending,
around 11% GDP)
the NHS and health policy more widely are two areas which have gone
ignored. Since the coalition governmentAs half-baked reforms, BritainAs
approach to health policy can be summarised as: give the NHS money and
hope for the best.
This approach is running out of road. Over the last few years, the NHS
has faced unprecedented pressure. A combination of bad winters and the
shocks of the pandemic have left it in a poor state, with high waiting
lists and demoralised staff. Clearly something isnAt working. The
current government has continued where the Tories left off, papering
over the cracks. Something has to change. But what? The NHS is spoken
about like a national religion, and reforming it is believed to be a
third rail of British politics.
In the pandemic, the public were implored to aprotect the NHSA, rather
than expect the health service to protect the public. The establishment
of the NHS was treated like one of BritainAs founding myths, akin to
Alfred the Great or the Battle of Hastings, in the opening ceremony to
the 2012 Olympic Games. This sentiment also manifested itself in public
opinion, such as the Clap for Carers initiative in 2020 and 2023 polling >>> which found more than half of British citizens believed the NHS made
them proud to be British.
But if both taxes and NHS spending are at record highs, and yet the
health service refuses to improve, then something has to give. That is
why Prosperity Institute conducted a 5,000-person poll with Merlin
Strategy this winter. We wanted to find out whether the public still do
treat the NHS like some kind of sacred cow, whether they believe it is
working and what should be done.
The findings reveal a country finally in the mood to try something
different. The public are disillusioned with the NHS, its funding model, >>> the quality of its services and its priorities. Anyone who wishes to
grasp the nettle of NHS reform should take heart in the results, as they >>> suggest the British people are far more willing to roll the dice and try >>> something new.
Naturally, the NHS is one of the publicAs highest priority issues.
Forty-nine per cent of voters said the NHS was in one of their top three >>> concerns, behind only the economy, chosen by 66 per cent, and
immigration, listed by 50 per cent of the population. Though it may seem >>> obvious, these three issues remain the central concerns of the voting
public, and they overlap in many ways.
While our polling found that the public believed funding is one of the
biggest challenges the NHS faces, 59 per cent of voters believed that
NHS reform should be prioritised over increased funding. Private
healthcare has become remarkably popular, with 60 per cent of voters
reporting that they would use it if they could afford it and, if recent
figures are anything to go by, a large and growing proportion of the
population is doing just that: more than 8.4 million people had private
health insurance as of 2024.
Of course, it is worth examining if people are turning to private
healthcare as a last resort, using the market where the NHS has failed,
which is what many have claimed regarding the high levels of
out-of-pocket expenditure on private healthcare these days. But our
polling revealed high levels of trust in private practitioners as well.
Similarly, when asked about the publicAs preferred healthcare systems
from around the world, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany and
Australia came out on top. All are countries with a mixed model of
provision, where the state, the private sector and charities deliver
healthcare in a more competitive system with better results than the NHS. >>>
While it is worth bearing in mind that the publicAs awareness of the
details of these countriesA health policies may vary u Switzerland is
generally assumed to be a well-run, efficient country u thousands of
British doctors have moved to practise in Australia recently, and it is
highly likely that many British people will have heard about the better
state of their health service from friends or family. Unsurprisingly,
the public remain hostile to an American-style model, which is still
associated with expensive treatments and insurance costs.
These findings are a useful reminder that the public understand that the >>> health policy dichotomy of athe NHS or AmericaA often posed in British
politics is false, and there is a whole world of functioning, accessible >>> healthcare out there, much of it on our doorstep.
In a sense, it is hardly surprising that the public are ready for
reforming the health service. Taxes and immigration are at record highs, >>> two policies which the government claims were chosen to support the NHS, >>> but without the public seeing a notable improvement in care as a
consequence. Indeed, our polling reveals that the public believe that
immigration is a burden on the health service rather than a net benefit
by a significant margin u 49 per cent versus just 22 per cent respectively. >>>
This is a view shared by Reform, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, SNP and >>> Plaid Cymru voters. Whether this reflects public dissatisfaction with
immigration because it increases demand on the health service or because >>> of poor-quality care deserves further research; however, our survey
revealed a strong public preference for training more British doctors
and nurses, and around 42 per cent of voters believe that the quality of >>> care provided by foreign staff in the NHS is worse than that offered by
British doctors.
The public have a far greater appetite for reforming the delivery and
funding of the health service than ever before. BritainAs politicians
should have the courage to re-establish a new social contract with the
public when it comes to public services, one which respects British
taxpayers and strives to create the finest public services for British
people in the world, taking inspiration from best practice in other
countries. The public, evidently, are running out of patience, and wonAt >>> forgive the political class if it passes the buck to the next generation >>> once more.
Fred De Fossard
WeAre in trouble as well. Our system started to have problems in late 80As/ >> early nineties. Before that, it was stellar. How it happened is ? How to
fix it is ? as well. WeAre looking at Switzerland and Australia, Germany
etc.
typical market fundie whining
uk/canada both pay less for it's system vs us/switzerland/austria/germany
because it's funded by taxes ya'll can just increase taxes in a
progressive manner instead of whining about muh reform endlessly, and it will hit ur average person less
why are you such a fking psychopathic retard julian?
On 2/25/26 8:50 AM, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
Despite soaking up more than -u200 billion of taxpayersrCO money per year, >>> (over 40% of all UK government day-to-day departmental spending,
around 11% GDP)
the NHS and health policy more widely are two areas which have gone
ignored. Since the coalition governmentrCOs half-baked reforms, BritainrCOs >>> approach to health policy can be summarised as: give the NHS money and
hope for the best.
This approach is running out of road. Over the last few years, the NHS
has faced unprecedented pressure. A combination of bad winters and the
shocks of the pandemic have left it in a poor state, with high waiting
lists and demoralised staff. Clearly something isnrCOt working. The
current government has continued where the Tories left off, papering
over the cracks. Something has to change. But what? The NHS is spoken
about like a national religion, and reforming it is believed to be a
third rail of British politics.
In the pandemic, the public were implored to rCyprotect the NHSrCO, rather >>> than expect the health service to protect the public. The establishment
of the NHS was treated like one of BritainrCOs founding myths, akin to
Alfred the Great or the Battle of Hastings, in the opening ceremony to
the 2012 Olympic Games. This sentiment also manifested itself in public
opinion, such as the Clap for Carers initiative in 2020 and 2023 polling >>> which found more than half of British citizens believed the NHS made
them proud to be British.
But if both taxes and NHS spending are at record highs, and yet the
health service refuses to improve, then something has to give. That is
why Prosperity Institute conducted a 5,000-person poll with Merlin
Strategy this winter. We wanted to find out whether the public still do
treat the NHS like some kind of sacred cow, whether they believe it is
working and what should be done.
The findings reveal a country finally in the mood to try something
different. The public are disillusioned with the NHS, its funding model, >>> the quality of its services and its priorities. Anyone who wishes to
grasp the nettle of NHS reform should take heart in the results, as they >>> suggest the British people are far more willing to roll the dice and try >>> something new.
Naturally, the NHS is one of the publicrCOs highest priority issues.
Forty-nine per cent of voters said the NHS was in one of their top three >>> concerns, behind only the economy, chosen by 66 per cent, and
immigration, listed by 50 per cent of the population. Though it may seem >>> obvious, these three issues remain the central concerns of the voting
public, and they overlap in many ways.
While our polling found that the public believed funding is one of the
biggest challenges the NHS faces, 59 per cent of voters believed that
NHS reform should be prioritised over increased funding. Private
healthcare has become remarkably popular, with 60 per cent of voters
reporting that they would use it if they could afford it and, if recent
figures are anything to go by, a large and growing proportion of the
population is doing just that: more than 8.4 million people had private
health insurance as of 2024.
Of course, it is worth examining if people are turning to private
healthcare as a last resort, using the market where the NHS has failed,
which is what many have claimed regarding the high levels of
out-of-pocket expenditure on private healthcare these days. But our
polling revealed high levels of trust in private practitioners as well.
Similarly, when asked about the publicrCOs preferred healthcare systems
from around the world, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany and
Australia came out on top. All are countries with a mixed model of
provision, where the state, the private sector and charities deliver
healthcare in a more competitive system with better results than the
NHS.
While it is worth bearing in mind that the publicrCOs awareness of the
details of these countriesrCO health policies may vary rCo Switzerland is >>> generally assumed to be a well-run, efficient country rCo thousands of
British doctors have moved to practise in Australia recently, and it is
highly likely that many British people will have heard about the better
state of their health service from friends or family. Unsurprisingly,
the public remain hostile to an American-style model, which is still
associated with expensive treatments and insurance costs.
These findings are a useful reminder that the public understand that the >>> health policy dichotomy of rCythe NHS or AmericarCO often posed in British >>> politics is false, and there is a whole world of functioning, accessible >>> healthcare out there, much of it on our doorstep.
In a sense, it is hardly surprising that the public are ready for
reforming the health service. Taxes and immigration are at record highs, >>> two policies which the government claims were chosen to support the NHS, >>> but without the public seeing a notable improvement in care as a
consequence. Indeed, our polling reveals that the public believe that
immigration is a burden on the health service rather than a net benefit
by a significant margin rCo 49 per cent versus just 22 per cent
respectively.
This is a view shared by Reform, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, SNP and >>> Plaid Cymru voters. Whether this reflects public dissatisfaction with
immigration because it increases demand on the health service or because >>> of poor-quality care deserves further research; however, our survey
revealed a strong public preference for training more British doctors
and nurses, and around 42 per cent of voters believe that the quality of >>> care provided by foreign staff in the NHS is worse than that offered by
British doctors.
The public have a far greater appetite for reforming the delivery and
funding of the health service than ever before. BritainrCOs politicians
should have the courage to re-establish a new social contract with the
public when it comes to public services, one which respects British
taxpayers and strives to create the finest public services for British
people in the world, taking inspiration from best practice in other
countries. The public, evidently, are running out of patience, and wonrCOt >>> forgive the political class if it passes the buck to the next generation >>> once more.
Fred De Fossard
WerCOre in trouble as well. Our system started to have problems in late
80rCOs/
early nineties. Before that, it was stellar. How it happened is ?-a How to >> fix it is ? as well. WerCOre looking at Switzerland and Australia, Germany >> etc.
On 2/25/2026 9:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
typical market fundie whiningWe are going to have see some data on that.
uk/canada both pay less for it's system vs us/switzerland/austria/germany
because it's funded by taxes ya'll can just increase taxes in aThat's one solution: raise taxes with a 50% flat tax on income for
progressive manner instead of whining about muh reform endlessly, and it
will hit ur average person less
everyone under the age of 75.
why are you such a fking psychopathic retard julian?This is supposed to be a conversation among equals, Nick.
--On 2/25/26 8:50 AM, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
Despite soaking up more than u200 billion of taxpayersA money per year, >>>> (over 40% of all UK government day-to-day departmental spending,
around 11% GDP)
the NHS and health policy more widely are two areas which have gone
ignored. Since the coalition governmentAs half-baked reforms, BritainAs >>>> approach to health policy can be summarised as: give the NHS money and >>>> hope for the best.
This approach is running out of road. Over the last few years, the NHS >>>> has faced unprecedented pressure. A combination of bad winters and the >>>> shocks of the pandemic have left it in a poor state, with high waiting >>>> lists and demoralised staff. Clearly something isnAt working. The
current government has continued where the Tories left off, papering
over the cracks. Something has to change. But what? The NHS is spoken
about like a national religion, and reforming it is believed to be a
third rail of British politics.
In the pandemic, the public were implored to aprotect the NHSA, rather >>>> than expect the health service to protect the public. The establishment >>>> of the NHS was treated like one of BritainAs founding myths, akin to
Alfred the Great or the Battle of Hastings, in the opening ceremony to >>>> the 2012 Olympic Games. This sentiment also manifested itself in public >>>> opinion, such as the Clap for Carers initiative in 2020 and 2023 polling >>>> which found more than half of British citizens believed the NHS made
them proud to be British.
But if both taxes and NHS spending are at record highs, and yet the
health service refuses to improve, then something has to give. That is >>>> why Prosperity Institute conducted a 5,000-person poll with Merlin
Strategy this winter. We wanted to find out whether the public still do >>>> treat the NHS like some kind of sacred cow, whether they believe it is >>>> working and what should be done.
The findings reveal a country finally in the mood to try something
different. The public are disillusioned with the NHS, its funding model, >>>> the quality of its services and its priorities. Anyone who wishes to
grasp the nettle of NHS reform should take heart in the results, as they >>>> suggest the British people are far more willing to roll the dice and try >>>> something new.
Naturally, the NHS is one of the publicAs highest priority issues.
Forty-nine per cent of voters said the NHS was in one of their top three >>>> concerns, behind only the economy, chosen by 66 per cent, and
immigration, listed by 50 per cent of the population. Though it may seem >>>> obvious, these three issues remain the central concerns of the voting
public, and they overlap in many ways.
While our polling found that the public believed funding is one of the >>>> biggest challenges the NHS faces, 59 per cent of voters believed that
NHS reform should be prioritised over increased funding. Private
healthcare has become remarkably popular, with 60 per cent of voters
reporting that they would use it if they could afford it and, if recent >>>> figures are anything to go by, a large and growing proportion of the
population is doing just that: more than 8.4 million people had private >>>> health insurance as of 2024.
Of course, it is worth examining if people are turning to private
healthcare as a last resort, using the market where the NHS has failed, >>>> which is what many have claimed regarding the high levels of
out-of-pocket expenditure on private healthcare these days. But our
polling revealed high levels of trust in private practitioners as well. >>>>
Similarly, when asked about the publicAs preferred healthcare systems
from around the world, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany and
Australia came out on top. All are countries with a mixed model of
provision, where the state, the private sector and charities deliver
healthcare in a more competitive system with better results than the
NHS.
While it is worth bearing in mind that the publicAs awareness of the
details of these countriesA health policies may vary u Switzerland is
generally assumed to be a well-run, efficient country u thousands of
British doctors have moved to practise in Australia recently, and it is >>>> highly likely that many British people will have heard about the better >>>> state of their health service from friends or family. Unsurprisingly,
the public remain hostile to an American-style model, which is still
associated with expensive treatments and insurance costs.
These findings are a useful reminder that the public understand that the >>>> health policy dichotomy of athe NHS or AmericaA often posed in British >>>> politics is false, and there is a whole world of functioning, accessible >>>> healthcare out there, much of it on our doorstep.
In a sense, it is hardly surprising that the public are ready for
reforming the health service. Taxes and immigration are at record highs, >>>> two policies which the government claims were chosen to support the NHS, >>>> but without the public seeing a notable improvement in care as a
consequence. Indeed, our polling reveals that the public believe that
immigration is a burden on the health service rather than a net benefit >>>> by a significant margin u 49 per cent versus just 22 per cent
respectively.
This is a view shared by Reform, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, SNP and >>>> Plaid Cymru voters. Whether this reflects public dissatisfaction with
immigration because it increases demand on the health service or because >>>> of poor-quality care deserves further research; however, our survey
revealed a strong public preference for training more British doctors
and nurses, and around 42 per cent of voters believe that the quality of >>>> care provided by foreign staff in the NHS is worse than that offered by >>>> British doctors.
The public have a far greater appetite for reforming the delivery and
funding of the health service than ever before. BritainAs politicians
should have the courage to re-establish a new social contract with the >>>> public when it comes to public services, one which respects British
taxpayers and strives to create the finest public services for British >>>> people in the world, taking inspiration from best practice in other
countries. The public, evidently, are running out of patience, and wonAt >>>> forgive the political class if it passes the buck to the next generation >>>> once more.
Fred De Fossard
WeAre in trouble as well. Our system started to have problems in late
80As/
early nineties. Before that, it was stellar. How it happened is ?a How to >>> fix it is ? as well. WeAre looking at Switzerland and Australia, Germany >>> etc.
On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 09:42:56 -0800, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
typical market fundie whining
uk/canada both pay less for it's system vs us/switzerland/austria/germany
because it's funded by taxes ya'll can just increase taxes in a
progressive manner instead of whining about muh reform endlessly, and it
will hit ur average person less
why are you such a fking psychopathic retard julian?
Psychopaths are usually quite smart and competent.
It goes with the territory along with having no empathy whatever.
Julian believes we are the retarded ones.
We are inferior so we get what we deserve.>Two of you can't even key in a sentence using good grammar and punctuation!
On 2/25/26 8:50 AM, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
Despite soaking up more than -u200 billion of taxpayersrCO money per year, >>>> (over 40% of all UK government day-to-day departmental spending,
around 11% GDP)
the NHS and health policy more widely are two areas which have gone
ignored. Since the coalition governmentrCOs half-baked reforms, BritainrCOs
approach to health policy can be summarised as: give the NHS money and >>>> hope for the best.
This approach is running out of road. Over the last few years, the NHS >>>> has faced unprecedented pressure. A combination of bad winters and the >>>> shocks of the pandemic have left it in a poor state, with high waiting >>>> lists and demoralised staff. Clearly something isnrCOt working. The
current government has continued where the Tories left off, papering
over the cracks. Something has to change. But what? The NHS is spoken
about like a national religion, and reforming it is believed to be a
third rail of British politics.
In the pandemic, the public were implored to rCyprotect the NHSrCO, rather >>>> than expect the health service to protect the public. The establishment >>>> of the NHS was treated like one of BritainrCOs founding myths, akin to >>>> Alfred the Great or the Battle of Hastings, in the opening ceremony to >>>> the 2012 Olympic Games. This sentiment also manifested itself in public >>>> opinion, such as the Clap for Carers initiative in 2020 and 2023 polling >>>> which found more than half of British citizens believed the NHS made
them proud to be British.
But if both taxes and NHS spending are at record highs, and yet the
health service refuses to improve, then something has to give. That is >>>> why Prosperity Institute conducted a 5,000-person poll with Merlin
Strategy this winter. We wanted to find out whether the public still do >>>> treat the NHS like some kind of sacred cow, whether they believe it is >>>> working and what should be done.
The findings reveal a country finally in the mood to try something
different. The public are disillusioned with the NHS, its funding model, >>>> the quality of its services and its priorities. Anyone who wishes to
grasp the nettle of NHS reform should take heart in the results, as they >>>> suggest the British people are far more willing to roll the dice and try >>>> something new.
Naturally, the NHS is one of the publicrCOs highest priority issues.
Forty-nine per cent of voters said the NHS was in one of their top three >>>> concerns, behind only the economy, chosen by 66 per cent, and
immigration, listed by 50 per cent of the population. Though it may seem >>>> obvious, these three issues remain the central concerns of the voting
public, and they overlap in many ways.
While our polling found that the public believed funding is one of the >>>> biggest challenges the NHS faces, 59 per cent of voters believed that
NHS reform should be prioritised over increased funding. Private
healthcare has become remarkably popular, with 60 per cent of voters
reporting that they would use it if they could afford it and, if recent >>>> figures are anything to go by, a large and growing proportion of the
population is doing just that: more than 8.4 million people had private >>>> health insurance as of 2024.
Of course, it is worth examining if people are turning to private
healthcare as a last resort, using the market where the NHS has failed, >>>> which is what many have claimed regarding the high levels of
out-of-pocket expenditure on private healthcare these days. But our
polling revealed high levels of trust in private practitioners as well. >>>>
Similarly, when asked about the publicrCOs preferred healthcare systems >>>> from around the world, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany and
Australia came out on top. All are countries with a mixed model of
provision, where the state, the private sector and charities deliver
healthcare in a more competitive system with better results than the NHS. >>>>
While it is worth bearing in mind that the publicrCOs awareness of the >>>> details of these countriesrCO health policies may vary rCo Switzerland is >>>> generally assumed to be a well-run, efficient country rCo thousands of >>>> British doctors have moved to practise in Australia recently, and it is >>>> highly likely that many British people will have heard about the better >>>> state of their health service from friends or family. Unsurprisingly,
the public remain hostile to an American-style model, which is still
associated with expensive treatments and insurance costs.
These findings are a useful reminder that the public understand that the >>>> health policy dichotomy of rCythe NHS or AmericarCO often posed in British >>>> politics is false, and there is a whole world of functioning, accessible >>>> healthcare out there, much of it on our doorstep.
In a sense, it is hardly surprising that the public are ready for
reforming the health service. Taxes and immigration are at record highs, >>>> two policies which the government claims were chosen to support the NHS, >>>> but without the public seeing a notable improvement in care as a
consequence. Indeed, our polling reveals that the public believe that
immigration is a burden on the health service rather than a net benefit >>>> by a significant margin rCo 49 per cent versus just 22 per cent respectively.
This is a view shared by Reform, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, SNP and >>>> Plaid Cymru voters. Whether this reflects public dissatisfaction with
immigration because it increases demand on the health service or because >>>> of poor-quality care deserves further research; however, our survey
revealed a strong public preference for training more British doctors
and nurses, and around 42 per cent of voters believe that the quality of >>>> care provided by foreign staff in the NHS is worse than that offered by >>>> British doctors.
The public have a far greater appetite for reforming the delivery and
funding of the health service than ever before. BritainrCOs politicians >>>> should have the courage to re-establish a new social contract with the >>>> public when it comes to public services, one which respects British
taxpayers and strives to create the finest public services for British >>>> people in the world, taking inspiration from best practice in other
countries. The public, evidently, are running out of patience, and wonrCOt >>>> forgive the political class if it passes the buck to the next generation >>>> once more.
Fred De Fossard
WerCOre in trouble as well. Our system started to have problems in late 80rCOs/
early nineties. Before that, it was stellar. How it happened is ? How to >>> fix it is ? as well. WerCOre looking at Switzerland and Australia, Germany >>> etc.
On 2/25/2026 9:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
typical market fundie whiningWe are going to have see some data on that.
uk/canada both pay less for it's system vs us/switzerland/austria/germany
because it's funded by taxes ya'll can just increase taxes in aThat's one solution: raise taxes with a 50% flat tax on income for
progressive manner instead of whining about muh reform endlessly, and
it will hit ur average person less
everyone under the age of 75.
why are you such a fking psychopathic retard julian?This is supposed to be a conversation among equals, Nick.
ya'll are fking psychopathic Efnis
#god
On 2/25/26 8:50 AM, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
Despite soaking up more than -u200 billion of taxpayersrCO money per year, >>>> (over 40% of all UK government day-to-day departmental spending,
around 11% GDP)
the NHS and health policy more widely are two areas which have gone
ignored. Since the coalition governmentrCOs half-baked reforms, BritainrCOs
approach to health policy can be summarised as: give the NHS money and >>>> hope for the best.
This approach is running out of road. Over the last few years, the NHS >>>> has faced unprecedented pressure. A combination of bad winters and the >>>> shocks of the pandemic have left it in a poor state, with high waiting >>>> lists and demoralised staff. Clearly something isnrCOt working. The
current government has continued where the Tories left off, papering
over the cracks. Something has to change. But what? The NHS is spoken
about like a national religion, and reforming it is believed to be a
third rail of British politics.
In the pandemic, the public were implored to rCyprotect the NHSrCO, rather >>>> than expect the health service to protect the public. The establishment >>>> of the NHS was treated like one of BritainrCOs founding myths, akin to >>>> Alfred the Great or the Battle of Hastings, in the opening ceremony to >>>> the 2012 Olympic Games. This sentiment also manifested itself in public >>>> opinion, such as the Clap for Carers initiative in 2020 and 2023
polling
which found more than half of British citizens believed the NHS made
them proud to be British.
But if both taxes and NHS spending are at record highs, and yet the
health service refuses to improve, then something has to give. That is >>>> why Prosperity Institute conducted a 5,000-person poll with Merlin
Strategy this winter. We wanted to find out whether the public still do >>>> treat the NHS like some kind of sacred cow, whether they believe it is >>>> working and what should be done.
The findings reveal a country finally in the mood to try something
different. The public are disillusioned with the NHS, its funding
model,
the quality of its services and its priorities. Anyone who wishes to
grasp the nettle of NHS reform should take heart in the results, as
they
suggest the British people are far more willing to roll the dice and
try
something new.
Naturally, the NHS is one of the publicrCOs highest priority issues.
Forty-nine per cent of voters said the NHS was in one of their top
three
concerns, behind only the economy, chosen by 66 per cent, and
immigration, listed by 50 per cent of the population. Though it may
seem
obvious, these three issues remain the central concerns of the voting
public, and they overlap in many ways.
While our polling found that the public believed funding is one of the >>>> biggest challenges the NHS faces, 59 per cent of voters believed that
NHS reform should be prioritised over increased funding. Private
healthcare has become remarkably popular, with 60 per cent of voters
reporting that they would use it if they could afford it and, if recent >>>> figures are anything to go by, a large and growing proportion of the
population is doing just that: more than 8.4 million people had private >>>> health insurance as of 2024.
Of course, it is worth examining if people are turning to private
healthcare as a last resort, using the market where the NHS has failed, >>>> which is what many have claimed regarding the high levels of
out-of-pocket expenditure on private healthcare these days. But our
polling revealed high levels of trust in private practitioners as well. >>>>
Similarly, when asked about the publicrCOs preferred healthcare systems >>>> from around the world, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany and
Australia came out on top. All are countries with a mixed model of
provision, where the state, the private sector and charities deliver
healthcare in a more competitive system with better results than the
NHS.
While it is worth bearing in mind that the publicrCOs awareness of the >>>> details of these countriesrCO health policies may vary rCo Switzerland is >>>> generally assumed to be a well-run, efficient country rCo thousands of >>>> British doctors have moved to practise in Australia recently, and it is >>>> highly likely that many British people will have heard about the better >>>> state of their health service from friends or family. Unsurprisingly,
the public remain hostile to an American-style model, which is still
associated with expensive treatments and insurance costs.
These findings are a useful reminder that the public understand that
the
health policy dichotomy of rCythe NHS or AmericarCO often posed in British >>>> politics is false, and there is a whole world of functioning,
accessible
healthcare out there, much of it on our doorstep.
In a sense, it is hardly surprising that the public are ready for
reforming the health service. Taxes and immigration are at record
highs,
two policies which the government claims were chosen to support the
NHS,
but without the public seeing a notable improvement in care as a
consequence. Indeed, our polling reveals that the public believe that
immigration is a burden on the health service rather than a net benefit >>>> by a significant margin rCo 49 per cent versus just 22 per cent
respectively.
This is a view shared by Reform, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, SNP
and
Plaid Cymru voters. Whether this reflects public dissatisfaction with
immigration because it increases demand on the health service or
because
of poor-quality care deserves further research; however, our survey
revealed a strong public preference for training more British doctors
and nurses, and around 42 per cent of voters believe that the
quality of
care provided by foreign staff in the NHS is worse than that offered by >>>> British doctors.
The public have a far greater appetite for reforming the delivery and
funding of the health service than ever before. BritainrCOs politicians >>>> should have the courage to re-establish a new social contract with the >>>> public when it comes to public services, one which respects British
taxpayers and strives to create the finest public services for British >>>> people in the world, taking inspiration from best practice in other
countries. The public, evidently, are running out of patience, and
wonrCOt
forgive the political class if it passes the buck to the next
generation
once more.
Fred De Fossard
WerCOre in trouble as well. Our system started to have problems in late >>> 80rCOs/
early nineties. Before that, it was stellar. How it happened is ?
How to
fix it is ? as well. WerCOre looking at Switzerland and Australia, Germany >>> etc.
On 2/25/2026 10:01 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 09:42:56 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
typical market fundie whining
uk/canada both pay less for it's system vs us/switzerland/austria/germany >>>
because it's funded by taxes ya'll can just increase taxes in a
progressive manner instead of whining about muh reform endlessly, and it >>> will hit ur average person less
why are you such a fking psychopathic retard julian?
Psychopaths are usually quite smart and competent.
We are going to need to see some data on that. Thanks.
It goes with the territory along with having no empathy whatever.
And you would know this how?
Julian believes we are the retarded ones.
I'm almost positive you made that up.
We are inferior so we get what we deserve.>Two of you can't even key in a sentence using good grammar and punctuation!
--
On 2/25/26 8:50 AM, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
Despite soaking up more than u200 billion of taxpayersA money per year, >>>>> (over 40% of all UK government day-to-day departmental spending,
around 11% GDP)
the NHS and health policy more widely are two areas which have gone
ignored. Since the coalition governmentAs half-baked reforms, BritainAs >>>>> approach to health policy can be summarised as: give the NHS money and >>>>> hope for the best.
This approach is running out of road. Over the last few years, the NHS >>>>> has faced unprecedented pressure. A combination of bad winters and the >>>>> shocks of the pandemic have left it in a poor state, with high waiting >>>>> lists and demoralised staff. Clearly something isnAt working. The
current government has continued where the Tories left off, papering >>>>> over the cracks. Something has to change. But what? The NHS is spoken >>>>> about like a national religion, and reforming it is believed to be a >>>>> third rail of British politics.
In the pandemic, the public were implored to aprotect the NHSA, rather >>>>> than expect the health service to protect the public. The establishment >>>>> of the NHS was treated like one of BritainAs founding myths, akin to >>>>> Alfred the Great or the Battle of Hastings, in the opening ceremony to >>>>> the 2012 Olympic Games. This sentiment also manifested itself in public >>>>> opinion, such as the Clap for Carers initiative in 2020 and 2023 polling >>>>> which found more than half of British citizens believed the NHS made >>>>> them proud to be British.
But if both taxes and NHS spending are at record highs, and yet the
health service refuses to improve, then something has to give. That is >>>>> why Prosperity Institute conducted a 5,000-person poll with Merlin
Strategy this winter. We wanted to find out whether the public still do >>>>> treat the NHS like some kind of sacred cow, whether they believe it is >>>>> working and what should be done.
The findings reveal a country finally in the mood to try something
different. The public are disillusioned with the NHS, its funding model, >>>>> the quality of its services and its priorities. Anyone who wishes to >>>>> grasp the nettle of NHS reform should take heart in the results, as they >>>>> suggest the British people are far more willing to roll the dice and try >>>>> something new.
Naturally, the NHS is one of the publicAs highest priority issues.
Forty-nine per cent of voters said the NHS was in one of their top three >>>>> concerns, behind only the economy, chosen by 66 per cent, and
immigration, listed by 50 per cent of the population. Though it may seem >>>>> obvious, these three issues remain the central concerns of the voting >>>>> public, and they overlap in many ways.
While our polling found that the public believed funding is one of the >>>>> biggest challenges the NHS faces, 59 per cent of voters believed that >>>>> NHS reform should be prioritised over increased funding. Private
healthcare has become remarkably popular, with 60 per cent of voters >>>>> reporting that they would use it if they could afford it and, if recent >>>>> figures are anything to go by, a large and growing proportion of the >>>>> population is doing just that: more than 8.4 million people had private >>>>> health insurance as of 2024.
Of course, it is worth examining if people are turning to private
healthcare as a last resort, using the market where the NHS has failed, >>>>> which is what many have claimed regarding the high levels of
out-of-pocket expenditure on private healthcare these days. But our
polling revealed high levels of trust in private practitioners as well. >>>>>
Similarly, when asked about the publicAs preferred healthcare systems >>>>> from around the world, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany and
Australia came out on top. All are countries with a mixed model of
provision, where the state, the private sector and charities deliver >>>>> healthcare in a more competitive system with better results than the NHS. >>>>>
While it is worth bearing in mind that the publicAs awareness of the >>>>> details of these countriesA health policies may vary u Switzerland is >>>>> generally assumed to be a well-run, efficient country u thousands of >>>>> British doctors have moved to practise in Australia recently, and it is >>>>> highly likely that many British people will have heard about the better >>>>> state of their health service from friends or family. Unsurprisingly, >>>>> the public remain hostile to an American-style model, which is still >>>>> associated with expensive treatments and insurance costs.
These findings are a useful reminder that the public understand that the >>>>> health policy dichotomy of athe NHS or AmericaA often posed in British >>>>> politics is false, and there is a whole world of functioning, accessible >>>>> healthcare out there, much of it on our doorstep.
In a sense, it is hardly surprising that the public are ready for
reforming the health service. Taxes and immigration are at record highs, >>>>> two policies which the government claims were chosen to support the NHS, >>>>> but without the public seeing a notable improvement in care as a
consequence. Indeed, our polling reveals that the public believe that >>>>> immigration is a burden on the health service rather than a net benefit >>>>> by a significant margin u 49 per cent versus just 22 per cent respectively.
This is a view shared by Reform, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, SNP and >>>>> Plaid Cymru voters. Whether this reflects public dissatisfaction with >>>>> immigration because it increases demand on the health service or because >>>>> of poor-quality care deserves further research; however, our survey
revealed a strong public preference for training more British doctors >>>>> and nurses, and around 42 per cent of voters believe that the quality of >>>>> care provided by foreign staff in the NHS is worse than that offered by >>>>> British doctors.
The public have a far greater appetite for reforming the delivery and >>>>> funding of the health service than ever before. BritainAs politicians >>>>> should have the courage to re-establish a new social contract with the >>>>> public when it comes to public services, one which respects British
taxpayers and strives to create the finest public services for British >>>>> people in the world, taking inspiration from best practice in other
countries. The public, evidently, are running out of patience, and wonAt >>>>> forgive the political class if it passes the buck to the next generation >>>>> once more.
Fred De Fossard
WeAre in trouble as well. Our system started to have problems in late 80As/
early nineties. Before that, it was stellar. How it happened is ? How to >>>> fix it is ? as well. WeAre looking at Switzerland and Australia, Germany >>>> etc.
On 2/25/2026 10:01 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 09:42:56 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
typical market fundie whining
uk/canada both pay less for it's system vs us/switzerland/austria/germany >>>
because it's funded by taxes ya'll can just increase taxes in a
progressive manner instead of whining about muh reform endlessly, and it >>> will hit ur average person less
why are you such a fking psychopathic retard julian?
Psychopaths are usually quite smart and competent.
We are going to need to see some data on that. Thanks.
It goes with the territory along with having no empathy whatever.
And you would know this how?
Julian believes we are the retarded ones.
I'm almost positive you made that up.
We are inferior so we get what we deserve.>Two of you can't even key in a sentence using good grammar and punctuation!
--
On 2/25/26 8:50 AM, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
Despite soaking up more than u200 billion of taxpayersA money per year, >>>>> (over 40% of all UK government day-to-day departmental spending,
around 11% GDP)
the NHS and health policy more widely are two areas which have gone
ignored. Since the coalition governmentAs half-baked reforms, BritainAs >>>>> approach to health policy can be summarised as: give the NHS money and >>>>> hope for the best.
This approach is running out of road. Over the last few years, the NHS >>>>> has faced unprecedented pressure. A combination of bad winters and the >>>>> shocks of the pandemic have left it in a poor state, with high waiting >>>>> lists and demoralised staff. Clearly something isnAt working. The
current government has continued where the Tories left off, papering >>>>> over the cracks. Something has to change. But what? The NHS is spoken >>>>> about like a national religion, and reforming it is believed to be a >>>>> third rail of British politics.
In the pandemic, the public were implored to aprotect the NHSA, rather >>>>> than expect the health service to protect the public. The establishment >>>>> of the NHS was treated like one of BritainAs founding myths, akin to >>>>> Alfred the Great or the Battle of Hastings, in the opening ceremony to >>>>> the 2012 Olympic Games. This sentiment also manifested itself in public >>>>> opinion, such as the Clap for Carers initiative in 2020 and 2023 polling >>>>> which found more than half of British citizens believed the NHS made >>>>> them proud to be British.
But if both taxes and NHS spending are at record highs, and yet the
health service refuses to improve, then something has to give. That is >>>>> why Prosperity Institute conducted a 5,000-person poll with Merlin
Strategy this winter. We wanted to find out whether the public still do >>>>> treat the NHS like some kind of sacred cow, whether they believe it is >>>>> working and what should be done.
The findings reveal a country finally in the mood to try something
different. The public are disillusioned with the NHS, its funding model, >>>>> the quality of its services and its priorities. Anyone who wishes to >>>>> grasp the nettle of NHS reform should take heart in the results, as they >>>>> suggest the British people are far more willing to roll the dice and try >>>>> something new.
Naturally, the NHS is one of the publicAs highest priority issues.
Forty-nine per cent of voters said the NHS was in one of their top three >>>>> concerns, behind only the economy, chosen by 66 per cent, and
immigration, listed by 50 per cent of the population. Though it may seem >>>>> obvious, these three issues remain the central concerns of the voting >>>>> public, and they overlap in many ways.
While our polling found that the public believed funding is one of the >>>>> biggest challenges the NHS faces, 59 per cent of voters believed that >>>>> NHS reform should be prioritised over increased funding. Private
healthcare has become remarkably popular, with 60 per cent of voters >>>>> reporting that they would use it if they could afford it and, if recent >>>>> figures are anything to go by, a large and growing proportion of the >>>>> population is doing just that: more than 8.4 million people had private >>>>> health insurance as of 2024.
Of course, it is worth examining if people are turning to private
healthcare as a last resort, using the market where the NHS has failed, >>>>> which is what many have claimed regarding the high levels of
out-of-pocket expenditure on private healthcare these days. But our
polling revealed high levels of trust in private practitioners as well. >>>>>
Similarly, when asked about the publicAs preferred healthcare systems >>>>> from around the world, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany and
Australia came out on top. All are countries with a mixed model of
provision, where the state, the private sector and charities deliver >>>>> healthcare in a more competitive system with better results than the NHS. >>>>>
While it is worth bearing in mind that the publicAs awareness of the >>>>> details of these countriesA health policies may vary u Switzerland is >>>>> generally assumed to be a well-run, efficient country u thousands of >>>>> British doctors have moved to practise in Australia recently, and it is >>>>> highly likely that many British people will have heard about the better >>>>> state of their health service from friends or family. Unsurprisingly, >>>>> the public remain hostile to an American-style model, which is still >>>>> associated with expensive treatments and insurance costs.
These findings are a useful reminder that the public understand that the >>>>> health policy dichotomy of athe NHS or AmericaA often posed in British >>>>> politics is false, and there is a whole world of functioning, accessible >>>>> healthcare out there, much of it on our doorstep.
In a sense, it is hardly surprising that the public are ready for
reforming the health service. Taxes and immigration are at record highs, >>>>> two policies which the government claims were chosen to support the NHS, >>>>> but without the public seeing a notable improvement in care as a
consequence. Indeed, our polling reveals that the public believe that >>>>> immigration is a burden on the health service rather than a net benefit >>>>> by a significant margin u 49 per cent versus just 22 per cent respectively.
This is a view shared by Reform, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, SNP and >>>>> Plaid Cymru voters. Whether this reflects public dissatisfaction with >>>>> immigration because it increases demand on the health service or because >>>>> of poor-quality care deserves further research; however, our survey
revealed a strong public preference for training more British doctors >>>>> and nurses, and around 42 per cent of voters believe that the quality of >>>>> care provided by foreign staff in the NHS is worse than that offered by >>>>> British doctors.
The public have a far greater appetite for reforming the delivery and >>>>> funding of the health service than ever before. BritainAs politicians >>>>> should have the courage to re-establish a new social contract with the >>>>> public when it comes to public services, one which respects British
taxpayers and strives to create the finest public services for British >>>>> people in the world, taking inspiration from best practice in other
countries. The public, evidently, are running out of patience, and wonAt >>>>> forgive the political class if it passes the buck to the next generation >>>>> once more.
Fred De Fossard
WeAre in trouble as well. Our system started to have problems in late 80As/
early nineties. Before that, it was stellar. How it happened is ? How to >>>> fix it is ? as well. WeAre looking at Switzerland and Australia, Germany >>>> etc.
On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 10:07:34 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/25/2026 10:01 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 09:42:56 -0800, dart200We are going to need to see some data on that. Thanks.
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
typical market fundie whining
uk/canada both pay less for it's system vs us/switzerland/austria/germany >>>>
because it's funded by taxes ya'll can just increase taxes in a
progressive manner instead of whining about muh reform endlessly, and it >>>> will hit ur average person less
why are you such a fking psychopathic retard julian?
Psychopaths are usually quite smart and competent.
And you would know this how?
It goes with the territory along with having no empathy whatever.
Sorry to burst your bubble, here is forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyclay/2013/01/05/the-top-10-jobs-that-attract-psychopaths/
There are many other similar articles across the web.
I'm almost positive you made that up.
Julian believes we are the retarded ones.
Two of you can't even key in a sentence using good grammar and punctuation!
We are inferior so we get what we deserve.>
That has nothing to do with what we deserve.
On 2/25/26 8:50 AM, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
Despite soaking up more than -u200 billion of taxpayersrCO money per year,
(over 40% of all UK government day-to-day departmental spending,
around 11% GDP)
the NHS and health policy more widely are two areas which have gone >>>>>> ignored. Since the coalition governmentrCOs half-baked reforms, BritainrCOs
approach to health policy can be summarised as: give the NHS money and >>>>>> hope for the best.
This approach is running out of road. Over the last few years, the NHS >>>>>> has faced unprecedented pressure. A combination of bad winters and the >>>>>> shocks of the pandemic have left it in a poor state, with high waiting >>>>>> lists and demoralised staff. Clearly something isnrCOt working. The >>>>>> current government has continued where the Tories left off, papering >>>>>> over the cracks. Something has to change. But what? The NHS is spoken >>>>>> about like a national religion, and reforming it is believed to be a >>>>>> third rail of British politics.
In the pandemic, the public were implored to rCyprotect the NHSrCO, rather
than expect the health service to protect the public. The establishment >>>>>> of the NHS was treated like one of BritainrCOs founding myths, akin to >>>>>> Alfred the Great or the Battle of Hastings, in the opening ceremony to >>>>>> the 2012 Olympic Games. This sentiment also manifested itself in public >>>>>> opinion, such as the Clap for Carers initiative in 2020 and 2023 polling >>>>>> which found more than half of British citizens believed the NHS made >>>>>> them proud to be British.
But if both taxes and NHS spending are at record highs, and yet the >>>>>> health service refuses to improve, then something has to give. That is >>>>>> why Prosperity Institute conducted a 5,000-person poll with Merlin >>>>>> Strategy this winter. We wanted to find out whether the public still do >>>>>> treat the NHS like some kind of sacred cow, whether they believe it is >>>>>> working and what should be done.
The findings reveal a country finally in the mood to try something >>>>>> different. The public are disillusioned with the NHS, its funding model, >>>>>> the quality of its services and its priorities. Anyone who wishes to >>>>>> grasp the nettle of NHS reform should take heart in the results, as they >>>>>> suggest the British people are far more willing to roll the dice and try >>>>>> something new.
Naturally, the NHS is one of the publicrCOs highest priority issues. >>>>>> Forty-nine per cent of voters said the NHS was in one of their top three >>>>>> concerns, behind only the economy, chosen by 66 per cent, and
immigration, listed by 50 per cent of the population. Though it may seem >>>>>> obvious, these three issues remain the central concerns of the voting >>>>>> public, and they overlap in many ways.
While our polling found that the public believed funding is one of the >>>>>> biggest challenges the NHS faces, 59 per cent of voters believed that >>>>>> NHS reform should be prioritised over increased funding. Private
healthcare has become remarkably popular, with 60 per cent of voters >>>>>> reporting that they would use it if they could afford it and, if recent >>>>>> figures are anything to go by, a large and growing proportion of the >>>>>> population is doing just that: more than 8.4 million people had private >>>>>> health insurance as of 2024.
Of course, it is worth examining if people are turning to private
healthcare as a last resort, using the market where the NHS has failed, >>>>>> which is what many have claimed regarding the high levels of
out-of-pocket expenditure on private healthcare these days. But our >>>>>> polling revealed high levels of trust in private practitioners as well. >>>>>>
Similarly, when asked about the publicrCOs preferred healthcare systems >>>>>> from around the world, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany and
Australia came out on top. All are countries with a mixed model of >>>>>> provision, where the state, the private sector and charities deliver >>>>>> healthcare in a more competitive system with better results than the NHS.
While it is worth bearing in mind that the publicrCOs awareness of the >>>>>> details of these countriesrCO health policies may vary rCo Switzerland is
generally assumed to be a well-run, efficient country rCo thousands of >>>>>> British doctors have moved to practise in Australia recently, and it is >>>>>> highly likely that many British people will have heard about the better >>>>>> state of their health service from friends or family. Unsurprisingly, >>>>>> the public remain hostile to an American-style model, which is still >>>>>> associated with expensive treatments and insurance costs.
These findings are a useful reminder that the public understand that the >>>>>> health policy dichotomy of rCythe NHS or AmericarCO often posed in British
politics is false, and there is a whole world of functioning, accessible >>>>>> healthcare out there, much of it on our doorstep.
In a sense, it is hardly surprising that the public are ready for
reforming the health service. Taxes and immigration are at record highs, >>>>>> two policies which the government claims were chosen to support the NHS, >>>>>> but without the public seeing a notable improvement in care as a
consequence. Indeed, our polling reveals that the public believe that >>>>>> immigration is a burden on the health service rather than a net benefit >>>>>> by a significant margin rCo 49 per cent versus just 22 per cent respectively.
This is a view shared by Reform, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, SNP and >>>>>> Plaid Cymru voters. Whether this reflects public dissatisfaction with >>>>>> immigration because it increases demand on the health service or because >>>>>> of poor-quality care deserves further research; however, our survey >>>>>> revealed a strong public preference for training more British doctors >>>>>> and nurses, and around 42 per cent of voters believe that the quality of >>>>>> care provided by foreign staff in the NHS is worse than that offered by >>>>>> British doctors.
The public have a far greater appetite for reforming the delivery and >>>>>> funding of the health service than ever before. BritainrCOs politicians >>>>>> should have the courage to re-establish a new social contract with the >>>>>> public when it comes to public services, one which respects British >>>>>> taxpayers and strives to create the finest public services for British >>>>>> people in the world, taking inspiration from best practice in other >>>>>> countries. The public, evidently, are running out of patience, and wonrCOt
forgive the political class if it passes the buck to the next generation >>>>>> once more.
Fred De Fossard
WerCOre in trouble as well. Our system started to have problems in late 80rCOs/
early nineties. Before that, it was stellar. How it happened is ? How to >>>>> fix it is ? as well. WerCOre looking at Switzerland and Australia, Germany
etc.
On 2/25/2026 10:09 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 10:02 AM, Dude wrote:Google says what you posted is inaccurate. Try again.
On 2/25/2026 9:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
typical market fundie whiningWe are going to have see some data on that.
uk/canada both pay less for it's system vs us/switzerland/austria/
germany
do ur own googling
Let's be fair. A flat tax is a fair tax - everyone should be equal underbecause it's funded by taxes ya'll can just increase taxes in aThat's one solution: raise taxes with a 50% flat tax on income for
progressive manner instead of whining about muh reform endlessly,
and it will hit ur average person less
everyone under the age of 75.
not progressive, try again
the law.
We're all equal here. This is Usenet.
why are you such a fking psychopathic retard julian?This is supposed to be a conversation among equals, Nick.
am i supposed to consider psychopathic retards like julian, wilson, or
you my equals??? fat chance bro
ya'll are fking psychopathic Efnis
#god
On 2/25/26 8:50 AM, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
Despite soaking up more than -u200 billion of taxpayersrCO money per >>>>>> year,
(over 40% of all UK government day-to-day departmental spending,
around 11% GDP)
the NHS and health policy more widely are two areas which have gone >>>>>> ignored. Since the coalition governmentrCOs half-baked reforms,
BritainrCOs
approach to health policy can be summarised as: give the NHS money >>>>>> and
hope for the best.
This approach is running out of road. Over the last few years, the >>>>>> NHS
has faced unprecedented pressure. A combination of bad winters and >>>>>> the
shocks of the pandemic have left it in a poor state, with high
waiting
lists and demoralised staff. Clearly something isnrCOt working. The >>>>>> current government has continued where the Tories left off, papering >>>>>> over the cracks. Something has to change. But what? The NHS is spoken >>>>>> about like a national religion, and reforming it is believed to be a >>>>>> third rail of British politics.
In the pandemic, the public were implored to rCyprotect the NHSrCO, >>>>>> rather
than expect the health service to protect the public. The
establishment
of the NHS was treated like one of BritainrCOs founding myths, akin to >>>>>> Alfred the Great or the Battle of Hastings, in the opening
ceremony to
the 2012 Olympic Games. This sentiment also manifested itself in
public
opinion, such as the Clap for Carers initiative in 2020 and 2023
polling
which found more than half of British citizens believed the NHS made >>>>>> them proud to be British.
But if both taxes and NHS spending are at record highs, and yet the >>>>>> health service refuses to improve, then something has to give.
That is
why Prosperity Institute conducted a 5,000-person poll with Merlin >>>>>> Strategy this winter. We wanted to find out whether the public
still do
treat the NHS like some kind of sacred cow, whether they believe
it is
working and what should be done.
The findings reveal a country finally in the mood to try something >>>>>> different. The public are disillusioned with the NHS, its funding >>>>>> model,
the quality of its services and its priorities. Anyone who wishes to >>>>>> grasp the nettle of NHS reform should take heart in the results,
as they
suggest the British people are far more willing to roll the dice
and try
something new.
Naturally, the NHS is one of the publicrCOs highest priority issues. >>>>>> Forty-nine per cent of voters said the NHS was in one of their top >>>>>> three
concerns, behind only the economy, chosen by 66 per cent, and
immigration, listed by 50 per cent of the population. Though it
may seem
obvious, these three issues remain the central concerns of the voting >>>>>> public, and they overlap in many ways.
While our polling found that the public believed funding is one of >>>>>> the
biggest challenges the NHS faces, 59 per cent of voters believed that >>>>>> NHS reform should be prioritised over increased funding. Private
healthcare has become remarkably popular, with 60 per cent of voters >>>>>> reporting that they would use it if they could afford it and, if
recent
figures are anything to go by, a large and growing proportion of the >>>>>> population is doing just that: more than 8.4 million people had
private
health insurance as of 2024.
Of course, it is worth examining if people are turning to private
healthcare as a last resort, using the market where the NHS has
failed,
which is what many have claimed regarding the high levels of
out-of-pocket expenditure on private healthcare these days. But our >>>>>> polling revealed high levels of trust in private practitioners as >>>>>> well.
Similarly, when asked about the publicrCOs preferred healthcare systems >>>>>> from around the world, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany and
Australia came out on top. All are countries with a mixed model of >>>>>> provision, where the state, the private sector and charities deliver >>>>>> healthcare in a more competitive system with better results than
the NHS.
While it is worth bearing in mind that the publicrCOs awareness of the >>>>>> details of these countriesrCO health policies may vary rCo Switzerland is
generally assumed to be a well-run, efficient country rCo thousands of >>>>>> British doctors have moved to practise in Australia recently, and >>>>>> it is
highly likely that many British people will have heard about the
better
state of their health service from friends or family. Unsurprisingly, >>>>>> the public remain hostile to an American-style model, which is still >>>>>> associated with expensive treatments and insurance costs.
These findings are a useful reminder that the public understand
that the
health policy dichotomy of rCythe NHS or AmericarCO often posed in >>>>>> British
politics is false, and there is a whole world of functioning,
accessible
healthcare out there, much of it on our doorstep.
In a sense, it is hardly surprising that the public are ready for
reforming the health service. Taxes and immigration are at record >>>>>> highs,
two policies which the government claims were chosen to support
the NHS,
but without the public seeing a notable improvement in care as a
consequence. Indeed, our polling reveals that the public believe that >>>>>> immigration is a burden on the health service rather than a net
benefit
by a significant margin rCo 49 per cent versus just 22 per cent
respectively.
This is a view shared by Reform, Conservative, Liberal Democrat,
SNP and
Plaid Cymru voters. Whether this reflects public dissatisfaction with >>>>>> immigration because it increases demand on the health service or
because
of poor-quality care deserves further research; however, our survey >>>>>> revealed a strong public preference for training more British doctors >>>>>> and nurses, and around 42 per cent of voters believe that the
quality of
care provided by foreign staff in the NHS is worse than that
offered by
British doctors.
The public have a far greater appetite for reforming the delivery and >>>>>> funding of the health service than ever before. BritainrCOs politicians >>>>>> should have the courage to re-establish a new social contract with >>>>>> the
public when it comes to public services, one which respects British >>>>>> taxpayers and strives to create the finest public services for
British
people in the world, taking inspiration from best practice in other >>>>>> countries. The public, evidently, are running out of patience, and >>>>>> wonrCOt
forgive the political class if it passes the buck to the next
generation
once more.
Fred De Fossard
WerCOre in trouble as well. Our system started to have problems in
late 80rCOs/
early nineties. Before that, it was stellar. How it happened is ?
How to
fix it is ? as well. WerCOre looking at Switzerland and Australia,
Germany
etc.
On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 10:07:34 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/25/2026 10:01 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 09:42:56 -0800, dart200We are going to need to see some data on that. Thanks.
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
typical market fundie whining
uk/canada both pay less for it's system vs us/switzerland/austria/germany >>>>
because it's funded by taxes ya'll can just increase taxes in a
progressive manner instead of whining about muh reform endlessly, and it >>>> will hit ur average person less
why are you such a fking psychopathic retard julian?
Psychopaths are usually quite smart and competent.
And you would know this how?
It goes with the territory along with having no empathy whatever.
I'm almost positive you made that up.
Julian believes we are the retarded ones.
Two of you can't even key in a sentence using good grammar and punctuation!
We are inferior so we get what we deserve.>
It looks to me like "Two" needs an article in front. You do know
about the article part of speech, right?
On 2/25/26 8:50 AM, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
Despite soaking up more than -u200 billion of taxpayersrCO money per year,
(over 40% of all UK government day-to-day departmental spending,
around 11% GDP)
the NHS and health policy more widely are two areas which have gone >>>>>> ignored. Since the coalition governmentrCOs half-baked reforms, BritainrCOs
approach to health policy can be summarised as: give the NHS money and >>>>>> hope for the best.
This approach is running out of road. Over the last few years, the NHS >>>>>> has faced unprecedented pressure. A combination of bad winters and the >>>>>> shocks of the pandemic have left it in a poor state, with high waiting >>>>>> lists and demoralised staff. Clearly something isnrCOt working. The >>>>>> current government has continued where the Tories left off, papering >>>>>> over the cracks. Something has to change. But what? The NHS is spoken >>>>>> about like a national religion, and reforming it is believed to be a >>>>>> third rail of British politics.
In the pandemic, the public were implored to rCyprotect the NHSrCO, rather
than expect the health service to protect the public. The establishment >>>>>> of the NHS was treated like one of BritainrCOs founding myths, akin to >>>>>> Alfred the Great or the Battle of Hastings, in the opening ceremony to >>>>>> the 2012 Olympic Games. This sentiment also manifested itself in public >>>>>> opinion, such as the Clap for Carers initiative in 2020 and 2023 polling >>>>>> which found more than half of British citizens believed the NHS made >>>>>> them proud to be British.
But if both taxes and NHS spending are at record highs, and yet the >>>>>> health service refuses to improve, then something has to give. That is >>>>>> why Prosperity Institute conducted a 5,000-person poll with Merlin >>>>>> Strategy this winter. We wanted to find out whether the public still do >>>>>> treat the NHS like some kind of sacred cow, whether they believe it is >>>>>> working and what should be done.
The findings reveal a country finally in the mood to try something >>>>>> different. The public are disillusioned with the NHS, its funding model, >>>>>> the quality of its services and its priorities. Anyone who wishes to >>>>>> grasp the nettle of NHS reform should take heart in the results, as they >>>>>> suggest the British people are far more willing to roll the dice and try >>>>>> something new.
Naturally, the NHS is one of the publicrCOs highest priority issues. >>>>>> Forty-nine per cent of voters said the NHS was in one of their top three >>>>>> concerns, behind only the economy, chosen by 66 per cent, and
immigration, listed by 50 per cent of the population. Though it may seem >>>>>> obvious, these three issues remain the central concerns of the voting >>>>>> public, and they overlap in many ways.
While our polling found that the public believed funding is one of the >>>>>> biggest challenges the NHS faces, 59 per cent of voters believed that >>>>>> NHS reform should be prioritised over increased funding. Private
healthcare has become remarkably popular, with 60 per cent of voters >>>>>> reporting that they would use it if they could afford it and, if recent >>>>>> figures are anything to go by, a large and growing proportion of the >>>>>> population is doing just that: more than 8.4 million people had private >>>>>> health insurance as of 2024.
Of course, it is worth examining if people are turning to private
healthcare as a last resort, using the market where the NHS has failed, >>>>>> which is what many have claimed regarding the high levels of
out-of-pocket expenditure on private healthcare these days. But our >>>>>> polling revealed high levels of trust in private practitioners as well. >>>>>>
Similarly, when asked about the publicrCOs preferred healthcare systems >>>>>> from around the world, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany and
Australia came out on top. All are countries with a mixed model of >>>>>> provision, where the state, the private sector and charities deliver >>>>>> healthcare in a more competitive system with better results than the NHS.
While it is worth bearing in mind that the publicrCOs awareness of the >>>>>> details of these countriesrCO health policies may vary rCo Switzerland is
generally assumed to be a well-run, efficient country rCo thousands of >>>>>> British doctors have moved to practise in Australia recently, and it is >>>>>> highly likely that many British people will have heard about the better >>>>>> state of their health service from friends or family. Unsurprisingly, >>>>>> the public remain hostile to an American-style model, which is still >>>>>> associated with expensive treatments and insurance costs.
These findings are a useful reminder that the public understand that the >>>>>> health policy dichotomy of rCythe NHS or AmericarCO often posed in British
politics is false, and there is a whole world of functioning, accessible >>>>>> healthcare out there, much of it on our doorstep.
In a sense, it is hardly surprising that the public are ready for
reforming the health service. Taxes and immigration are at record highs, >>>>>> two policies which the government claims were chosen to support the NHS, >>>>>> but without the public seeing a notable improvement in care as a
consequence. Indeed, our polling reveals that the public believe that >>>>>> immigration is a burden on the health service rather than a net benefit >>>>>> by a significant margin rCo 49 per cent versus just 22 per cent respectively.
This is a view shared by Reform, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, SNP and >>>>>> Plaid Cymru voters. Whether this reflects public dissatisfaction with >>>>>> immigration because it increases demand on the health service or because >>>>>> of poor-quality care deserves further research; however, our survey >>>>>> revealed a strong public preference for training more British doctors >>>>>> and nurses, and around 42 per cent of voters believe that the quality of >>>>>> care provided by foreign staff in the NHS is worse than that offered by >>>>>> British doctors.
The public have a far greater appetite for reforming the delivery and >>>>>> funding of the health service than ever before. BritainrCOs politicians >>>>>> should have the courage to re-establish a new social contract with the >>>>>> public when it comes to public services, one which respects British >>>>>> taxpayers and strives to create the finest public services for British >>>>>> people in the world, taking inspiration from best practice in other >>>>>> countries. The public, evidently, are running out of patience, and wonrCOt
forgive the political class if it passes the buck to the next generation >>>>>> once more.
Fred De Fossard
WerCOre in trouble as well. Our system started to have problems in late 80rCOs/
early nineties. Before that, it was stellar. How it happened is ? How to >>>>> fix it is ? as well. WerCOre looking at Switzerland and Australia, Germany
etc.
On 2/25/26 11:42 AM, Dude wrote:
On 2/25/2026 10:09 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 10:02 AM, Dude wrote:Google says what you posted is inaccurate. Try again.
On 2/25/2026 9:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
typical market fundie whiningWe are going to have see some data on that.
uk/canada both pay less for it's system vs us/switzerland/austria/
germany
do ur own googling
making up shit again dude???
Let's be fair. A flat tax is a fair tax - everyone should be equalbecause it's funded by taxes ya'll can just increase taxes in aThat's one solution: raise taxes with a 50% flat tax on income for
progressive manner instead of whining about muh reform endlessly,
and it will hit ur average person less
everyone under the age of 75.
not progressive, try again
under the law.
a progressive tax is fair to anyone but a subethical psychopath
We're all equal here. This is Usenet.
why are you such a fking psychopathic retard julian?This is supposed to be a conversation among equals, Nick.
am i supposed to consider psychopathic retards like julian, wilson,
or you my equals??? fat chance bro
u type whatever u want dude, ain't gunna make it true
ya'll are fking psychopathic Efnis
#god
On 2/25/26 8:50 AM, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
Despite soaking up more than -u200 billion of taxpayersrCO money per >>>>>>> year,
(over 40% of all UK government day-to-day departmental spending, >>>>>>> around 11% GDP)
the NHS and health policy more widely are two areas which have gone >>>>>>> ignored. Since the coalition governmentrCOs half-baked reforms, >>>>>>> BritainrCOs
approach to health policy can be summarised as: give the NHS
money and
hope for the best.
This approach is running out of road. Over the last few years,
the NHS
has faced unprecedented pressure. A combination of bad winters
and the
shocks of the pandemic have left it in a poor state, with high
waiting
lists and demoralised staff. Clearly something isnrCOt working. The >>>>>>> current government has continued where the Tories left off, papering >>>>>>> over the cracks. Something has to change. But what? The NHS is
spoken
about like a national religion, and reforming it is believed to be a >>>>>>> third rail of British politics.
In the pandemic, the public were implored to rCyprotect the NHSrCO, >>>>>>> rather
than expect the health service to protect the public. The
establishment
of the NHS was treated like one of BritainrCOs founding myths, akin to >>>>>>> Alfred the Great or the Battle of Hastings, in the opening
ceremony to
the 2012 Olympic Games. This sentiment also manifested itself in >>>>>>> public
opinion, such as the Clap for Carers initiative in 2020 and 2023 >>>>>>> polling
which found more than half of British citizens believed the NHS made >>>>>>> them proud to be British.
But if both taxes and NHS spending are at record highs, and yet the >>>>>>> health service refuses to improve, then something has to give.
That is
why Prosperity Institute conducted a 5,000-person poll with Merlin >>>>>>> Strategy this winter. We wanted to find out whether the public
still do
treat the NHS like some kind of sacred cow, whether they believe >>>>>>> it is
working and what should be done.
The findings reveal a country finally in the mood to try something >>>>>>> different. The public are disillusioned with the NHS, its funding >>>>>>> model,
the quality of its services and its priorities. Anyone who wishes to >>>>>>> grasp the nettle of NHS reform should take heart in the results, >>>>>>> as they
suggest the British people are far more willing to roll the dice >>>>>>> and try
something new.
Naturally, the NHS is one of the publicrCOs highest priority issues. >>>>>>> Forty-nine per cent of voters said the NHS was in one of their
top three
concerns, behind only the economy, chosen by 66 per cent, and
immigration, listed by 50 per cent of the population. Though it >>>>>>> may seem
obvious, these three issues remain the central concerns of the
voting
public, and they overlap in many ways.
While our polling found that the public believed funding is one >>>>>>> of the
biggest challenges the NHS faces, 59 per cent of voters believed >>>>>>> that
NHS reform should be prioritised over increased funding. Private >>>>>>> healthcare has become remarkably popular, with 60 per cent of voters >>>>>>> reporting that they would use it if they could afford it and, if >>>>>>> recent
figures are anything to go by, a large and growing proportion of the >>>>>>> population is doing just that: more than 8.4 million people had >>>>>>> private
health insurance as of 2024.
Of course, it is worth examining if people are turning to private >>>>>>> healthcare as a last resort, using the market where the NHS has >>>>>>> failed,
which is what many have claimed regarding the high levels of
out-of-pocket expenditure on private healthcare these days. But our >>>>>>> polling revealed high levels of trust in private practitioners as >>>>>>> well.
Similarly, when asked about the publicrCOs preferred healthcare >>>>>>> systems
from around the world, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany and >>>>>>> Australia came out on top. All are countries with a mixed model of >>>>>>> provision, where the state, the private sector and charities deliver >>>>>>> healthcare in a more competitive system with better results than >>>>>>> the NHS.
While it is worth bearing in mind that the publicrCOs awareness of the >>>>>>> details of these countriesrCO health policies may vary rCo
Switzerland is
generally assumed to be a well-run, efficient country rCo thousands of >>>>>>> British doctors have moved to practise in Australia recently, and >>>>>>> it is
highly likely that many British people will have heard about the >>>>>>> better
state of their health service from friends or family.
Unsurprisingly,
the public remain hostile to an American-style model, which is still >>>>>>> associated with expensive treatments and insurance costs.
These findings are a useful reminder that the public understand >>>>>>> that the
health policy dichotomy of rCythe NHS or AmericarCO often posed in >>>>>>> British
politics is false, and there is a whole world of functioning,
accessible
healthcare out there, much of it on our doorstep.
In a sense, it is hardly surprising that the public are ready for >>>>>>> reforming the health service. Taxes and immigration are at record >>>>>>> highs,
two policies which the government claims were chosen to support >>>>>>> the NHS,
but without the public seeing a notable improvement in care as a >>>>>>> consequence. Indeed, our polling reveals that the public believe >>>>>>> that
immigration is a burden on the health service rather than a net >>>>>>> benefit
by a significant margin rCo 49 per cent versus just 22 per cent >>>>>>> respectively.
This is a view shared by Reform, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, >>>>>>> SNP and
Plaid Cymru voters. Whether this reflects public dissatisfaction >>>>>>> with
immigration because it increases demand on the health service or >>>>>>> because
of poor-quality care deserves further research; however, our survey >>>>>>> revealed a strong public preference for training more British
doctors
and nurses, and around 42 per cent of voters believe that the
quality of
care provided by foreign staff in the NHS is worse than that
offered by
British doctors.
The public have a far greater appetite for reforming the delivery >>>>>>> and
funding of the health service than ever before. BritainrCOs
politicians
should have the courage to re-establish a new social contract
with the
public when it comes to public services, one which respects British >>>>>>> taxpayers and strives to create the finest public services for
British
people in the world, taking inspiration from best practice in other >>>>>>> countries. The public, evidently, are running out of patience,
and wonrCOt
forgive the political class if it passes the buck to the next
generation
once more.
Fred De Fossard
WerCOre in trouble as well. Our system started to have problems in >>>>>> late 80rCOs/
early nineties. Before that, it was stellar. How it happened is ? >>>>>> How to
fix it is ? as well. WerCOre looking at Switzerland and Australia, >>>>>> Germany
etc.
On 2/25/2026 11:46 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 11:42 AM, Dude wrote:Google says you are psycho. Try again.
On 2/25/2026 10:09 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 10:02 AM, Dude wrote:Google says what you posted is inaccurate. Try again.
On 2/25/2026 9:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
typical market fundie whiningWe are going to have see some data on that.
uk/canada both pay less for it's system vs us/switzerland/austria/ >>>>>> germany
do ur own googling
making up shit again dude???
Let's be fair. A flat tax is a fair tax - everyone should be equalbecause it's funded by taxes ya'll can just increase taxes in aThat's one solution: raise taxes with a 50% flat tax on income for
progressive manner instead of whining about muh reform endlessly, >>>>>> and it will hit ur average person less
everyone under the age of 75.
not progressive, try again
under the law.
a progressive tax is fair to anyone but a subethical psychopath
We're all equal here. This is Usenet.
why are you such a fking psychopathic retard julian?This is supposed to be a conversation among equals, Nick.
am i supposed to consider psychopathic retards like julian, wilson,
or you my equals??? fat chance bro
u type whatever u want dude, ain't gunna make it true
ya'll are fking psychopathic Efnis
#god
On 2/25/26 8:50 AM, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
Despite soaking up more than -u200 billion of taxpayersrCO money >>>>>>>> per year,
(over 40% of all UK government day-to-day departmental spending, >>>>>>>> around 11% GDP)
the NHS and health policy more widely are two areas which have gone >>>>>>>> ignored. Since the coalition governmentrCOs half-baked reforms, >>>>>>>> BritainrCOs
approach to health policy can be summarised as: give the NHS
money and
hope for the best.
This approach is running out of road. Over the last few years, >>>>>>>> the NHS
has faced unprecedented pressure. A combination of bad winters >>>>>>>> and the
shocks of the pandemic have left it in a poor state, with high >>>>>>>> waiting
lists and demoralised staff. Clearly something isnrCOt working. The >>>>>>>> current government has continued where the Tories left off,
papering
over the cracks. Something has to change. But what? The NHS is >>>>>>>> spoken
about like a national religion, and reforming it is believed to >>>>>>>> be a
third rail of British politics.
In the pandemic, the public were implored to rCyprotect the NHSrCO, >>>>>>>> rather
than expect the health service to protect the public. The
establishment
of the NHS was treated like one of BritainrCOs founding myths, >>>>>>>> akin to
Alfred the Great or the Battle of Hastings, in the opening
ceremony to
the 2012 Olympic Games. This sentiment also manifested itself in >>>>>>>> public
opinion, such as the Clap for Carers initiative in 2020 and 2023 >>>>>>>> polling
which found more than half of British citizens believed the NHS >>>>>>>> made
them proud to be British.
But if both taxes and NHS spending are at record highs, and yet the >>>>>>>> health service refuses to improve, then something has to give. >>>>>>>> That is
why Prosperity Institute conducted a 5,000-person poll with Merlin >>>>>>>> Strategy this winter. We wanted to find out whether the public >>>>>>>> still do
treat the NHS like some kind of sacred cow, whether they believe >>>>>>>> it is
working and what should be done.
The findings reveal a country finally in the mood to try something >>>>>>>> different. The public are disillusioned with the NHS, its
funding model,
the quality of its services and its priorities. Anyone who
wishes to
grasp the nettle of NHS reform should take heart in the results, >>>>>>>> as they
suggest the British people are far more willing to roll the dice >>>>>>>> and try
something new.
Naturally, the NHS is one of the publicrCOs highest priority issues. >>>>>>>> Forty-nine per cent of voters said the NHS was in one of their >>>>>>>> top three
concerns, behind only the economy, chosen by 66 per cent, and
immigration, listed by 50 per cent of the population. Though it >>>>>>>> may seem
obvious, these three issues remain the central concerns of the >>>>>>>> voting
public, and they overlap in many ways.
While our polling found that the public believed funding is one >>>>>>>> of the
biggest challenges the NHS faces, 59 per cent of voters believed >>>>>>>> that
NHS reform should be prioritised over increased funding. Private >>>>>>>> healthcare has become remarkably popular, with 60 per cent of >>>>>>>> voters
reporting that they would use it if they could afford it and, if >>>>>>>> recent
figures are anything to go by, a large and growing proportion of >>>>>>>> the
population is doing just that: more than 8.4 million people had >>>>>>>> private
health insurance as of 2024.
Of course, it is worth examining if people are turning to private >>>>>>>> healthcare as a last resort, using the market where the NHS has >>>>>>>> failed,
which is what many have claimed regarding the high levels of
out-of-pocket expenditure on private healthcare these days. But our >>>>>>>> polling revealed high levels of trust in private practitioners >>>>>>>> as well.
Similarly, when asked about the publicrCOs preferred healthcare >>>>>>>> systems
from around the world, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany and >>>>>>>> Australia came out on top. All are countries with a mixed model of >>>>>>>> provision, where the state, the private sector and charities
deliver
healthcare in a more competitive system with better results than >>>>>>>> the NHS.
While it is worth bearing in mind that the publicrCOs awareness of >>>>>>>> the
details of these countriesrCO health policies may vary rCo
Switzerland is
generally assumed to be a well-run, efficient country rCo
thousands of
British doctors have moved to practise in Australia recently, >>>>>>>> and it is
highly likely that many British people will have heard about the >>>>>>>> better
state of their health service from friends or family.
Unsurprisingly,
the public remain hostile to an American-style model, which is >>>>>>>> still
associated with expensive treatments and insurance costs.
These findings are a useful reminder that the public understand >>>>>>>> that the
health policy dichotomy of rCythe NHS or AmericarCO often posed in >>>>>>>> British
politics is false, and there is a whole world of functioning, >>>>>>>> accessible
healthcare out there, much of it on our doorstep.
In a sense, it is hardly surprising that the public are ready for >>>>>>>> reforming the health service. Taxes and immigration are at
record highs,
two policies which the government claims were chosen to support >>>>>>>> the NHS,
but without the public seeing a notable improvement in care as a >>>>>>>> consequence. Indeed, our polling reveals that the public believe >>>>>>>> that
immigration is a burden on the health service rather than a net >>>>>>>> benefit
by a significant margin rCo 49 per cent versus just 22 per cent >>>>>>>> respectively.
This is a view shared by Reform, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, >>>>>>>> SNP and
Plaid Cymru voters. Whether this reflects public dissatisfaction >>>>>>>> with
immigration because it increases demand on the health service or >>>>>>>> because
of poor-quality care deserves further research; however, our survey >>>>>>>> revealed a strong public preference for training more British >>>>>>>> doctors
and nurses, and around 42 per cent of voters believe that the >>>>>>>> quality of
care provided by foreign staff in the NHS is worse than that
offered by
British doctors.
The public have a far greater appetite for reforming the
delivery and
funding of the health service than ever before. BritainrCOs
politicians
should have the courage to re-establish a new social contract >>>>>>>> with the
public when it comes to public services, one which respects British >>>>>>>> taxpayers and strives to create the finest public services for >>>>>>>> British
people in the world, taking inspiration from best practice in other >>>>>>>> countries. The public, evidently, are running out of patience, >>>>>>>> and wonrCOt
forgive the political class if it passes the buck to the next >>>>>>>> generation
once more.
Fred De Fossard
WerCOre in trouble as well. Our system started to have problems in >>>>>>> late 80rCOs/
early nineties. Before that, it was stellar. How it happened is ? >>>>>>> How to
fix it is ? as well. WerCOre looking at Switzerland and Australia, >>>>>>> Germany
etc.
On 2/25/2026 11:46 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 11:42 AM, Dude wrote:Google says you are psycho. Try again.
On 2/25/2026 10:09 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 10:02 AM, Dude wrote:Google says what you posted is inaccurate. Try again.
On 2/25/2026 9:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
typical market fundie whiningWe are going to have see some data on that.
uk/canada both pay less for it's system vs us/switzerland/austria/ >>>>>> germany
do ur own googling
making up shit again dude???
--
Let's be fair. A flat tax is a fair tax - everyone should be equalbecause it's funded by taxes ya'll can just increase taxes in aThat's one solution: raise taxes with a 50% flat tax on income for
progressive manner instead of whining about muh reform endlessly, >>>>>> and it will hit ur average person less
everyone under the age of 75.
not progressive, try again
under the law.
a progressive tax is fair to anyone but a subethical psychopath
We're all equal here. This is Usenet.
why are you such a fking psychopathic retard julian?This is supposed to be a conversation among equals, Nick.
am i supposed to consider psychopathic retards like julian, wilson,
or you my equals??? fat chance bro
u type whatever u want dude, ain't gunna make it true
ya'll are fking psychopathic ?s
#god
On 2/25/26 8:50 AM, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
Despite soaking up more than u200 billion of taxpayersA money per >>>>>>>> year,
(over 40% of all UK government day-to-day departmental spending, >>>>>>>> around 11% GDP)
the NHS and health policy more widely are two areas which have gone >>>>>>>> ignored. Since the coalition governmentAs half-baked reforms, >>>>>>>> BritainAs
approach to health policy can be summarised as: give the NHS
money and
hope for the best.
This approach is running out of road. Over the last few years, >>>>>>>> the NHS
has faced unprecedented pressure. A combination of bad winters >>>>>>>> and the
shocks of the pandemic have left it in a poor state, with high >>>>>>>> waiting
lists and demoralised staff. Clearly something isnAt working. The >>>>>>>> current government has continued where the Tories left off, papering >>>>>>>> over the cracks. Something has to change. But what? The NHS is >>>>>>>> spoken
about like a national religion, and reforming it is believed to be a >>>>>>>> third rail of British politics.
In the pandemic, the public were implored to aprotect the NHSA, >>>>>>>> rather
than expect the health service to protect the public. The
establishment
of the NHS was treated like one of BritainAs founding myths, akin to >>>>>>>> Alfred the Great or the Battle of Hastings, in the opening
ceremony to
the 2012 Olympic Games. This sentiment also manifested itself in >>>>>>>> public
opinion, such as the Clap for Carers initiative in 2020 and 2023 >>>>>>>> polling
which found more than half of British citizens believed the NHS made >>>>>>>> them proud to be British.
But if both taxes and NHS spending are at record highs, and yet the >>>>>>>> health service refuses to improve, then something has to give. >>>>>>>> That is
why Prosperity Institute conducted a 5,000-person poll with Merlin >>>>>>>> Strategy this winter. We wanted to find out whether the public >>>>>>>> still do
treat the NHS like some kind of sacred cow, whether they believe >>>>>>>> it is
working and what should be done.
The findings reveal a country finally in the mood to try something >>>>>>>> different. The public are disillusioned with the NHS, its funding >>>>>>>> model,
the quality of its services and its priorities. Anyone who wishes to >>>>>>>> grasp the nettle of NHS reform should take heart in the results, >>>>>>>> as they
suggest the British people are far more willing to roll the dice >>>>>>>> and try
something new.
Naturally, the NHS is one of the publicAs highest priority issues. >>>>>>>> Forty-nine per cent of voters said the NHS was in one of their >>>>>>>> top three
concerns, behind only the economy, chosen by 66 per cent, and
immigration, listed by 50 per cent of the population. Though it >>>>>>>> may seem
obvious, these three issues remain the central concerns of the >>>>>>>> voting
public, and they overlap in many ways.
While our polling found that the public believed funding is one >>>>>>>> of the
biggest challenges the NHS faces, 59 per cent of voters believed >>>>>>>> that
NHS reform should be prioritised over increased funding. Private >>>>>>>> healthcare has become remarkably popular, with 60 per cent of voters >>>>>>>> reporting that they would use it if they could afford it and, if >>>>>>>> recent
figures are anything to go by, a large and growing proportion of the >>>>>>>> population is doing just that: more than 8.4 million people had >>>>>>>> private
health insurance as of 2024.
Of course, it is worth examining if people are turning to private >>>>>>>> healthcare as a last resort, using the market where the NHS has >>>>>>>> failed,
which is what many have claimed regarding the high levels of
out-of-pocket expenditure on private healthcare these days. But our >>>>>>>> polling revealed high levels of trust in private practitioners as >>>>>>>> well.
Similarly, when asked about the publicAs preferred healthcare >>>>>>>> systems
from around the world, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany and >>>>>>>> Australia came out on top. All are countries with a mixed model of >>>>>>>> provision, where the state, the private sector and charities deliver >>>>>>>> healthcare in a more competitive system with better results than >>>>>>>> the NHS.
While it is worth bearing in mind that the publicAs awareness of the >>>>>>>> details of these countriesA health policies may vary u
Switzerland is
generally assumed to be a well-run, efficient country u thousands of >>>>>>>> British doctors have moved to practise in Australia recently, and >>>>>>>> it is
highly likely that many British people will have heard about the >>>>>>>> better
state of their health service from friends or family.
Unsurprisingly,
the public remain hostile to an American-style model, which is still >>>>>>>> associated with expensive treatments and insurance costs.
These findings are a useful reminder that the public understand >>>>>>>> that the
health policy dichotomy of athe NHS or AmericaA often posed in >>>>>>>> British
politics is false, and there is a whole world of functioning, >>>>>>>> accessible
healthcare out there, much of it on our doorstep.
In a sense, it is hardly surprising that the public are ready for >>>>>>>> reforming the health service. Taxes and immigration are at record >>>>>>>> highs,
two policies which the government claims were chosen to support >>>>>>>> the NHS,
but without the public seeing a notable improvement in care as a >>>>>>>> consequence. Indeed, our polling reveals that the public believe >>>>>>>> that
immigration is a burden on the health service rather than a net >>>>>>>> benefit
by a significant margin u 49 per cent versus just 22 per cent >>>>>>>> respectively.
This is a view shared by Reform, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, >>>>>>>> SNP and
Plaid Cymru voters. Whether this reflects public dissatisfaction >>>>>>>> with
immigration because it increases demand on the health service or >>>>>>>> because
of poor-quality care deserves further research; however, our survey >>>>>>>> revealed a strong public preference for training more British >>>>>>>> doctors
and nurses, and around 42 per cent of voters believe that the >>>>>>>> quality of
care provided by foreign staff in the NHS is worse than that
offered by
British doctors.
The public have a far greater appetite for reforming the delivery >>>>>>>> and
funding of the health service than ever before. BritainAs
politicians
should have the courage to re-establish a new social contract >>>>>>>> with the
public when it comes to public services, one which respects British >>>>>>>> taxpayers and strives to create the finest public services for >>>>>>>> British
people in the world, taking inspiration from best practice in other >>>>>>>> countries. The public, evidently, are running out of patience, >>>>>>>> and wonAt
forgive the political class if it passes the buck to the next >>>>>>>> generation
once more.
Fred De Fossard
WeAre in trouble as well. Our system started to have problems in >>>>>>> late 80As/
early nineties. Before that, it was stellar. How it happened is ? >>>>>>> How to
fix it is ? as well. WeAre looking at Switzerland and Australia, >>>>>>> Germany
etc.
On 2/25/26 11:49 AM, Dude wrote:
On 2/25/2026 11:46 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 11:42 AM, Dude wrote:Google says you are psycho. Try again.
On 2/25/2026 10:09 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 10:02 AM, Dude wrote:Google says what you posted is inaccurate. Try again.
On 2/25/2026 9:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
typical market fundie whiningWe are going to have see some data on that.
uk/canada both pay less for it's system vs us/switzerland/
austria/ germany
do ur own googling
making up shit again dude???
i love how u just make up shit when it suits u
true sign of a proper psychopath:
lack of genuine honesty
Let's be fair. A flat tax is a fair tax - everyone should be equalbecause it's funded by taxes ya'll can just increase taxes in a >>>>>>> progressive manner instead of whining about muh reform endlessly, >>>>>>> and it will hit ur average person lessThat's one solution: raise taxes with a 50% flat tax on income for >>>>>> everyone under the age of 75.
not progressive, try again
under the law.
a progressive tax is fair to anyone but a subethical psychopath
We're all equal here. This is Usenet.
why are you such a fking psychopathic retard julian?This is supposed to be a conversation among equals, Nick.
am i supposed to consider psychopathic retards like julian, wilson, >>>>> or you my equals??? fat chance bro
u type whatever u want dude, ain't gunna make it true
ya'll are fking psychopathic Efnis
#god
On 2/25/26 8:50 AM, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
Despite soaking up more than -u200 billion of taxpayersrCO money >>>>>>>>> per year,
(over 40% of all UK government day-to-day departmental spending, >>>>>>>>> around 11% GDP)
the NHS and health policy more widely are two areas which have >>>>>>>>> gone
ignored. Since the coalition governmentrCOs half-baked reforms, >>>>>>>>> BritainrCOs
approach to health policy can be summarised as: give the NHS >>>>>>>>> money and
hope for the best.
This approach is running out of road. Over the last few years, >>>>>>>>> the NHS
has faced unprecedented pressure. A combination of bad winters >>>>>>>>> and the
shocks of the pandemic have left it in a poor state, with high >>>>>>>>> waiting
lists and demoralised staff. Clearly something isnrCOt working. The >>>>>>>>> current government has continued where the Tories left off, >>>>>>>>> papering
over the cracks. Something has to change. But what? The NHS is >>>>>>>>> spoken
about like a national religion, and reforming it is believed to >>>>>>>>> be a
third rail of British politics.
In the pandemic, the public were implored to rCyprotect the NHSrCO, >>>>>>>>> rather
than expect the health service to protect the public. The
establishment
of the NHS was treated like one of BritainrCOs founding myths, >>>>>>>>> akin to
Alfred the Great or the Battle of Hastings, in the opening
ceremony to
the 2012 Olympic Games. This sentiment also manifested itself >>>>>>>>> in public
opinion, such as the Clap for Carers initiative in 2020 and >>>>>>>>> 2023 polling
which found more than half of British citizens believed the NHS >>>>>>>>> made
them proud to be British.
But if both taxes and NHS spending are at record highs, and yet >>>>>>>>> the
health service refuses to improve, then something has to give. >>>>>>>>> That is
why Prosperity Institute conducted a 5,000-person poll with Merlin >>>>>>>>> Strategy this winter. We wanted to find out whether the public >>>>>>>>> still do
treat the NHS like some kind of sacred cow, whether they
believe it is
working and what should be done.
The findings reveal a country finally in the mood to try something >>>>>>>>> different. The public are disillusioned with the NHS, its
funding model,
the quality of its services and its priorities. Anyone who
wishes to
grasp the nettle of NHS reform should take heart in the
results, as they
suggest the British people are far more willing to roll the >>>>>>>>> dice and try
something new.
Naturally, the NHS is one of the publicrCOs highest priority issues. >>>>>>>>> Forty-nine per cent of voters said the NHS was in one of their >>>>>>>>> top three
concerns, behind only the economy, chosen by 66 per cent, and >>>>>>>>> immigration, listed by 50 per cent of the population. Though it >>>>>>>>> may seem
obvious, these three issues remain the central concerns of the >>>>>>>>> voting
public, and they overlap in many ways.
While our polling found that the public believed funding is one >>>>>>>>> of the
biggest challenges the NHS faces, 59 per cent of voters
believed that
NHS reform should be prioritised over increased funding. Private >>>>>>>>> healthcare has become remarkably popular, with 60 per cent of >>>>>>>>> voters
reporting that they would use it if they could afford it and, >>>>>>>>> if recent
figures are anything to go by, a large and growing proportion >>>>>>>>> of the
population is doing just that: more than 8.4 million people had >>>>>>>>> private
health insurance as of 2024.
Of course, it is worth examining if people are turning to private >>>>>>>>> healthcare as a last resort, using the market where the NHS has >>>>>>>>> failed,
which is what many have claimed regarding the high levels of >>>>>>>>> out-of-pocket expenditure on private healthcare these days. But >>>>>>>>> our
polling revealed high levels of trust in private practitioners >>>>>>>>> as well.
Similarly, when asked about the publicrCOs preferred healthcare >>>>>>>>> systems
from around the world, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany and >>>>>>>>> Australia came out on top. All are countries with a mixed model of >>>>>>>>> provision, where the state, the private sector and charities >>>>>>>>> deliver
healthcare in a more competitive system with better results >>>>>>>>> than the NHS.
While it is worth bearing in mind that the publicrCOs awareness >>>>>>>>> of the
details of these countriesrCO health policies may vary rCo
Switzerland is
generally assumed to be a well-run, efficient country rCo
thousands of
British doctors have moved to practise in Australia recently, >>>>>>>>> and it is
highly likely that many British people will have heard about >>>>>>>>> the better
state of their health service from friends or family.
Unsurprisingly,
the public remain hostile to an American-style model, which is >>>>>>>>> still
associated with expensive treatments and insurance costs.
These findings are a useful reminder that the public understand >>>>>>>>> that the
health policy dichotomy of rCythe NHS or AmericarCO often posed in >>>>>>>>> British
politics is false, and there is a whole world of functioning, >>>>>>>>> accessible
healthcare out there, much of it on our doorstep.
In a sense, it is hardly surprising that the public are ready for >>>>>>>>> reforming the health service. Taxes and immigration are at
record highs,
two policies which the government claims were chosen to support >>>>>>>>> the NHS,
but without the public seeing a notable improvement in care as a >>>>>>>>> consequence. Indeed, our polling reveals that the public
believe that
immigration is a burden on the health service rather than a net >>>>>>>>> benefit
by a significant margin rCo 49 per cent versus just 22 per cent >>>>>>>>> respectively.
This is a view shared by Reform, Conservative, Liberal
Democrat, SNP and
Plaid Cymru voters. Whether this reflects public
dissatisfaction with
immigration because it increases demand on the health service >>>>>>>>> or because
of poor-quality care deserves further research; however, our >>>>>>>>> survey
revealed a strong public preference for training more British >>>>>>>>> doctors
and nurses, and around 42 per cent of voters believe that the >>>>>>>>> quality of
care provided by foreign staff in the NHS is worse than that >>>>>>>>> offered by
British doctors.
The public have a far greater appetite for reforming the
delivery and
funding of the health service than ever before. BritainrCOs >>>>>>>>> politicians
should have the courage to re-establish a new social contract >>>>>>>>> with the
public when it comes to public services, one which respects >>>>>>>>> British
taxpayers and strives to create the finest public services for >>>>>>>>> British
people in the world, taking inspiration from best practice in >>>>>>>>> other
countries. The public, evidently, are running out of patience, >>>>>>>>> and wonrCOt
forgive the political class if it passes the buck to the next >>>>>>>>> generation
once more.
Fred De Fossard
WerCOre in trouble as well. Our system started to have problems in >>>>>>>> late 80rCOs/
early nineties. Before that, it was stellar. How it happened
is ? How to
fix it is ? as well. WerCOre looking at Switzerland and Australia, >>>>>>>> Germany
etc.
On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 11:49:39 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/25/2026 11:46 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 11:42 AM, Dude wrote:Google says you are psycho. Try again.
On 2/25/2026 10:09 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 10:02 AM, Dude wrote:Google says what you posted is inaccurate. Try again.
On 2/25/2026 9:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
typical market fundie whiningWe are going to have see some data on that.
uk/canada both pay less for it's system vs us/switzerland/austria/ >>>>>>> germany
do ur own googling
making up shit again dude???
You typed in nick or dart200
the response you got was
psycho
?
Let's be fair. A flat tax is a fair tax - everyone should be equalbecause it's funded by taxes ya'll can just increase taxes in aThat's one solution: raise taxes with a 50% flat tax on income for >>>>>> everyone under the age of 75.
progressive manner instead of whining about muh reform endlessly, >>>>>>> and it will hit ur average person less
not progressive, try again
under the law.
a progressive tax is fair to anyone but a subethical psychopath
We're all equal here. This is Usenet.
why are you such a fking psychopathic retard julian?This is supposed to be a conversation among equals, Nick.
am i supposed to consider psychopathic retards like julian, wilson,
or you my equals??? fat chance bro
u type whatever u want dude, ain't gunna make it true
ya'll are fking psychopathic ?s
#god
On 2/25/26 8:50 AM, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
Despite soaking up more than -u200 billion of taxpayersrCO money per >>>>>>>>> year,
(over 40% of all UK government day-to-day departmental spending, >>>>>>>>> around 11% GDP)
the NHS and health policy more widely are two areas which have gone >>>>>>>>> ignored. Since the coalition governmentrCOs half-baked reforms, >>>>>>>>> BritainrCOs
approach to health policy can be summarised as: give the NHS >>>>>>>>> money and
hope for the best.
This approach is running out of road. Over the last few years, >>>>>>>>> the NHS
has faced unprecedented pressure. A combination of bad winters >>>>>>>>> and the
shocks of the pandemic have left it in a poor state, with high >>>>>>>>> waiting
lists and demoralised staff. Clearly something isnrCOt working. The >>>>>>>>> current government has continued where the Tories left off, papering >>>>>>>>> over the cracks. Something has to change. But what? The NHS is >>>>>>>>> spoken
about like a national religion, and reforming it is believed to be a >>>>>>>>> third rail of British politics.
In the pandemic, the public were implored to rCyprotect the NHSrCO, >>>>>>>>> rather
than expect the health service to protect the public. The
establishment
of the NHS was treated like one of BritainrCOs founding myths, akin to
Alfred the Great or the Battle of Hastings, in the opening
ceremony to
the 2012 Olympic Games. This sentiment also manifested itself in >>>>>>>>> public
opinion, such as the Clap for Carers initiative in 2020 and 2023 >>>>>>>>> polling
which found more than half of British citizens believed the NHS made >>>>>>>>> them proud to be British.
But if both taxes and NHS spending are at record highs, and yet the >>>>>>>>> health service refuses to improve, then something has to give. >>>>>>>>> That is
why Prosperity Institute conducted a 5,000-person poll with Merlin >>>>>>>>> Strategy this winter. We wanted to find out whether the public >>>>>>>>> still do
treat the NHS like some kind of sacred cow, whether they believe >>>>>>>>> it is
working and what should be done.
The findings reveal a country finally in the mood to try something >>>>>>>>> different. The public are disillusioned with the NHS, its funding >>>>>>>>> model,
the quality of its services and its priorities. Anyone who wishes to >>>>>>>>> grasp the nettle of NHS reform should take heart in the results, >>>>>>>>> as they
suggest the British people are far more willing to roll the dice >>>>>>>>> and try
something new.
Naturally, the NHS is one of the publicrCOs highest priority issues. >>>>>>>>> Forty-nine per cent of voters said the NHS was in one of their >>>>>>>>> top three
concerns, behind only the economy, chosen by 66 per cent, and >>>>>>>>> immigration, listed by 50 per cent of the population. Though it >>>>>>>>> may seem
obvious, these three issues remain the central concerns of the >>>>>>>>> voting
public, and they overlap in many ways.
While our polling found that the public believed funding is one >>>>>>>>> of the
biggest challenges the NHS faces, 59 per cent of voters believed >>>>>>>>> that
NHS reform should be prioritised over increased funding. Private >>>>>>>>> healthcare has become remarkably popular, with 60 per cent of voters >>>>>>>>> reporting that they would use it if they could afford it and, if >>>>>>>>> recent
figures are anything to go by, a large and growing proportion of the >>>>>>>>> population is doing just that: more than 8.4 million people had >>>>>>>>> private
health insurance as of 2024.
Of course, it is worth examining if people are turning to private >>>>>>>>> healthcare as a last resort, using the market where the NHS has >>>>>>>>> failed,
which is what many have claimed regarding the high levels of >>>>>>>>> out-of-pocket expenditure on private healthcare these days. But our >>>>>>>>> polling revealed high levels of trust in private practitioners as >>>>>>>>> well.
Similarly, when asked about the publicrCOs preferred healthcare >>>>>>>>> systems
from around the world, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany and >>>>>>>>> Australia came out on top. All are countries with a mixed model of >>>>>>>>> provision, where the state, the private sector and charities deliver >>>>>>>>> healthcare in a more competitive system with better results than >>>>>>>>> the NHS.
While it is worth bearing in mind that the publicrCOs awareness of the
details of these countriesrCO health policies may vary rCo
Switzerland is
generally assumed to be a well-run, efficient country rCo thousands of
British doctors have moved to practise in Australia recently, and >>>>>>>>> it is
highly likely that many British people will have heard about the >>>>>>>>> better
state of their health service from friends or family.
Unsurprisingly,
the public remain hostile to an American-style model, which is still >>>>>>>>> associated with expensive treatments and insurance costs.
These findings are a useful reminder that the public understand >>>>>>>>> that the
health policy dichotomy of rCythe NHS or AmericarCO often posed in >>>>>>>>> British
politics is false, and there is a whole world of functioning, >>>>>>>>> accessible
healthcare out there, much of it on our doorstep.
In a sense, it is hardly surprising that the public are ready for >>>>>>>>> reforming the health service. Taxes and immigration are at record >>>>>>>>> highs,
two policies which the government claims were chosen to support >>>>>>>>> the NHS,
but without the public seeing a notable improvement in care as a >>>>>>>>> consequence. Indeed, our polling reveals that the public believe >>>>>>>>> that
immigration is a burden on the health service rather than a net >>>>>>>>> benefit
by a significant margin rCo 49 per cent versus just 22 per cent >>>>>>>>> respectively.
This is a view shared by Reform, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, >>>>>>>>> SNP and
Plaid Cymru voters. Whether this reflects public dissatisfaction >>>>>>>>> with
immigration because it increases demand on the health service or >>>>>>>>> because
of poor-quality care deserves further research; however, our survey >>>>>>>>> revealed a strong public preference for training more British >>>>>>>>> doctors
and nurses, and around 42 per cent of voters believe that the >>>>>>>>> quality of
care provided by foreign staff in the NHS is worse than that >>>>>>>>> offered by
British doctors.
The public have a far greater appetite for reforming the delivery >>>>>>>>> and
funding of the health service than ever before. BritainrCOs
politicians
should have the courage to re-establish a new social contract >>>>>>>>> with the
public when it comes to public services, one which respects British >>>>>>>>> taxpayers and strives to create the finest public services for >>>>>>>>> British
people in the world, taking inspiration from best practice in other >>>>>>>>> countries. The public, evidently, are running out of patience, >>>>>>>>> and wonrCOt
forgive the political class if it passes the buck to the next >>>>>>>>> generation
once more.
Fred De Fossard
WerCOre in trouble as well. Our system started to have problems in >>>>>>>> late 80rCOs/
early nineties. Before that, it was stellar. How it happened is ? >>>>>>>> How to
fix it is ? as well. WerCOre looking at Switzerland and Australia, >>>>>>>> Germany
etc.
On 2/25/2026 11:54 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 11:49 AM, Dude wrote:It is obvious you are nuts. Don't even need to look it up.
On 2/25/2026 11:46 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 11:42 AM, Dude wrote:Google says you are psycho. Try again.
On 2/25/2026 10:09 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 10:02 AM, Dude wrote:Google says what you posted is inaccurate. Try again.
On 2/25/2026 9:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
typical market fundie whiningWe are going to have see some data on that.
uk/canada both pay less for it's system vs us/switzerland/
austria/ germany
do ur own googling
making up shit again dude???
i love how u just make up shit when it suits u
true sign of a proper psychopath:
lack of genuine honesty
Let's be fair. A flat tax is a fair tax - everyone should be equalbecause it's funded by taxes ya'll can just increase taxes in a >>>>>>>> progressive manner instead of whining about muh reformThat's one solution: raise taxes with a 50% flat tax on income
endlessly, and it will hit ur average person less
for everyone under the age of 75.
not progressive, try again
under the law.
a progressive tax is fair to anyone but a subethical psychopath
We're all equal here. This is Usenet.
why are you such a fking psychopathic retard julian?This is supposed to be a conversation among equals, Nick.
am i supposed to consider psychopathic retards like julian,
wilson, or you my equals??? fat chance bro
u type whatever u want dude, ain't gunna make it true
ya'll are fking psychopathic Efnis
#god
On 2/25/26 8:50 AM, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
Despite soaking up more than -u200 billion of taxpayersrCO money >>>>>>>>>> per year,
(over 40% of all UK government day-to-day departmental spending, >>>>>>>>>> around 11% GDP)
the NHS and health policy more widely are two areas which have >>>>>>>>>> gone
ignored. Since the coalition governmentrCOs half-baked reforms, >>>>>>>>>> BritainrCOs
approach to health policy can be summarised as: give the NHS >>>>>>>>>> money and
hope for the best.
This approach is running out of road. Over the last few years, >>>>>>>>>> the NHS
has faced unprecedented pressure. A combination of bad winters >>>>>>>>>> and the
shocks of the pandemic have left it in a poor state, with high >>>>>>>>>> waiting
lists and demoralised staff. Clearly something isnrCOt working. The >>>>>>>>>> current government has continued where the Tories left off, >>>>>>>>>> papering
over the cracks. Something has to change. But what? The NHS is >>>>>>>>>> spoken
about like a national religion, and reforming it is believed >>>>>>>>>> to be a
third rail of British politics.
In the pandemic, the public were implored to rCyprotect the >>>>>>>>>> NHSrCO, rather
than expect the health service to protect the public. The >>>>>>>>>> establishment
of the NHS was treated like one of BritainrCOs founding myths, >>>>>>>>>> akin to
Alfred the Great or the Battle of Hastings, in the opening >>>>>>>>>> ceremony to
the 2012 Olympic Games. This sentiment also manifested itself >>>>>>>>>> in public
opinion, such as the Clap for Carers initiative in 2020 and >>>>>>>>>> 2023 polling
which found more than half of British citizens believed the >>>>>>>>>> NHS made
them proud to be British.
But if both taxes and NHS spending are at record highs, and >>>>>>>>>> yet the
health service refuses to improve, then something has to give. >>>>>>>>>> That is
why Prosperity Institute conducted a 5,000-person poll with >>>>>>>>>> Merlin
Strategy this winter. We wanted to find out whether the public >>>>>>>>>> still do
treat the NHS like some kind of sacred cow, whether they
believe it is
working and what should be done.
The findings reveal a country finally in the mood to try
something
different. The public are disillusioned with the NHS, its >>>>>>>>>> funding model,
the quality of its services and its priorities. Anyone who >>>>>>>>>> wishes to
grasp the nettle of NHS reform should take heart in the
results, as they
suggest the British people are far more willing to roll the >>>>>>>>>> dice and try
something new.
Naturally, the NHS is one of the publicrCOs highest priority >>>>>>>>>> issues.
Forty-nine per cent of voters said the NHS was in one of their >>>>>>>>>> top three
concerns, behind only the economy, chosen by 66 per cent, and >>>>>>>>>> immigration, listed by 50 per cent of the population. Though >>>>>>>>>> it may seem
obvious, these three issues remain the central concerns of the >>>>>>>>>> voting
public, and they overlap in many ways.
While our polling found that the public believed funding is >>>>>>>>>> one of the
biggest challenges the NHS faces, 59 per cent of voters
believed that
NHS reform should be prioritised over increased funding. Private >>>>>>>>>> healthcare has become remarkably popular, with 60 per cent of >>>>>>>>>> voters
reporting that they would use it if they could afford it and, >>>>>>>>>> if recent
figures are anything to go by, a large and growing proportion >>>>>>>>>> of the
population is doing just that: more than 8.4 million people >>>>>>>>>> had private
health insurance as of 2024.
Of course, it is worth examining if people are turning to private >>>>>>>>>> healthcare as a last resort, using the market where the NHS >>>>>>>>>> has failed,
which is what many have claimed regarding the high levels of >>>>>>>>>> out-of-pocket expenditure on private healthcare these days. >>>>>>>>>> But our
polling revealed high levels of trust in private practitioners >>>>>>>>>> as well.
Similarly, when asked about the publicrCOs preferred healthcare >>>>>>>>>> systems
from around the world, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany and >>>>>>>>>> Australia came out on top. All are countries with a mixed >>>>>>>>>> model of
provision, where the state, the private sector and charities >>>>>>>>>> deliver
healthcare in a more competitive system with better results >>>>>>>>>> than the NHS.
While it is worth bearing in mind that the publicrCOs awareness >>>>>>>>>> of the
details of these countriesrCO health policies may vary rCo >>>>>>>>>> Switzerland is
generally assumed to be a well-run, efficient country rCo >>>>>>>>>> thousands of
British doctors have moved to practise in Australia recently, >>>>>>>>>> and it is
highly likely that many British people will have heard about >>>>>>>>>> the better
state of their health service from friends or family.
Unsurprisingly,
the public remain hostile to an American-style model, which is >>>>>>>>>> still
associated with expensive treatments and insurance costs.
These findings are a useful reminder that the public
understand that the
health policy dichotomy of rCythe NHS or AmericarCO often posed in >>>>>>>>>> British
politics is false, and there is a whole world of functioning, >>>>>>>>>> accessible
healthcare out there, much of it on our doorstep.
In a sense, it is hardly surprising that the public are ready for >>>>>>>>>> reforming the health service. Taxes and immigration are at >>>>>>>>>> record highs,
two policies which the government claims were chosen to
support the NHS,
but without the public seeing a notable improvement in care as a >>>>>>>>>> consequence. Indeed, our polling reveals that the public
believe that
immigration is a burden on the health service rather than a >>>>>>>>>> net benefit
by a significant margin rCo 49 per cent versus just 22 per cent >>>>>>>>>> respectively.
This is a view shared by Reform, Conservative, Liberal
Democrat, SNP and
Plaid Cymru voters. Whether this reflects public
dissatisfaction with
immigration because it increases demand on the health service >>>>>>>>>> or because
of poor-quality care deserves further research; however, our >>>>>>>>>> survey
revealed a strong public preference for training more British >>>>>>>>>> doctors
and nurses, and around 42 per cent of voters believe that the >>>>>>>>>> quality of
care provided by foreign staff in the NHS is worse than that >>>>>>>>>> offered by
British doctors.
The public have a far greater appetite for reforming the
delivery and
funding of the health service than ever before. BritainrCOs >>>>>>>>>> politicians
should have the courage to re-establish a new social contract >>>>>>>>>> with the
public when it comes to public services, one which respects >>>>>>>>>> British
taxpayers and strives to create the finest public services for >>>>>>>>>> British
people in the world, taking inspiration from best practice in >>>>>>>>>> other
countries. The public, evidently, are running out of patience, >>>>>>>>>> and wonrCOt
forgive the political class if it passes the buck to the next >>>>>>>>>> generation
once more.
Fred De Fossard
WerCOre in trouble as well. Our system started to have problems >>>>>>>>> in late 80rCOs/
early nineties. Before that, it was stellar. How it happened >>>>>>>>> is ? How to
fix it is ? as well. WerCOre looking at Switzerland and
Australia, Germany
etc.
typical market fundie whining
uk/canada both pay less for it's system vs us/switzerland/austria/germany
because it's funded by taxes ya'll can just increase taxes in a
progressive manner instead of whining about muh reform endlessly, and it will hit ur average person less
why are you such a fking psychopathic retard julian?
On 2/25/26 8:50 AM, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
Despite soaking up more than -u200 billion of taxpayersrCO money per year, >>> (over 40% of all UK government day-to-day departmental spending,
around 11% GDP)
the NHS and health policy more widely are two areas which have gone
ignored. Since the coalition governmentrCOs half-baked reforms, BritainrCOs >>> approach to health policy can be summarised as: give the NHS money and
hope for the best.
This approach is running out of road. Over the last few years, the NHS
has faced unprecedented pressure. A combination of bad winters and the
shocks of the pandemic have left it in a poor state, with high waiting
lists and demoralised staff. Clearly something isnrCOt working. The
current government has continued where the Tories left off, papering
over the cracks. Something has to change. But what? The NHS is spoken
about like a national religion, and reforming it is believed to be a
third rail of British politics.
In the pandemic, the public were implored to rCyprotect the NHSrCO, rather >>> than expect the health service to protect the public. The establishment
of the NHS was treated like one of BritainrCOs founding myths, akin to
Alfred the Great or the Battle of Hastings, in the opening ceremony to
the 2012 Olympic Games. This sentiment also manifested itself in public
opinion, such as the Clap for Carers initiative in 2020 and 2023 polling >>> which found more than half of British citizens believed the NHS made
them proud to be British.
But if both taxes and NHS spending are at record highs, and yet the
health service refuses to improve, then something has to give. That is
why Prosperity Institute conducted a 5,000-person poll with Merlin
Strategy this winter. We wanted to find out whether the public still do
treat the NHS like some kind of sacred cow, whether they believe it is
working and what should be done.
The findings reveal a country finally in the mood to try something
different. The public are disillusioned with the NHS, its funding model, >>> the quality of its services and its priorities. Anyone who wishes to
grasp the nettle of NHS reform should take heart in the results, as they >>> suggest the British people are far more willing to roll the dice and try >>> something new.
Naturally, the NHS is one of the publicrCOs highest priority issues.
Forty-nine per cent of voters said the NHS was in one of their top three >>> concerns, behind only the economy, chosen by 66 per cent, and
immigration, listed by 50 per cent of the population. Though it may seem >>> obvious, these three issues remain the central concerns of the voting
public, and they overlap in many ways.
While our polling found that the public believed funding is one of the
biggest challenges the NHS faces, 59 per cent of voters believed that
NHS reform should be prioritised over increased funding. Private
healthcare has become remarkably popular, with 60 per cent of voters
reporting that they would use it if they could afford it and, if recent
figures are anything to go by, a large and growing proportion of the
population is doing just that: more than 8.4 million people had private
health insurance as of 2024.
Of course, it is worth examining if people are turning to private
healthcare as a last resort, using the market where the NHS has failed,
which is what many have claimed regarding the high levels of
out-of-pocket expenditure on private healthcare these days. But our
polling revealed high levels of trust in private practitioners as well.
Similarly, when asked about the publicrCOs preferred healthcare systems
from around the world, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany and
Australia came out on top. All are countries with a mixed model of
provision, where the state, the private sector and charities deliver
healthcare in a more competitive system with better results than the
NHS.
While it is worth bearing in mind that the publicrCOs awareness of the
details of these countriesrCO health policies may vary rCo Switzerland is >>> generally assumed to be a well-run, efficient country rCo thousands of
British doctors have moved to practise in Australia recently, and it is
highly likely that many British people will have heard about the better
state of their health service from friends or family. Unsurprisingly,
the public remain hostile to an American-style model, which is still
associated with expensive treatments and insurance costs.
These findings are a useful reminder that the public understand that the >>> health policy dichotomy of rCythe NHS or AmericarCO often posed in British >>> politics is false, and there is a whole world of functioning, accessible >>> healthcare out there, much of it on our doorstep.
In a sense, it is hardly surprising that the public are ready for
reforming the health service. Taxes and immigration are at record highs, >>> two policies which the government claims were chosen to support the NHS, >>> but without the public seeing a notable improvement in care as a
consequence. Indeed, our polling reveals that the public believe that
immigration is a burden on the health service rather than a net benefit
by a significant margin rCo 49 per cent versus just 22 per cent
respectively.
This is a view shared by Reform, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, SNP and >>> Plaid Cymru voters. Whether this reflects public dissatisfaction with
immigration because it increases demand on the health service or because >>> of poor-quality care deserves further research; however, our survey
revealed a strong public preference for training more British doctors
and nurses, and around 42 per cent of voters believe that the quality of >>> care provided by foreign staff in the NHS is worse than that offered by
British doctors.
The public have a far greater appetite for reforming the delivery and
funding of the health service than ever before. BritainrCOs politicians
should have the courage to re-establish a new social contract with the
public when it comes to public services, one which respects British
taxpayers and strives to create the finest public services for British
people in the world, taking inspiration from best practice in other
countries. The public, evidently, are running out of patience, and wonrCOt >>> forgive the political class if it passes the buck to the next generation >>> once more.
Fred De Fossard
WerCOre in trouble as well. Our system started to have problems in late
80rCOs/
early nineties. Before that, it was stellar. How it happened is ?-a How to >> fix it is ? as well. WerCOre looking at Switzerland and Australia, Germany >> etc.
On 2/25/26 12:10 PM, Dude wrote:
On 2/25/2026 11:54 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 11:49 AM, Dude wrote:It is obvious you are nuts. Don't even need to look it up.
On 2/25/2026 11:46 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 11:42 AM, Dude wrote:Google says you are psycho. Try again.
On 2/25/2026 10:09 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 10:02 AM, Dude wrote:Google says what you posted is inaccurate. Try again.
On 2/25/2026 9:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
typical market fundie whiningWe are going to have see some data on that.
uk/canada both pay less for it's system vs us/switzerland/
austria/ germany
do ur own googling
making up shit again dude???
i love how u just make up shit when it suits u
true sign of a proper psychopath:
lack of genuine honesty
yeah it's driving my crazy how u can't even fucking be honest about
factual statements like the cost of healthcare dude
fking psychopath
Let's be fair. A flat tax is a fair tax - everyone should be equal >>>>>> under the law.because it's funded by taxes ya'll can just increase taxes in a >>>>>>>>> progressive manner instead of whining about muh reformThat's one solution: raise taxes with a 50% flat tax on income >>>>>>>> for everyone under the age of 75.
endlessly, and it will hit ur average person less
not progressive, try again
a progressive tax is fair to anyone but a subethical psychopath
We're all equal here. This is Usenet.
why are you such a fking psychopathic retard julian?This is supposed to be a conversation among equals, Nick.
am i supposed to consider psychopathic retards like julian,
wilson, or you my equals??? fat chance bro
u type whatever u want dude, ain't gunna make it true
ya'll are fking psychopathic Efnis
#god
On 2/25/26 8:50 AM, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
Despite soaking up more than -u200 billion of taxpayersrCO money >>>>>>>>>>> per year,
(over 40% of all UK government day-to-day departmental spending, >>>>>>>>>>> around 11% GDP)
the NHS and health policy more widely are two areas which >>>>>>>>>>> have gone
ignored. Since the coalition governmentrCOs half-baked reforms, >>>>>>>>>>> BritainrCOs
approach to health policy can be summarised as: give the NHS >>>>>>>>>>> money and
hope for the best.
This approach is running out of road. Over the last few >>>>>>>>>>> years, the NHS
has faced unprecedented pressure. A combination of bad
winters and the
shocks of the pandemic have left it in a poor state, with >>>>>>>>>>> high waiting
lists and demoralised staff. Clearly something isnrCOt working. >>>>>>>>>>> The
current government has continued where the Tories left off, >>>>>>>>>>> papering
over the cracks. Something has to change. But what? The NHS >>>>>>>>>>> is spoken
about like a national religion, and reforming it is believed >>>>>>>>>>> to be a
third rail of British politics.
In the pandemic, the public were implored to rCyprotect the >>>>>>>>>>> NHSrCO, rather
than expect the health service to protect the public. The >>>>>>>>>>> establishment
of the NHS was treated like one of BritainrCOs founding myths, >>>>>>>>>>> akin to
Alfred the Great or the Battle of Hastings, in the opening >>>>>>>>>>> ceremony to
the 2012 Olympic Games. This sentiment also manifested itself >>>>>>>>>>> in public
opinion, such as the Clap for Carers initiative in 2020 and >>>>>>>>>>> 2023 polling
which found more than half of British citizens believed the >>>>>>>>>>> NHS made
them proud to be British.
But if both taxes and NHS spending are at record highs, and >>>>>>>>>>> yet the
health service refuses to improve, then something has to >>>>>>>>>>> give. That is
why Prosperity Institute conducted a 5,000-person poll with >>>>>>>>>>> Merlin
Strategy this winter. We wanted to find out whether the >>>>>>>>>>> public still do
treat the NHS like some kind of sacred cow, whether they >>>>>>>>>>> believe it is
working and what should be done.
The findings reveal a country finally in the mood to try >>>>>>>>>>> something
different. The public are disillusioned with the NHS, its >>>>>>>>>>> funding model,
the quality of its services and its priorities. Anyone who >>>>>>>>>>> wishes to
grasp the nettle of NHS reform should take heart in the >>>>>>>>>>> results, as they
suggest the British people are far more willing to roll the >>>>>>>>>>> dice and try
something new.
Naturally, the NHS is one of the publicrCOs highest priority >>>>>>>>>>> issues.
Forty-nine per cent of voters said the NHS was in one of >>>>>>>>>>> their top three
concerns, behind only the economy, chosen by 66 per cent, and >>>>>>>>>>> immigration, listed by 50 per cent of the population. Though >>>>>>>>>>> it may seem
obvious, these three issues remain the central concerns of >>>>>>>>>>> the voting
public, and they overlap in many ways.
While our polling found that the public believed funding is >>>>>>>>>>> one of the
biggest challenges the NHS faces, 59 per cent of voters >>>>>>>>>>> believed that
NHS reform should be prioritised over increased funding. Private >>>>>>>>>>> healthcare has become remarkably popular, with 60 per cent of >>>>>>>>>>> voters
reporting that they would use it if they could afford it and, >>>>>>>>>>> if recent
figures are anything to go by, a large and growing proportion >>>>>>>>>>> of the
population is doing just that: more than 8.4 million people >>>>>>>>>>> had private
health insurance as of 2024.
Of course, it is worth examining if people are turning to >>>>>>>>>>> private
healthcare as a last resort, using the market where the NHS >>>>>>>>>>> has failed,
which is what many have claimed regarding the high levels of >>>>>>>>>>> out-of-pocket expenditure on private healthcare these days. >>>>>>>>>>> But our
polling revealed high levels of trust in private
practitioners as well.
Similarly, when asked about the publicrCOs preferred healthcare >>>>>>>>>>> systems
from around the world, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany and >>>>>>>>>>> Australia came out on top. All are countries with a mixed >>>>>>>>>>> model of
provision, where the state, the private sector and charities >>>>>>>>>>> deliver
healthcare in a more competitive system with better results >>>>>>>>>>> than the NHS.
While it is worth bearing in mind that the publicrCOs awareness >>>>>>>>>>> of the
details of these countriesrCO health policies may vary rCo >>>>>>>>>>> Switzerland is
generally assumed to be a well-run, efficient country rCo >>>>>>>>>>> thousands of
British doctors have moved to practise in Australia recently, >>>>>>>>>>> and it is
highly likely that many British people will have heard about >>>>>>>>>>> the better
state of their health service from friends or family.
Unsurprisingly,
the public remain hostile to an American-style model, which >>>>>>>>>>> is still
associated with expensive treatments and insurance costs. >>>>>>>>>>>
These findings are a useful reminder that the public
understand that the
health policy dichotomy of rCythe NHS or AmericarCO often posed >>>>>>>>>>> in British
politics is false, and there is a whole world of functioning, >>>>>>>>>>> accessible
healthcare out there, much of it on our doorstep.
In a sense, it is hardly surprising that the public are ready >>>>>>>>>>> for
reforming the health service. Taxes and immigration are at >>>>>>>>>>> record highs,
two policies which the government claims were chosen to >>>>>>>>>>> support the NHS,
but without the public seeing a notable improvement in care as a >>>>>>>>>>> consequence. Indeed, our polling reveals that the public >>>>>>>>>>> believe that
immigration is a burden on the health service rather than a >>>>>>>>>>> net benefit
by a significant margin rCo 49 per cent versus just 22 per cent >>>>>>>>>>> respectively.
This is a view shared by Reform, Conservative, Liberal
Democrat, SNP and
Plaid Cymru voters. Whether this reflects public
dissatisfaction with
immigration because it increases demand on the health service >>>>>>>>>>> or because
of poor-quality care deserves further research; however, our >>>>>>>>>>> survey
revealed a strong public preference for training more British >>>>>>>>>>> doctors
and nurses, and around 42 per cent of voters believe that the >>>>>>>>>>> quality of
care provided by foreign staff in the NHS is worse than that >>>>>>>>>>> offered by
British doctors.
The public have a far greater appetite for reforming the >>>>>>>>>>> delivery and
funding of the health service than ever before. BritainrCOs >>>>>>>>>>> politicians
should have the courage to re-establish a new social contract >>>>>>>>>>> with the
public when it comes to public services, one which respects >>>>>>>>>>> British
taxpayers and strives to create the finest public services >>>>>>>>>>> for British
people in the world, taking inspiration from best practice in >>>>>>>>>>> other
countries. The public, evidently, are running out of
patience, and wonrCOt
forgive the political class if it passes the buck to the next >>>>>>>>>>> generation
once more.
Fred De Fossard
WerCOre in trouble as well. Our system started to have problems >>>>>>>>>> in late 80rCOs/
early nineties. Before that, it was stellar. How it happened >>>>>>>>>> is ? How to
fix it is ? as well. WerCOre looking at Switzerland and
Australia, Germany
etc.
On 2/25/2026 9:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
typical market fundie whiningYou moron!
uk/canada both pay less for it's system vs us/switzerland/austria/germany
because it's funded by taxes ya'll can just increase taxes in a
progressive manner instead of whining about muh reform endlessly, and
it will hit ur average person less
why are you such a fking psychopathic retard julian?
The UK already has a progressive income tax system: higher earners pay a higher percentage of their income in tax. Tax rates increase as income
rises
On 2/25/26 8:50 AM, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
Despite soaking up more than -u200 billion of taxpayersrCO money per year, >>>> (over 40% of all UK government day-to-day departmental spending,
around 11% GDP)
the NHS and health policy more widely are two areas which have gone
ignored. Since the coalition governmentrCOs half-baked reforms, BritainrCOs
approach to health policy can be summarised as: give the NHS money and >>>> hope for the best.
This approach is running out of road. Over the last few years, the NHS >>>> has faced unprecedented pressure. A combination of bad winters and the >>>> shocks of the pandemic have left it in a poor state, with high waiting >>>> lists and demoralised staff. Clearly something isnrCOt working. The
current government has continued where the Tories left off, papering
over the cracks. Something has to change. But what? The NHS is spoken
about like a national religion, and reforming it is believed to be a
third rail of British politics.
In the pandemic, the public were implored to rCyprotect the NHSrCO, rather >>>> than expect the health service to protect the public. The establishment >>>> of the NHS was treated like one of BritainrCOs founding myths, akin to >>>> Alfred the Great or the Battle of Hastings, in the opening ceremony to >>>> the 2012 Olympic Games. This sentiment also manifested itself in public >>>> opinion, such as the Clap for Carers initiative in 2020 and 2023
polling
which found more than half of British citizens believed the NHS made
them proud to be British.
But if both taxes and NHS spending are at record highs, and yet the
health service refuses to improve, then something has to give. That is >>>> why Prosperity Institute conducted a 5,000-person poll with Merlin
Strategy this winter. We wanted to find out whether the public still do >>>> treat the NHS like some kind of sacred cow, whether they believe it is >>>> working and what should be done.
The findings reveal a country finally in the mood to try something
different. The public are disillusioned with the NHS, its funding
model,
the quality of its services and its priorities. Anyone who wishes to
grasp the nettle of NHS reform should take heart in the results, as
they
suggest the British people are far more willing to roll the dice and
try
something new.
Naturally, the NHS is one of the publicrCOs highest priority issues.
Forty-nine per cent of voters said the NHS was in one of their top
three
concerns, behind only the economy, chosen by 66 per cent, and
immigration, listed by 50 per cent of the population. Though it may
seem
obvious, these three issues remain the central concerns of the voting
public, and they overlap in many ways.
While our polling found that the public believed funding is one of the >>>> biggest challenges the NHS faces, 59 per cent of voters believed that
NHS reform should be prioritised over increased funding. Private
healthcare has become remarkably popular, with 60 per cent of voters
reporting that they would use it if they could afford it and, if recent >>>> figures are anything to go by, a large and growing proportion of the
population is doing just that: more than 8.4 million people had private >>>> health insurance as of 2024.
Of course, it is worth examining if people are turning to private
healthcare as a last resort, using the market where the NHS has failed, >>>> which is what many have claimed regarding the high levels of
out-of-pocket expenditure on private healthcare these days. But our
polling revealed high levels of trust in private practitioners as well. >>>>
Similarly, when asked about the publicrCOs preferred healthcare systems >>>> from around the world, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany and
Australia came out on top. All are countries with a mixed model of
provision, where the state, the private sector and charities deliver
healthcare in a more competitive system with better results than the
NHS.
While it is worth bearing in mind that the publicrCOs awareness of the >>>> details of these countriesrCO health policies may vary rCo Switzerland is >>>> generally assumed to be a well-run, efficient country rCo thousands of >>>> British doctors have moved to practise in Australia recently, and it is >>>> highly likely that many British people will have heard about the better >>>> state of their health service from friends or family. Unsurprisingly,
the public remain hostile to an American-style model, which is still
associated with expensive treatments and insurance costs.
These findings are a useful reminder that the public understand that
the
health policy dichotomy of rCythe NHS or AmericarCO often posed in British >>>> politics is false, and there is a whole world of functioning,
accessible
healthcare out there, much of it on our doorstep.
In a sense, it is hardly surprising that the public are ready for
reforming the health service. Taxes and immigration are at record
highs,
two policies which the government claims were chosen to support the
NHS,
but without the public seeing a notable improvement in care as a
consequence. Indeed, our polling reveals that the public believe that
immigration is a burden on the health service rather than a net benefit >>>> by a significant margin rCo 49 per cent versus just 22 per cent
respectively.
This is a view shared by Reform, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, SNP
and
Plaid Cymru voters. Whether this reflects public dissatisfaction with
immigration because it increases demand on the health service or
because
of poor-quality care deserves further research; however, our survey
revealed a strong public preference for training more British doctors
and nurses, and around 42 per cent of voters believe that the
quality of
care provided by foreign staff in the NHS is worse than that offered by >>>> British doctors.
The public have a far greater appetite for reforming the delivery and
funding of the health service than ever before. BritainrCOs politicians >>>> should have the courage to re-establish a new social contract with the >>>> public when it comes to public services, one which respects British
taxpayers and strives to create the finest public services for British >>>> people in the world, taking inspiration from best practice in other
countries. The public, evidently, are running out of patience, and
wonrCOt
forgive the political class if it passes the buck to the next
generation
once more.
Fred De Fossard
WerCOre in trouble as well. Our system started to have problems in late >>> 80rCOs/
early nineties. Before that, it was stellar. How it happened is ?
How to
fix it is ? as well. WerCOre looking at Switzerland and Australia, Germany >>> etc.
On 2/25/2026 9:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
typical market fundie whiningYou moron!
uk/canada both pay less for it's system vs us/switzerland/austria/germany
because it's funded by taxes ya'll can just increase taxes in a
progressive manner instead of whining about muh reform endlessly, and it
will hit ur average person less
why are you such a fking psychopathic retard julian?
The UK already has a progressive income tax system: higher earners pay a higher percentage of their income in tax. Tax rates increase as income rises
On 2/25/26 8:50 AM, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
Despite soaking up more than -u200 billion of taxpayersrCO money per year, >>>> (over 40% of all UK government day-to-day departmental spending,
around 11% GDP)
the NHS and health policy more widely are two areas which have gone
ignored. Since the coalition governmentrCOs half-baked reforms, BritainrCOs
approach to health policy can be summarised as: give the NHS money and >>>> hope for the best.
This approach is running out of road. Over the last few years, the NHS >>>> has faced unprecedented pressure. A combination of bad winters and the >>>> shocks of the pandemic have left it in a poor state, with high waiting >>>> lists and demoralised staff. Clearly something isnrCOt working. The
current government has continued where the Tories left off, papering
over the cracks. Something has to change. But what? The NHS is spoken
about like a national religion, and reforming it is believed to be a
third rail of British politics.
In the pandemic, the public were implored to rCyprotect the NHSrCO, rather >>>> than expect the health service to protect the public. The establishment >>>> of the NHS was treated like one of BritainrCOs founding myths, akin to >>>> Alfred the Great or the Battle of Hastings, in the opening ceremony to >>>> the 2012 Olympic Games. This sentiment also manifested itself in public >>>> opinion, such as the Clap for Carers initiative in 2020 and 2023 polling >>>> which found more than half of British citizens believed the NHS made
them proud to be British.
But if both taxes and NHS spending are at record highs, and yet the
health service refuses to improve, then something has to give. That is >>>> why Prosperity Institute conducted a 5,000-person poll with Merlin
Strategy this winter. We wanted to find out whether the public still do >>>> treat the NHS like some kind of sacred cow, whether they believe it is >>>> working and what should be done.
The findings reveal a country finally in the mood to try something
different. The public are disillusioned with the NHS, its funding model, >>>> the quality of its services and its priorities. Anyone who wishes to
grasp the nettle of NHS reform should take heart in the results, as they >>>> suggest the British people are far more willing to roll the dice and try >>>> something new.
Naturally, the NHS is one of the publicrCOs highest priority issues.
Forty-nine per cent of voters said the NHS was in one of their top three >>>> concerns, behind only the economy, chosen by 66 per cent, and
immigration, listed by 50 per cent of the population. Though it may seem >>>> obvious, these three issues remain the central concerns of the voting
public, and they overlap in many ways.
While our polling found that the public believed funding is one of the >>>> biggest challenges the NHS faces, 59 per cent of voters believed that
NHS reform should be prioritised over increased funding. Private
healthcare has become remarkably popular, with 60 per cent of voters
reporting that they would use it if they could afford it and, if recent >>>> figures are anything to go by, a large and growing proportion of the
population is doing just that: more than 8.4 million people had private >>>> health insurance as of 2024.
Of course, it is worth examining if people are turning to private
healthcare as a last resort, using the market where the NHS has failed, >>>> which is what many have claimed regarding the high levels of
out-of-pocket expenditure on private healthcare these days. But our
polling revealed high levels of trust in private practitioners as well. >>>>
Similarly, when asked about the publicrCOs preferred healthcare systems >>>> from around the world, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany and
Australia came out on top. All are countries with a mixed model of
provision, where the state, the private sector and charities deliver
healthcare in a more competitive system with better results than the
NHS.
While it is worth bearing in mind that the publicrCOs awareness of the >>>> details of these countriesrCO health policies may vary rCo Switzerland is >>>> generally assumed to be a well-run, efficient country rCo thousands of >>>> British doctors have moved to practise in Australia recently, and it is >>>> highly likely that many British people will have heard about the better >>>> state of their health service from friends or family. Unsurprisingly,
the public remain hostile to an American-style model, which is still
associated with expensive treatments and insurance costs.
These findings are a useful reminder that the public understand that the >>>> health policy dichotomy of rCythe NHS or AmericarCO often posed in British >>>> politics is false, and there is a whole world of functioning, accessible >>>> healthcare out there, much of it on our doorstep.
In a sense, it is hardly surprising that the public are ready for
reforming the health service. Taxes and immigration are at record highs, >>>> two policies which the government claims were chosen to support the NHS, >>>> but without the public seeing a notable improvement in care as a
consequence. Indeed, our polling reveals that the public believe that
immigration is a burden on the health service rather than a net benefit >>>> by a significant margin rCo 49 per cent versus just 22 per cent
respectively.
This is a view shared by Reform, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, SNP and >>>> Plaid Cymru voters. Whether this reflects public dissatisfaction with
immigration because it increases demand on the health service or because >>>> of poor-quality care deserves further research; however, our survey
revealed a strong public preference for training more British doctors
and nurses, and around 42 per cent of voters believe that the quality of >>>> care provided by foreign staff in the NHS is worse than that offered by >>>> British doctors.
The public have a far greater appetite for reforming the delivery and
funding of the health service than ever before. BritainrCOs politicians >>>> should have the courage to re-establish a new social contract with the >>>> public when it comes to public services, one which respects British
taxpayers and strives to create the finest public services for British >>>> people in the world, taking inspiration from best practice in other
countries. The public, evidently, are running out of patience, and wonrCOt >>>> forgive the political class if it passes the buck to the next generation >>>> once more.
Fred De Fossard
WerCOre in trouble as well. Our system started to have problems in late >>> 80rCOs/
early nineties. Before that, it was stellar. How it happened is ?-a How to >>> fix it is ? as well. WerCOre looking at Switzerland and Australia, Germany >>> etc.
Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/25/2026 9:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
typical market fundie whiningYou moron!
uk/canada both pay less for it's system vs us/switzerland/austria/germany >>>
because it's funded by taxes ya'll can just increase taxes in a
progressive manner instead of whining about muh reform endlessly, and it >>> will hit ur average person less
why are you such a fking psychopathic retard julian?
The UK already has a progressive income tax system: higher earners pay a
higher percentage of their income in tax. Tax rates increase as income rises
As does Canada.
On 2/25/26 8:50 AM, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
Despite soaking up more than -u200 billion of taxpayersrCO money per year,
(over 40% of all UK government day-to-day departmental spending,
around 11% GDP)
the NHS and health policy more widely are two areas which have gone
ignored. Since the coalition governmentrCOs half-baked reforms, BritainrCOs
approach to health policy can be summarised as: give the NHS money and >>>>> hope for the best.
This approach is running out of road. Over the last few years, the NHS >>>>> has faced unprecedented pressure. A combination of bad winters and the >>>>> shocks of the pandemic have left it in a poor state, with high waiting >>>>> lists and demoralised staff. Clearly something isnrCOt working. The
current government has continued where the Tories left off, papering >>>>> over the cracks. Something has to change. But what? The NHS is spoken >>>>> about like a national religion, and reforming it is believed to be a >>>>> third rail of British politics.
In the pandemic, the public were implored to rCyprotect the NHSrCO, rather
than expect the health service to protect the public. The establishment >>>>> of the NHS was treated like one of BritainrCOs founding myths, akin to >>>>> Alfred the Great or the Battle of Hastings, in the opening ceremony to >>>>> the 2012 Olympic Games. This sentiment also manifested itself in public >>>>> opinion, such as the Clap for Carers initiative in 2020 and 2023 polling >>>>> which found more than half of British citizens believed the NHS made >>>>> them proud to be British.
But if both taxes and NHS spending are at record highs, and yet the
health service refuses to improve, then something has to give. That is >>>>> why Prosperity Institute conducted a 5,000-person poll with Merlin
Strategy this winter. We wanted to find out whether the public still do >>>>> treat the NHS like some kind of sacred cow, whether they believe it is >>>>> working and what should be done.
The findings reveal a country finally in the mood to try something
different. The public are disillusioned with the NHS, its funding model, >>>>> the quality of its services and its priorities. Anyone who wishes to >>>>> grasp the nettle of NHS reform should take heart in the results, as they >>>>> suggest the British people are far more willing to roll the dice and try >>>>> something new.
Naturally, the NHS is one of the publicrCOs highest priority issues. >>>>> Forty-nine per cent of voters said the NHS was in one of their top three >>>>> concerns, behind only the economy, chosen by 66 per cent, and
immigration, listed by 50 per cent of the population. Though it may seem >>>>> obvious, these three issues remain the central concerns of the voting >>>>> public, and they overlap in many ways.
While our polling found that the public believed funding is one of the >>>>> biggest challenges the NHS faces, 59 per cent of voters believed that >>>>> NHS reform should be prioritised over increased funding. Private
healthcare has become remarkably popular, with 60 per cent of voters >>>>> reporting that they would use it if they could afford it and, if recent >>>>> figures are anything to go by, a large and growing proportion of the >>>>> population is doing just that: more than 8.4 million people had private >>>>> health insurance as of 2024.
Of course, it is worth examining if people are turning to private
healthcare as a last resort, using the market where the NHS has failed, >>>>> which is what many have claimed regarding the high levels of
out-of-pocket expenditure on private healthcare these days. But our
polling revealed high levels of trust in private practitioners as well. >>>>>
Similarly, when asked about the publicrCOs preferred healthcare systems >>>>> from around the world, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany and
Australia came out on top. All are countries with a mixed model of
provision, where the state, the private sector and charities deliver >>>>> healthcare in a more competitive system with better results than the >>>>> NHS.
While it is worth bearing in mind that the publicrCOs awareness of the >>>>> details of these countriesrCO health policies may vary rCo Switzerland is >>>>> generally assumed to be a well-run, efficient country rCo thousands of >>>>> British doctors have moved to practise in Australia recently, and it is >>>>> highly likely that many British people will have heard about the better >>>>> state of their health service from friends or family. Unsurprisingly, >>>>> the public remain hostile to an American-style model, which is still >>>>> associated with expensive treatments and insurance costs.
These findings are a useful reminder that the public understand that the >>>>> health policy dichotomy of rCythe NHS or AmericarCO often posed in British
politics is false, and there is a whole world of functioning, accessible >>>>> healthcare out there, much of it on our doorstep.
In a sense, it is hardly surprising that the public are ready for
reforming the health service. Taxes and immigration are at record highs, >>>>> two policies which the government claims were chosen to support the NHS, >>>>> but without the public seeing a notable improvement in care as a
consequence. Indeed, our polling reveals that the public believe that >>>>> immigration is a burden on the health service rather than a net benefit >>>>> by a significant margin rCo 49 per cent versus just 22 per cent
respectively.
This is a view shared by Reform, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, SNP and >>>>> Plaid Cymru voters. Whether this reflects public dissatisfaction with >>>>> immigration because it increases demand on the health service or because >>>>> of poor-quality care deserves further research; however, our survey
revealed a strong public preference for training more British doctors >>>>> and nurses, and around 42 per cent of voters believe that the quality of >>>>> care provided by foreign staff in the NHS is worse than that offered by >>>>> British doctors.
The public have a far greater appetite for reforming the delivery and >>>>> funding of the health service than ever before. BritainrCOs politicians >>>>> should have the courage to re-establish a new social contract with the >>>>> public when it comes to public services, one which respects British
taxpayers and strives to create the finest public services for British >>>>> people in the world, taking inspiration from best practice in other
countries. The public, evidently, are running out of patience, and wonrCOt
forgive the political class if it passes the buck to the next generation >>>>> once more.
Fred De Fossard
WerCOre in trouble as well. Our system started to have problems in late >>>> 80rCOs/
early nineties. Before that, it was stellar. How it happened is ?-a How to >>>> fix it is ? as well. WerCOre looking at Switzerland and Australia, Germany >>>> etc.
On 2/25/2026 12:34 PM, Tara wrote:
Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Obviously, he's a moron.
On 2/25/2026 9:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
typical market fundie whiningYou moron!
uk/canada both pay less for it's system vs us/switzerland/austria/
germany
because it's funded by taxes ya'll can just increase taxes in a
progressive manner instead of whining about muh reform endlessly,
and it
will hit ur average person less
why are you such a fking psychopathic retard julian?
The UK already has a progressive income tax system: higher earners pay a >>> higher percentage of their income in tax. Tax rates increase as
income rises
As does Canada.
Everyone already knows that Canada has a progressive, graduated income
tax system. Where higher earners pay a higher percentage of their income
in taxes through both federal and provincial brackets.
--1
On 2/25/26 8:50 AM, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
Despite soaking up more than -u200 billion of taxpayersrCO money per >>>>>> year,
(over 40% of all UK government day-to-day departmental spending,
around 11% GDP)
the NHS and health policy more widely are two areas which have gone >>>>>> ignored. Since the coalition governmentrCOs half-baked reforms,
BritainrCOs
approach to health policy can be summarised as: give the NHS money >>>>>> and
hope for the best.
This approach is running out of road. Over the last few years, the >>>>>> NHS
has faced unprecedented pressure. A combination of bad winters and >>>>>> the
shocks of the pandemic have left it in a poor state, with high
waiting
lists and demoralised staff. Clearly something isnrCOt working. The >>>>>> current government has continued where the Tories left off, papering >>>>>> over the cracks. Something has to change. But what? The NHS is spoken >>>>>> about like a national religion, and reforming it is believed to be a >>>>>> third rail of British politics.
In the pandemic, the public were implored to rCyprotect the NHSrCO, >>>>>> rather
than expect the health service to protect the public. The
establishment
of the NHS was treated like one of BritainrCOs founding myths, akin to >>>>>> Alfred the Great or the Battle of Hastings, in the opening
ceremony to
the 2012 Olympic Games. This sentiment also manifested itself in
public
opinion, such as the Clap for Carers initiative in 2020 and 2023
polling
which found more than half of British citizens believed the NHS made >>>>>> them proud to be British.
But if both taxes and NHS spending are at record highs, and yet the >>>>>> health service refuses to improve, then something has to give.
That is
why Prosperity Institute conducted a 5,000-person poll with Merlin >>>>>> Strategy this winter. We wanted to find out whether the public
still do
treat the NHS like some kind of sacred cow, whether they believe
it is
working and what should be done.
The findings reveal a country finally in the mood to try something >>>>>> different. The public are disillusioned with the NHS, its funding >>>>>> model,
the quality of its services and its priorities. Anyone who wishes to >>>>>> grasp the nettle of NHS reform should take heart in the results,
as they
suggest the British people are far more willing to roll the dice
and try
something new.
Naturally, the NHS is one of the publicrCOs highest priority issues. >>>>>> Forty-nine per cent of voters said the NHS was in one of their top >>>>>> three
concerns, behind only the economy, chosen by 66 per cent, and
immigration, listed by 50 per cent of the population. Though it
may seem
obvious, these three issues remain the central concerns of the voting >>>>>> public, and they overlap in many ways.
While our polling found that the public believed funding is one of >>>>>> the
biggest challenges the NHS faces, 59 per cent of voters believed that >>>>>> NHS reform should be prioritised over increased funding. Private
healthcare has become remarkably popular, with 60 per cent of voters >>>>>> reporting that they would use it if they could afford it and, if
recent
figures are anything to go by, a large and growing proportion of the >>>>>> population is doing just that: more than 8.4 million people had
private
health insurance as of 2024.
Of course, it is worth examining if people are turning to private
healthcare as a last resort, using the market where the NHS has
failed,
which is what many have claimed regarding the high levels of
out-of-pocket expenditure on private healthcare these days. But our >>>>>> polling revealed high levels of trust in private practitioners as >>>>>> well.
Similarly, when asked about the publicrCOs preferred healthcare systems >>>>>> from around the world, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany and
Australia came out on top. All are countries with a mixed model of >>>>>> provision, where the state, the private sector and charities deliver >>>>>> healthcare in a more competitive system with better results than the >>>>>> NHS.
While it is worth bearing in mind that the publicrCOs awareness of the >>>>>> details of these countriesrCO health policies may vary rCo Switzerland is
generally assumed to be a well-run, efficient country rCo thousands of >>>>>> British doctors have moved to practise in Australia recently, and >>>>>> it is
highly likely that many British people will have heard about the
better
state of their health service from friends or family. Unsurprisingly, >>>>>> the public remain hostile to an American-style model, which is still >>>>>> associated with expensive treatments and insurance costs.
These findings are a useful reminder that the public understand
that the
health policy dichotomy of rCythe NHS or AmericarCO often posed in >>>>>> British
politics is false, and there is a whole world of functioning,
accessible
healthcare out there, much of it on our doorstep.
In a sense, it is hardly surprising that the public are ready for
reforming the health service. Taxes and immigration are at record >>>>>> highs,
two policies which the government claims were chosen to support
the NHS,
but without the public seeing a notable improvement in care as a
consequence. Indeed, our polling reveals that the public believe that >>>>>> immigration is a burden on the health service rather than a net
benefit
by a significant margin rCo 49 per cent versus just 22 per cent
respectively.
This is a view shared by Reform, Conservative, Liberal Democrat,
SNP and
Plaid Cymru voters. Whether this reflects public dissatisfaction with >>>>>> immigration because it increases demand on the health service or
because
of poor-quality care deserves further research; however, our survey >>>>>> revealed a strong public preference for training more British doctors >>>>>> and nurses, and around 42 per cent of voters believe that the
quality of
care provided by foreign staff in the NHS is worse than that
offered by
British doctors.
The public have a far greater appetite for reforming the delivery and >>>>>> funding of the health service than ever before. BritainrCOs politicians >>>>>> should have the courage to re-establish a new social contract with >>>>>> the
public when it comes to public services, one which respects British >>>>>> taxpayers and strives to create the finest public services for
British
people in the world, taking inspiration from best practice in other >>>>>> countries. The public, evidently, are running out of patience, and >>>>>> wonrCOt
forgive the political class if it passes the buck to the next
generation
once more.
Fred De Fossard
WerCOre in trouble as well. Our system started to have problems in late >>>>> 80rCOs/
early nineties. Before that, it was stellar. How it happened is ?
How to
fix it is ? as well. WerCOre looking at Switzerland and Australia,
Germany
etc.
Despite soaking up more than -u200 billion of taxpayersrCO money per year, (over 40% of all UK government day-to-day departmental spending,
around 11% GDP)
the NHS and health policy more widely are two areas which have gone
ignored. Since the coalition governmentrCOs half-baked reforms, BritainrCOs approach to health policy can be summarised as: give the NHS money and
hope for the best.
On 2/25/2026 10:07 AM, Julian wrote:
Despite soaking up more than -u200 billion of taxpayersrCO money per year, >> (over 40% of all UK government day-to-day departmental spending,
around 11% GDP)
the NHS and health policy more widely are two areas which have gone
ignored. Since the coalition governmentrCOs half-baked reforms,
BritainrCOs approach to health policy can be summarised as: give the NHS
money and hope for the best.
https://x.com/Handrev/status/2026380787134734353
LASIK eye surgery cost $2,200 per eye in 2000. Today it's around $1,000
per eye despite 24 years of inflation. Meanwhile, an MRI that cost
$1,200 in 2000 now costs $3,000+. The difference? LASIK operates in a
free market with no insurance interference and minimal regulation.
When patients pay directly, providers must compete on price and quality. LASIK clinics advertise prices, offer financing, and constantly improve technology to attract customers. Compare this to hospital procedures
where prices are hidden, patients never see bills, and insurance
companies negotiate opaque rates that somehow always increase faster
than inflation.
Cosmetic surgery follows the same pattern. Breast augmentation,
rhinoplasty, and other elective procedures have become more affordable
and safer over decades. Surgeons invest in better techniques and
equipment because they must satisfy paying customers, not insurance bureaucrats or hospital administrators focused on maximizing
reimbursements.
The lesson is clear: remove third-party payment systems and excessive regulation, and you get Austrian economics in action. Prices fall,
quality rises, and innovation accelerates. Healthcare costs aren't
rising because of aging populations or new technologyrCothey're rising because we've destroyed the price mechanism that makes markets work.
On 2/25/2026 12:17 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 12:10 PM, Dude wrote:Moron can't even compose a legible text message. You don't have anything
On 2/25/2026 11:54 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 11:49 AM, Dude wrote:It is obvious you are nuts. Don't even need to look it up.
On 2/25/2026 11:46 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 11:42 AM, Dude wrote:Google says you are psycho. Try again.
On 2/25/2026 10:09 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 10:02 AM, Dude wrote:Google says what you posted is inaccurate. Try again.
On 2/25/2026 9:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
typical market fundie whiningWe are going to have see some data on that.
uk/canada both pay less for it's system vs us/switzerland/ >>>>>>>>>> austria/ germany
do ur own googling
making up shit again dude???
i love how u just make up shit when it suits u
true sign of a proper psychopath:
lack of genuine honesty
yeah it's driving my crazy how u can't even fucking be honest about
factual statements like the cost of healthcare dude
fking psychopath
to do with paying for your medical care - it's free to the indigent.
Let's be fair. A flat tax is a fair tax - everyone should bebecause it's funded by taxes ya'll can just increase taxes in >>>>>>>>>> a progressive manner instead of whining about muh reformThat's one solution: raise taxes with a 50% flat tax on income >>>>>>>>> for everyone under the age of 75.
endlessly, and it will hit ur average person less
not progressive, try again
equal under the law.
a progressive tax is fair to anyone but a subethical psychopath
We're all equal here. This is Usenet.
why are you such a fking psychopathic retard julian?This is supposed to be a conversation among equals, Nick.
am i supposed to consider psychopathic retards like julian,
wilson, or you my equals??? fat chance bro
u type whatever u want dude, ain't gunna make it true
ya'll are fking psychopathic Efnis
#god
On 2/25/26 8:50 AM, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
Despite soaking up more than -u200 billion of taxpayersrCO >>>>>>>>>>>> money per year,
(over 40% of all UK government day-to-day departmental >>>>>>>>>>>> spending,
around 11% GDP)
the NHS and health policy more widely are two areas which >>>>>>>>>>>> have gone
ignored. Since the coalition governmentrCOs half-baked >>>>>>>>>>>> reforms, BritainrCOs
approach to health policy can be summarised as: give the NHS >>>>>>>>>>>> money and
hope for the best.
This approach is running out of road. Over the last few >>>>>>>>>>>> years, the NHS
has faced unprecedented pressure. A combination of bad >>>>>>>>>>>> winters and the
shocks of the pandemic have left it in a poor state, with >>>>>>>>>>>> high waiting
lists and demoralised staff. Clearly something isnrCOt >>>>>>>>>>>> working. The
current government has continued where the Tories left off, >>>>>>>>>>>> papering
over the cracks. Something has to change. But what? The NHS >>>>>>>>>>>> is spoken
about like a national religion, and reforming it is believed >>>>>>>>>>>> to be a
third rail of British politics.
In the pandemic, the public were implored to rCyprotect the >>>>>>>>>>>> NHSrCO, rather
than expect the health service to protect the public. The >>>>>>>>>>>> establishment
of the NHS was treated like one of BritainrCOs founding myths, >>>>>>>>>>>> akin to
Alfred the Great or the Battle of Hastings, in the opening >>>>>>>>>>>> ceremony to
the 2012 Olympic Games. This sentiment also manifested >>>>>>>>>>>> itself in public
opinion, such as the Clap for Carers initiative in 2020 and >>>>>>>>>>>> 2023 polling
which found more than half of British citizens believed the >>>>>>>>>>>> NHS made
them proud to be British.
But if both taxes and NHS spending are at record highs, and >>>>>>>>>>>> yet the
health service refuses to improve, then something has to >>>>>>>>>>>> give. That is
why Prosperity Institute conducted a 5,000-person poll with >>>>>>>>>>>> Merlin
Strategy this winter. We wanted to find out whether the >>>>>>>>>>>> public still do
treat the NHS like some kind of sacred cow, whether they >>>>>>>>>>>> believe it is
working and what should be done.
The findings reveal a country finally in the mood to try >>>>>>>>>>>> something
different. The public are disillusioned with the NHS, its >>>>>>>>>>>> funding model,
the quality of its services and its priorities. Anyone who >>>>>>>>>>>> wishes to
grasp the nettle of NHS reform should take heart in the >>>>>>>>>>>> results, as they
suggest the British people are far more willing to roll the >>>>>>>>>>>> dice and try
something new.
Naturally, the NHS is one of the publicrCOs highest priority >>>>>>>>>>>> issues.
Forty-nine per cent of voters said the NHS was in one of >>>>>>>>>>>> their top three
concerns, behind only the economy, chosen by 66 per cent, and >>>>>>>>>>>> immigration, listed by 50 per cent of the population. Though >>>>>>>>>>>> it may seem
obvious, these three issues remain the central concerns of >>>>>>>>>>>> the voting
public, and they overlap in many ways.
While our polling found that the public believed funding is >>>>>>>>>>>> one of the
biggest challenges the NHS faces, 59 per cent of voters >>>>>>>>>>>> believed that
NHS reform should be prioritised over increased funding. >>>>>>>>>>>> Private
healthcare has become remarkably popular, with 60 per cent >>>>>>>>>>>> of voters
reporting that they would use it if they could afford it >>>>>>>>>>>> and, if recent
figures are anything to go by, a large and growing
proportion of the
population is doing just that: more than 8.4 million people >>>>>>>>>>>> had private
health insurance as of 2024.
Of course, it is worth examining if people are turning to >>>>>>>>>>>> private
healthcare as a last resort, using the market where the NHS >>>>>>>>>>>> has failed,
which is what many have claimed regarding the high levels of >>>>>>>>>>>> out-of-pocket expenditure on private healthcare these days. >>>>>>>>>>>> But our
polling revealed high levels of trust in private
practitioners as well.
Similarly, when asked about the publicrCOs preferred
healthcare systems
from around the world, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany >>>>>>>>>>>> and
Australia came out on top. All are countries with a mixed >>>>>>>>>>>> model of
provision, where the state, the private sector and charities >>>>>>>>>>>> deliver
healthcare in a more competitive system with better results >>>>>>>>>>>> than the NHS.
While it is worth bearing in mind that the publicrCOs >>>>>>>>>>>> awareness of the
details of these countriesrCO health policies may vary rCo >>>>>>>>>>>> Switzerland is
generally assumed to be a well-run, efficient country rCo >>>>>>>>>>>> thousands of
British doctors have moved to practise in Australia
recently, and it is
highly likely that many British people will have heard about >>>>>>>>>>>> the better
state of their health service from friends or family. >>>>>>>>>>>> Unsurprisingly,
the public remain hostile to an American-style model, which >>>>>>>>>>>> is still
associated with expensive treatments and insurance costs. >>>>>>>>>>>>
These findings are a useful reminder that the public
understand that the
health policy dichotomy of rCythe NHS or AmericarCO often posed >>>>>>>>>>>> in British
politics is false, and there is a whole world of
functioning, accessible
healthcare out there, much of it on our doorstep.
In a sense, it is hardly surprising that the public are >>>>>>>>>>>> ready for
reforming the health service. Taxes and immigration are at >>>>>>>>>>>> record highs,
two policies which the government claims were chosen to >>>>>>>>>>>> support the NHS,
but without the public seeing a notable improvement in care >>>>>>>>>>>> as a
consequence. Indeed, our polling reveals that the public >>>>>>>>>>>> believe that
immigration is a burden on the health service rather than a >>>>>>>>>>>> net benefit
by a significant margin rCo 49 per cent versus just 22 per >>>>>>>>>>>> cent respectively.
This is a view shared by Reform, Conservative, Liberal >>>>>>>>>>>> Democrat, SNP and
Plaid Cymru voters. Whether this reflects public
dissatisfaction with
immigration because it increases demand on the health >>>>>>>>>>>> service or because
of poor-quality care deserves further research; however, our >>>>>>>>>>>> survey
revealed a strong public preference for training more >>>>>>>>>>>> British doctors
and nurses, and around 42 per cent of voters believe that >>>>>>>>>>>> the quality of
care provided by foreign staff in the NHS is worse than that >>>>>>>>>>>> offered by
British doctors.
The public have a far greater appetite for reforming the >>>>>>>>>>>> delivery and
funding of the health service than ever before. BritainrCOs >>>>>>>>>>>> politicians
should have the courage to re-establish a new social
contract with the
public when it comes to public services, one which respects >>>>>>>>>>>> British
taxpayers and strives to create the finest public services >>>>>>>>>>>> for British
people in the world, taking inspiration from best practice >>>>>>>>>>>> in other
countries. The public, evidently, are running out of
patience, and wonrCOt
forgive the political class if it passes the buck to the >>>>>>>>>>>> next generation
once more.
Fred De Fossard
WerCOre in trouble as well. Our system started to have problems >>>>>>>>>>> in late 80rCOs/
early nineties. Before that, it was stellar. How it happened >>>>>>>>>>> is ? How to
fix it is ? as well. WerCOre looking at Switzerland and >>>>>>>>>>> Australia, Germany
etc.
On 2/25/26 1:29 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/25/2026 10:07 AM, Julian wrote:
Despite soaking up more than -u200 billion of taxpayersrCO money per year, >>> (over 40% of all UK government day-to-day departmental spending,
around 11% GDP)
the NHS and health policy more widely are two areas which have gone
ignored. Since the coalition governmentrCOs half-baked reforms,
BritainrCOs approach to health policy can be summarised as: give the
NHS money and hope for the best.
https://x.com/Handrev/status/2026380787134734353
LASIK eye surgery cost $2,200 per eye in 2000. Today it's around
$1,000 per eye despite 24 years of inflation. Meanwhile, an MRI that
cost $1,200 in 2000 now costs $3,000+. The difference? LASIK operates
in a free market with no insurance interference and minimal regulation.
When patients pay directly, providers must compete on price and
quality. LASIK clinics advertise prices, offer financing, and
constantly improve technology to attract customers. Compare this to
hospital procedures where prices are hidden, patients never see bills,
and insurance companies negotiate opaque rates that somehow always
increase faster than inflation.
Cosmetic surgery follows the same pattern. Breast augmentation,
rhinoplasty, and other elective procedures have become more affordable
and safer over decades. Surgeons invest in better techniques and
equipment because they must satisfy paying customers, not insurance
bureaucrats or hospital administrators focused on maximizing
reimbursements.
The lesson is clear: remove third-party payment systems and excessive
regulation, and you get Austrian economics in action. Prices fall,
quality rises, and innovation accelerates. Healthcare costs aren't
rising because of aging populations or new technologyrCothey're rising
because we've destroyed the price mechanism that makes markets work.
imagine comparing elective procedures to necessary healthcare people
must get or die, as if those markets are even remotely comparable
free market fundies are fucking insane, it's literally the only thing u
ever push ever
u just don't fking care what happens to people wilson
On 2/25/2026 2:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 1:29 PM, Wilson wrote:Until you start paying some income tax maybe it would be better if you
On 2/25/2026 10:07 AM, Julian wrote:
Despite soaking up more than -u200 billion of taxpayersrCO money per year, >>>> (over 40% of all UK government day-to-day departmental spending,
around 11% GDP)
the NHS and health policy more widely are two areas which have gone
ignored. Since the coalition governmentrCOs half-baked reforms,
BritainrCOs approach to health policy can be summarised as: give the
NHS money and hope for the best.
https://x.com/Handrev/status/2026380787134734353
LASIK eye surgery cost $2,200 per eye in 2000. Today it's around
$1,000 per eye despite 24 years of inflation. Meanwhile, an MRI that
cost $1,200 in 2000 now costs $3,000+. The difference? LASIK operates
in a free market with no insurance interference and minimal regulation.
When patients pay directly, providers must compete on price and
quality. LASIK clinics advertise prices, offer financing, and
constantly improve technology to attract customers. Compare this to
hospital procedures where prices are hidden, patients never see
bills, and insurance companies negotiate opaque rates that somehow
always increase faster than inflation.
Cosmetic surgery follows the same pattern. Breast augmentation,
rhinoplasty, and other elective procedures have become more
affordable and safer over decades. Surgeons invest in better
techniques and equipment because they must satisfy paying customers,
not insurance bureaucrats or hospital administrators focused on
maximizing reimbursements.
The lesson is clear: remove third-party payment systems and excessive
regulation, and you get Austrian economics in action. Prices fall,
quality rises, and innovation accelerates. Healthcare costs aren't
rising because of aging populations or new technologyrCothey're rising
because we've destroyed the price mechanism that makes markets work.
imagine comparing elective procedures to necessary healthcare people
must get or die, as if those markets are even remotely comparable
free market fundies are fucking insane, it's literally the only thing
u ever push ever
u just don't fking care what happens to people wilson
just started paying up.
On 2/25/26 12:55 PM, Dude wrote:
On 2/25/2026 12:34 PM, Tara wrote:
Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Obviously, he's a moron.
On 2/25/2026 9:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
typical market fundie whiningYou moron!
uk/canada both pay less for it's system vs us/switzerland/austria/
germany
because it's funded by taxes ya'll can just increase taxes in a
progressive manner instead of whining about muh reform endlessly,
and it
will hit ur average person less
why are you such a fking psychopathic retard julian?
The UK already has a progressive income tax system: higher earners
pay a
higher percentage of their income in tax. Tax rates increase as
income rises
As does Canada.
Everyone already knows that Canada has a progressive, graduated income
tax system. Where higher earners pay a higher percentage of their
income in taxes through both federal and provincial brackets.
the fact a country has progress taxes is not contradictory to increasing heath funding thru increased progressive taxes
u moron
On 2/25/2026 1:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 12:55 PM, Dude wrote:What are you, nuts?
On 2/25/2026 12:34 PM, Tara wrote:
Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Obviously, he's a moron.
On 2/25/2026 9:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
typical market fundie whiningYou moron!
uk/canada both pay less for it's system vs us/switzerland/austria/ >>>>>> germany
because it's funded by taxes ya'll can just increase taxes in a
progressive manner instead of whining about muh reform endlessly, >>>>>> and it
will hit ur average person less
why are you such a fking psychopathic retard julian?
The UK already has a progressive income tax system: higher earners
pay a
higher percentage of their income in tax. Tax rates increase as
income rises
As does Canada.
Everyone already knows that Canada has a progressive, graduated
income tax system. Where higher earners pay a higher percentage of
their income in taxes through both federal and provincial brackets.
the fact a country has progress taxes is not contradictory to
increasing heath funding thru increased progressive taxes
u moron
In Canada, if you earn $150,000 a year you would pay an average income
tax rate of roughly 34% to 38%, resulting in a take-home pay of approximately $92,000 to $98,000 depending on the province.
Apparently, Quebec has the highest tax rate, with a $150k income paying roughly $57,701, a 38.5% average.
Where's the incentive Nick?
On 2/25/26 4:30 PM, Dude wrote:
On 2/25/2026 2:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 1:29 PM, Wilson wrote:Until you start paying some income tax maybe it would be better if you
On 2/25/2026 10:07 AM, Julian wrote:
Despite soaking up more than -u200 billion of taxpayersrCO money per >>>>> year,
(over 40% of all UK government day-to-day departmental spending,
around 11% GDP)
the NHS and health policy more widely are two areas which have gone >>>>> ignored. Since the coalition governmentrCOs half-baked reforms,
BritainrCOs approach to health policy can be summarised as: give the >>>>> NHS money and hope for the best.
https://x.com/Handrev/status/2026380787134734353
LASIK eye surgery cost $2,200 per eye in 2000. Today it's around
$1,000 per eye despite 24 years of inflation. Meanwhile, an MRI that
cost $1,200 in 2000 now costs $3,000+. The difference? LASIK
operates in a free market with no insurance interference and minimal
regulation.
When patients pay directly, providers must compete on price and
quality. LASIK clinics advertise prices, offer financing, and
constantly improve technology to attract customers. Compare this to
hospital procedures where prices are hidden, patients never see
bills, and insurance companies negotiate opaque rates that somehow
always increase faster than inflation.
Cosmetic surgery follows the same pattern. Breast augmentation,
rhinoplasty, and other elective procedures have become more
affordable and safer over decades. Surgeons invest in better
techniques and equipment because they must satisfy paying customers,
not insurance bureaucrats or hospital administrators focused on
maximizing reimbursements.
The lesson is clear: remove third-party payment systems and
excessive regulation, and you get Austrian economics in action.
Prices fall, quality rises, and innovation accelerates. Healthcare
costs aren't rising because of aging populations or new technologyrCo >>>> they're rising because we've destroyed the price mechanism that
makes markets work.
imagine comparing elective procedures to necessary healthcare people
must get or die, as if those markets are even remotely comparable
free market fundies are fucking insane, it's literally the only thing
u ever push ever
u just don't fking care what happens to people wilson
just started paying up.
i have a decade of work experience u retard
i've payed plenty of income tax
On 2/25/2026 4:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 4:30 PM, Dude wrote:We are going to have to see some ID and voter registration on that. Thanks.
On 2/25/2026 2:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 1:29 PM, Wilson wrote:Until you start paying some income tax maybe it would be better if
On 2/25/2026 10:07 AM, Julian wrote:
Despite soaking up more than -u200 billion of taxpayersrCO money per >>>>>> year,
(over 40% of all UK government day-to-day departmental spending,
around 11% GDP)
the NHS and health policy more widely are two areas which have
gone ignored. Since the coalition governmentrCOs half-baked reforms, >>>>>> BritainrCOs approach to health policy can be summarised as: give the >>>>>> NHS money and hope for the best.
https://x.com/Handrev/status/2026380787134734353
LASIK eye surgery cost $2,200 per eye in 2000. Today it's around
$1,000 per eye despite 24 years of inflation. Meanwhile, an MRI
that cost $1,200 in 2000 now costs $3,000+. The difference? LASIK
operates in a free market with no insurance interference and
minimal regulation.
When patients pay directly, providers must compete on price and
quality. LASIK clinics advertise prices, offer financing, and
constantly improve technology to attract customers. Compare this to >>>>> hospital procedures where prices are hidden, patients never see
bills, and insurance companies negotiate opaque rates that somehow
always increase faster than inflation.
Cosmetic surgery follows the same pattern. Breast augmentation,
rhinoplasty, and other elective procedures have become more
affordable and safer over decades. Surgeons invest in better
techniques and equipment because they must satisfy paying
customers, not insurance bureaucrats or hospital administrators
focused on maximizing reimbursements.
The lesson is clear: remove third-party payment systems and
excessive regulation, and you get Austrian economics in action.
Prices fall, quality rises, and innovation accelerates. Healthcare
costs aren't rising because of aging populations or new technologyrCo >>>>> they're rising because we've destroyed the price mechanism that
makes markets work.
imagine comparing elective procedures to necessary healthcare people
must get or die, as if those markets are even remotely comparable
free market fundies are fucking insane, it's literally the only
thing u ever push ever
u just don't fking care what happens to people wilson
you just started paying up.
i have a decade of work experience u retard
i've payed plenty of income tax
My solution is simple:
Replace the progressive income tax system with a flat tax everyone pays,
with a consumer luxury tax on imports to reduce the national debt and
the federal deficit. Balance the federal budget.
It has been proved that the higher the income tax, the less tax is
actually collected.
Make the tax code simple, equal, no loopholes. Transparent.--
On 2/25/2026 1:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 12:55 PM, Dude wrote:What are you, nuts?
On 2/25/2026 12:34 PM, Tara wrote:
Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Obviously, he's a moron.
On 2/25/2026 9:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
typical market fundie whiningYou moron!
uk/canada both pay less for it's system vs us/switzerland/austria/ >>>>>> germany
because it's funded by taxes ya'll can just increase taxes in a
progressive manner instead of whining about muh reform endlessly, >>>>>> and it
will hit ur average person less
why are you such a fking psychopathic retard julian?
The UK already has a progressive income tax system: higher earners
pay a
higher percentage of their income in tax. Tax rates increase as
income rises
As does Canada.
Everyone already knows that Canada has a progressive, graduated income
tax system. Where higher earners pay a higher percentage of their
income in taxes through both federal and provincial brackets.
the fact a country has progress taxes is not contradictory to increasing
heath funding thru increased progressive taxes
u moron
In Canada, if you earn $150,000 a year you would pay an average income
tax rate of roughly 34% to 38%, resulting in a take-home pay of >approximately $92,000 to $98,000 depending on the province.
Apparently, Quebec has the highest tax rate, with a $150k income paying >roughly $57,701, a 38.5% average.
Where's the incentive Nick?
On 2/25/2026 1:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 12:55 PM, Dude wrote:What are you, nuts?
On 2/25/2026 12:34 PM, Tara wrote:
Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Obviously, he's a moron.
On 2/25/2026 9:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
typical market fundie whiningYou moron!
uk/canada both pay less for it's system vs us/switzerland/austria/ >>>>>> germany
because it's funded by taxes ya'll can just increase taxes in a
progressive manner instead of whining about muh reform endlessly, >>>>>> and it
will hit ur average person less
why are you such a fking psychopathic retard julian?
The UK already has a progressive income tax system: higher earners
pay a
higher percentage of their income in tax. Tax rates increase as
income rises
As does Canada.
Everyone already knows that Canada has a progressive, graduated
income tax system. Where higher earners pay a higher percentage of
their income in taxes through both federal and provincial brackets.
the fact a country has progress taxes is not contradictory to
increasing heath funding thru increased progressive taxes
u moron
In Canada, if you earn $150,000 a year you would pay an average income
tax rate of roughly 34% to 38%, resulting in a take-home pay of approximately $92,000 to $98,000 depending on the province.
Apparently, Quebec has the highest tax rate, with a $150k income paying roughly $57,701, a 38.5% average.
Where's the incentive Nick?
On 2/25/26 1:29 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/25/2026 10:07 AM, Julian wrote:
Despite soaking up more than -u200 billion of taxpayersrCO money per year, >>> (over 40% of all UK government day-to-day departmental spending,
around 11% GDP)
the NHS and health policy more widely are two areas which have gone
ignored. Since the coalition governmentrCOs half-baked reforms,
BritainrCOs approach to health policy can be summarised as: give the
NHS money and hope for the best.
https://x.com/Handrev/status/2026380787134734353
LASIK eye surgery cost $2,200 per eye in 2000. Today it's around
$1,000 per eye despite 24 years of inflation. Meanwhile, an MRI that
cost $1,200 in 2000 now costs $3,000+. The difference? LASIK operates
in a free market with no insurance interference and minimal regulation.
When patients pay directly, providers must compete on price and
quality. LASIK clinics advertise prices, offer financing, and
constantly improve technology to attract customers. Compare this to
hospital procedures where prices are hidden, patients never see bills,
and insurance companies negotiate opaque rates that somehow always
increase faster than inflation.
Cosmetic surgery follows the same pattern. Breast augmentation,
rhinoplasty, and other elective procedures have become more affordable
and safer over decades. Surgeons invest in better techniques and
equipment because they must satisfy paying customers, not insurance
bureaucrats or hospital administrators focused on maximizing
reimbursements.
The lesson is clear: remove third-party payment systems and excessive
regulation, and you get Austrian economics in action. Prices fall,
quality rises, and innovation accelerates. Healthcare costs aren't
rising because of aging populations or new technologyrCothey're rising
because we've destroyed the price mechanism that makes markets work.
imagine comparing elective procedures to necessary healthcare people
must get or die, as if those markets are even remotely comparable
free market fundies are fucking insane, it's literally the only thing u
ever push ever
u just don't fking care what happens to people wilson
On 2/25/2026 5:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 1:29 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/25/2026 10:07 AM, Julian wrote:
Despite soaking up more than u200 billion of taxpayersA money per year, >>>> (over 40% of all UK government day-to-day departmental spending,
around 11% GDP)
the NHS and health policy more widely are two areas which have gone
ignored. Since the coalition governmentAs half-baked reforms,
BritainAs approach to health policy can be summarised as: give the
NHS money and hope for the best.
https://x.com/Handrev/status/2026380787134734353
LASIK eye surgery cost $2,200 per eye in 2000. Today it's around
$1,000 per eye despite 24 years of inflation. Meanwhile, an MRI that
cost $1,200 in 2000 now costs $3,000+. The difference? LASIK operates
in a free market with no insurance interference and minimal regulation.
When patients pay directly, providers must compete on price and
quality. LASIK clinics advertise prices, offer financing, and
constantly improve technology to attract customers. Compare this to
hospital procedures where prices are hidden, patients never see bills,
and insurance companies negotiate opaque rates that somehow always
increase faster than inflation.
Cosmetic surgery follows the same pattern. Breast augmentation,
rhinoplasty, and other elective procedures have become more affordable
and safer over decades. Surgeons invest in better techniques and
equipment because they must satisfy paying customers, not insurance
bureaucrats or hospital administrators focused on maximizing
reimbursements.
The lesson is clear: remove third-party payment systems and excessive
regulation, and you get Austrian economics in action. Prices fall,
quality rises, and innovation accelerates. Healthcare costs aren't
rising because of aging populations or new technologyuthey're rising
because we've destroyed the price mechanism that makes markets work.
imagine comparing elective procedures to necessary healthcare people
must get or die, as if those markets are even remotely comparable
free market fundies are fucking insane, it's literally the only thing u
ever push ever
u just don't fking care what happens to people wilson
Sure I do.
On 2/25/26 6:36 PM, Dude wrote:
On 2/25/2026 4:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 4:30 PM, Dude wrote:We are going to have to see some ID and voter registration on that.
On 2/25/2026 2:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 1:29 PM, Wilson wrote:Until you start paying some income tax maybe it would be better if
On 2/25/2026 10:07 AM, Julian wrote:
Despite soaking up more than -u200 billion of taxpayersrCO money per >>>>>>> year,
(over 40% of all UK government day-to-day departmental spending, >>>>>>> around 11% GDP)
the NHS and health policy more widely are two areas which have
gone ignored. Since the coalition governmentrCOs half-baked
reforms, BritainrCOs approach to health policy can be summarised >>>>>>> as: give the NHS money and hope for the best.
https://x.com/Handrev/status/2026380787134734353
LASIK eye surgery cost $2,200 per eye in 2000. Today it's around
$1,000 per eye despite 24 years of inflation. Meanwhile, an MRI
that cost $1,200 in 2000 now costs $3,000+. The difference? LASIK >>>>>> operates in a free market with no insurance interference and
minimal regulation.
When patients pay directly, providers must compete on price and
quality. LASIK clinics advertise prices, offer financing, and
constantly improve technology to attract customers. Compare this
to hospital procedures where prices are hidden, patients never see >>>>>> bills, and insurance companies negotiate opaque rates that somehow >>>>>> always increase faster than inflation.
Cosmetic surgery follows the same pattern. Breast augmentation,
rhinoplasty, and other elective procedures have become more
affordable and safer over decades. Surgeons invest in better
techniques and equipment because they must satisfy paying
customers, not insurance bureaucrats or hospital administrators
focused on maximizing reimbursements.
The lesson is clear: remove third-party payment systems and
excessive regulation, and you get Austrian economics in action.
Prices fall, quality rises, and innovation accelerates. Healthcare >>>>>> costs aren't rising because of aging populations or new technology >>>>>> rCo they're rising because we've destroyed the price mechanism that >>>>>> makes markets work.
imagine comparing elective procedures to necessary healthcare
people must get or die, as if those markets are even remotely
comparable
free market fundies are fucking insane, it's literally the only
thing u ever push ever
u just don't fking care what happens to people wilson
you just started paying up.
i have a decade of work experience u retard
i've payed plenty of income tax
Thanks.
My solution is simple:
Replace the progressive income tax system with a flat tax everyone pays,
bruh fuck ur boomernomics, there is no argument to not having a
progressive tax system
rich people do not drive innovation with their spending or investments
with a consumer luxury tax on imports to reduce the national debt and
the federal deficit. Balance the federal budget.
It has been proved that the higher the income tax, the less tax is
actually collected.
progressive taxes are not complicated in the slightest
Make the tax code simple, equal, no loopholes. Transparent.
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 09:46:19 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/25/2026 5:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 1:29 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/25/2026 10:07 AM, Julian wrote:
Despite soaking up more than -u200 billion of taxpayersrCO money per year,
(over 40% of all UK government day-to-day departmental spending,
around 11% GDP)
the NHS and health policy more widely are two areas which have gone
ignored. Since the coalition governmentrCOs half-baked reforms,
BritainrCOs approach to health policy can be summarised as: give the >>>>> NHS money and hope for the best.
https://x.com/Handrev/status/2026380787134734353
LASIK eye surgery cost $2,200 per eye in 2000. Today it's around
$1,000 per eye despite 24 years of inflation. Meanwhile, an MRI that
cost $1,200 in 2000 now costs $3,000+. The difference? LASIK operates
in a free market with no insurance interference and minimal regulation. >>>>
When patients pay directly, providers must compete on price and
quality. LASIK clinics advertise prices, offer financing, and
constantly improve technology to attract customers. Compare this to
hospital procedures where prices are hidden, patients never see bills, >>>> and insurance companies negotiate opaque rates that somehow always
increase faster than inflation.
Cosmetic surgery follows the same pattern. Breast augmentation,
rhinoplasty, and other elective procedures have become more affordable >>>> and safer over decades. Surgeons invest in better techniques and
equipment because they must satisfy paying customers, not insurance
bureaucrats or hospital administrators focused on maximizing
reimbursements.
The lesson is clear: remove third-party payment systems and excessive
regulation, and you get Austrian economics in action. Prices fall,
quality rises, and innovation accelerates. Healthcare costs aren't
rising because of aging populations or new technologyrCothey're rising >>>> because we've destroyed the price mechanism that makes markets work.
imagine comparing elective procedures to necessary healthcare people
must get or die, as if those markets are even remotely comparable
free market fundies are fucking insane, it's literally the only thing u
ever push ever
u just don't fking care what happens to people wilson
Sure I do.
within the limits of your ideological commitments which means govt
will do nothing and neither will you.
On 2/25/26 4:44 PM, Dude wrote:
On 2/25/2026 1:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 12:55 PM, Dude wrote:What are you, nuts?
On 2/25/2026 12:34 PM, Tara wrote:
Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Obviously, he's a moron.
On 2/25/2026 9:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
typical market fundie whiningYou moron!
uk/canada both pay less for it's system vs us/switzerland/
austria/ germany
because it's funded by taxes ya'll can just increase taxes in a
progressive manner instead of whining about muh reform endlessly, >>>>>>> and it
will hit ur average person less
why are you such a fking psychopathic retard julian?
The UK already has a progressive income tax system: higher earners >>>>>> pay a
higher percentage of their income in tax. Tax rates increase as
income rises
As does Canada.
Everyone already knows that Canada has a progressive, graduated
income tax system. Where higher earners pay a higher percentage of
their income in taxes through both federal and provincial brackets.
the fact a country has progress taxes is not contradictory to
increasing heath funding thru increased progressive taxes
u moron
In Canada, if you earn $150,000 a year you would pay an average income
tax rate of roughly 34% to 38%, resulting in a take-home pay of
approximately $92,000 to $98,000 depending on the province.
Apparently, Quebec has the highest tax rate, with a $150k income
paying roughly $57,701, a 38.5% average.
Where's the incentive Nick?
i pay about the same in california and get no free healthcare ...
meaning both me and my employer are paying healthcare with premiums, deductibles, and copays,
plus all the mind-numbing tracking, documentation, and back/forth in
regards to payment/claims/reimbursement,
nvm mind the fact if u job hob they may or may not have contracts with
ur current doctors/providers,
a small part of me is insistent to get a job just cause i need to deal
with that absolute nonsense again,
and i directly hold psychopathic assholes like urself responsible for
why our system is still so fucking insane
On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 16:44:24 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/25/2026 1:00 PM, dart200 wrote:Some people simply don't think that way.
On 2/25/26 12:55 PM, Dude wrote:What are you, nuts?
On 2/25/2026 12:34 PM, Tara wrote:
Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Obviously, he's a moron.
On 2/25/2026 9:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
typical market fundie whiningYou moron!
uk/canada both pay less for it's system vs us/switzerland/austria/ >>>>>>> germany
because it's funded by taxes ya'll can just increase taxes in a
progressive manner instead of whining about muh reform endlessly, >>>>>>> and it
will hit ur average person less
why are you such a fking psychopathic retard julian?
The UK already has a progressive income tax system: higher earners >>>>>> pay a
higher percentage of their income in tax. Tax rates increase as
income rises
As does Canada.
Everyone already knows that Canada has a progressive, graduated income >>>> tax system. Where higher earners pay a higher percentage of their
income in taxes through both federal and provincial brackets.
the fact a country has progress taxes is not contradictory to increasing >>> heath funding thru increased progressive taxes
u moron
In Canada, if you earn $150,000 a year you would pay an average income
tax rate of roughly 34% to 38%, resulting in a take-home pay of
approximately $92,000 to $98,000 depending on the province.
Apparently, Quebec has the highest tax rate, with a $150k income paying
roughly $57,701, a 38.5% average.
Where's the incentive Nick?
On 2/25/26 4:44 PM, Dude wrote:
On 2/25/2026 1:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 12:55 PM, Dude wrote:What are you, nuts?
On 2/25/2026 12:34 PM, Tara wrote:
Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Obviously, he's a moron.
On 2/25/2026 9:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
typical market fundie whiningYou moron!
uk/canada both pay less for it's system vs us/switzerland/
austria/ germany
because it's funded by taxes ya'll can just increase taxes in a
progressive manner instead of whining about muh reform endlessly, >>>>>>> and it
will hit ur average person less
why are you such a fking psychopathic retard julian?
The UK already has a progressive income tax system: higher earners >>>>>> pay a
higher percentage of their income in tax. Tax rates increase as
income rises
As does Canada.
Everyone already knows that Canada has a progressive, graduated
income tax system. Where higher earners pay a higher percentage of
their income in taxes through both federal and provincial brackets.
the fact a country has progress taxes is not contradictory to
increasing heath funding thru increased progressive taxes
u moron
In Canada, if you earn $150,000 a year you would pay an average income
tax rate of roughly 34% to 38%, resulting in a take-home pay of
approximately $92,000 to $98,000 depending on the province.
Apparently, Quebec has the highest tax rate, with a $150k income
paying roughly $57,701, a 38.5% average.
Where's the incentive Nick?
wait aren't u a fucking boomer on medicaid for seniors?????
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 09:46:19 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/25/2026 5:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 1:29 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/25/2026 10:07 AM, Julian wrote:
Despite soaking up more than -u200 billion of taxpayersrCO money per year,
(over 40% of all UK government day-to-day departmental spending,
around 11% GDP)
the NHS and health policy more widely are two areas which have gone
ignored. Since the coalition governmentrCOs half-baked reforms,
BritainrCOs approach to health policy can be summarised as: give the >>>>> NHS money and hope for the best.
https://x.com/Handrev/status/2026380787134734353
LASIK eye surgery cost $2,200 per eye in 2000. Today it's around
$1,000 per eye despite 24 years of inflation. Meanwhile, an MRI that
cost $1,200 in 2000 now costs $3,000+. The difference? LASIK operates
in a free market with no insurance interference and minimal regulation. >>>>
When patients pay directly, providers must compete on price and
quality. LASIK clinics advertise prices, offer financing, and
constantly improve technology to attract customers. Compare this to
hospital procedures where prices are hidden, patients never see bills, >>>> and insurance companies negotiate opaque rates that somehow always
increase faster than inflation.
Cosmetic surgery follows the same pattern. Breast augmentation,
rhinoplasty, and other elective procedures have become more affordable >>>> and safer over decades. Surgeons invest in better techniques and
equipment because they must satisfy paying customers, not insurance
bureaucrats or hospital administrators focused on maximizing
reimbursements.
The lesson is clear: remove third-party payment systems and excessive
regulation, and you get Austrian economics in action. Prices fall,
quality rises, and innovation accelerates. Healthcare costs aren't
rising because of aging populations or new technologyrCothey're rising >>>> because we've destroyed the price mechanism that makes markets work.
imagine comparing elective procedures to necessary healthcare people
must get or die, as if those markets are even remotely comparable
free market fundies are fucking insane, it's literally the only thing u
ever push ever
u just don't fking care what happens to people wilson
Sure I do.
within the limits of your ideological commitments which means govt
will do nothing and neither will you.
On 2/25/2026 8:43 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 16:44:24 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/25/2026 1:00 PM, dart200 wrote:Some people simply don't think that way.
On 2/25/26 12:55 PM, Dude wrote:What are you, nuts?
On 2/25/2026 12:34 PM, Tara wrote:
Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Obviously, he's a moron.
On 2/25/2026 9:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
typical market fundie whiningYou moron!
uk/canada both pay less for it's system vs us/switzerland/austria/ >>>>>>>> germany
because it's funded by taxes ya'll can just increase taxes in a >>>>>>>> progressive manner instead of whining about muh reform endlessly, >>>>>>>> and it
will hit ur average person less
why are you such a fking psychopathic retard julian?
The UK already has a progressive income tax system: higher earners >>>>>>> pay a
higher percentage of their income in tax. Tax rates increase as
income rises
As does Canada.
Everyone already knows that Canada has a progressive, graduated income >>>>> tax system. Where higher earners pay a higher percentage of their
income in taxes through both federal and provincial brackets.
the fact a country has progress taxes is not contradictory to increasing >>>> heath funding thru increased progressive taxes
u moron
In Canada, if you earn $150,000 a year you would pay an average income
tax rate of roughly 34% to 38%, resulting in a take-home pay of
approximately $92,000 to $98,000 depending on the province.
Apparently, Quebec has the highest tax rate, with a $150k income paying
roughly $57,701, a 38.5% average.
Where's the incentive Nick?
Apparently, 99.9% of people on earth hate paying government taxes.
They--
really dislike paying 50% of their earned income! Seriously?
On 2/26/2026 10:21 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 09:46:19 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/25/2026 5:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 1:29 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/25/2026 10:07 AM, Julian wrote:
Despite soaking up more than u200 billion of taxpayersA money per year, >>>>>> (over 40% of all UK government day-to-day departmental spending,
around 11% GDP)
the NHS and health policy more widely are two areas which have gone >>>>>> ignored. Since the coalition governmentAs half-baked reforms,
BritainAs approach to health policy can be summarised as: give the >>>>>> NHS money and hope for the best.
https://x.com/Handrev/status/2026380787134734353
LASIK eye surgery cost $2,200 per eye in 2000. Today it's around
$1,000 per eye despite 24 years of inflation. Meanwhile, an MRI that >>>>> cost $1,200 in 2000 now costs $3,000+. The difference? LASIK operates >>>>> in a free market with no insurance interference and minimal regulation. >>>>>
When patients pay directly, providers must compete on price and
quality. LASIK clinics advertise prices, offer financing, and
constantly improve technology to attract customers. Compare this to
hospital procedures where prices are hidden, patients never see bills, >>>>> and insurance companies negotiate opaque rates that somehow always
increase faster than inflation.
Cosmetic surgery follows the same pattern. Breast augmentation,
rhinoplasty, and other elective procedures have become more affordable >>>>> and safer over decades. Surgeons invest in better techniques and
equipment because they must satisfy paying customers, not insurance
bureaucrats or hospital administrators focused on maximizing
reimbursements.
The lesson is clear: remove third-party payment systems and excessive >>>>> regulation, and you get Austrian economics in action. Prices fall,
quality rises, and innovation accelerates. Healthcare costs aren't
rising because of aging populations or new technologyuthey're rising >>>>> because we've destroyed the price mechanism that makes markets work.
imagine comparing elective procedures to necessary healthcare people
must get or die, as if those markets are even remotely comparable
free market fundies are fucking insane, it's literally the only thing u >>>> ever push ever
u just don't fking care what happens to people wilson
Sure I do.
within the limits of your ideological commitments which means govt
will do nothing and neither will you.
You have no idea what I do.
On 2/25/2026 4:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 4:44 PM, Dude wrote:It's all about choices, Nick.
On 2/25/2026 1:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 12:55 PM, Dude wrote:What are you, nuts?
On 2/25/2026 12:34 PM, Tara wrote:
Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Obviously, he's a moron.
On 2/25/2026 9:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
typical market fundie whiningYou moron!
uk/canada both pay less for it's system vs us/switzerland/
austria/ germany
because it's funded by taxes ya'll can just increase taxes in a >>>>>>>> progressive manner instead of whining about muh reform
endlessly, and it
will hit ur average person less
why are you such a fking psychopathic retard julian?
The UK already has a progressive income tax system: higher
earners pay a
higher percentage of their income in tax. Tax rates increase as >>>>>>> income rises
As does Canada.
Everyone already knows that Canada has a progressive, graduated
income tax system. Where higher earners pay a higher percentage of
their income in taxes through both federal and provincial brackets.
the fact a country has progress taxes is not contradictory to
increasing heath funding thru increased progressive taxes
u moron
In Canada, if you earn $150,000 a year you would pay an average
income tax rate of roughly 34% to 38%, resulting in a take-home pay
of approximately $92,000 to $98,000 depending on the province.
Apparently, Quebec has the highest tax rate, with a $150k income
paying roughly $57,701, a 38.5% average.
Where's the incentive Nick?
i pay about the same in california and get no free healthcare ...
meaning both me and my employer are paying healthcare with premiums,
deductibles, and copays,
plus all the mind-numbing tracking, documentation, and back/forth in
regards to payment/claims/reimbursement,
nvm mind the fact if u job hob they may or may not have contracts with
ur current doctors/providers,
a small part of me is insistent to get a job just cause i need to deal
with that absolute nonsense again,
and i directly hold psychopathic assholes like urself responsible for
why our system is still so fucking insane
If I still had my youth, I'd think about a position in technology, in a state that has no state income tax. YMMV.
For example, Elon Musk has a large, multi-facility manufacturing
compound in Bastrop, Texas. The main facilities include a massive
Starlink satellite factory operated by SpaceX and a Boring Company
facility for tunnel-drilling equipment.
Apparently, they are hiring. High pay and good benefits.
On 2/25/2026 9:12 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 4:44 PM, Dude wrote:You are supposed to read the messages BEFORE you ask questions.
On 2/25/2026 1:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 12:55 PM, Dude wrote:What are you, nuts?
On 2/25/2026 12:34 PM, Tara wrote:
Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Obviously, he's a moron.
On 2/25/2026 9:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
typical market fundie whiningYou moron!
uk/canada both pay less for it's system vs us/switzerland/
austria/ germany
because it's funded by taxes ya'll can just increase taxes in a >>>>>>>> progressive manner instead of whining about muh reform
endlessly, and it
will hit ur average person less
why are you such a fking psychopathic retard julian?
The UK already has a progressive income tax system: higher
earners pay a
higher percentage of their income in tax. Tax rates increase as >>>>>>> income rises
As does Canada.
Everyone already knows that Canada has a progressive, graduated
income tax system. Where higher earners pay a higher percentage of
their income in taxes through both federal and provincial brackets.
the fact a country has progress taxes is not contradictory to
increasing heath funding thru increased progressive taxes
u moron
In Canada, if you earn $150,000 a year you would pay an average
income tax rate of roughly 34% to 38%, resulting in a take-home pay
of approximately $92,000 to $98,000 depending on the province.
Apparently, Quebec has the highest tax rate, with a $150k income
paying roughly $57,701, a 38.5% average.
Where's the incentive Nick?
wait aren't u a fucking boomer on medicaid for seniors?????
So, I already posted that I'm fully vested from Dell Computers. Didn't
you read any of my posts about investing? Get some smarts, Nick.
On 2/25/2026 6:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 6:36 PM, Dude wrote:You idiot!
On 2/25/2026 4:37 PM, dart200 wrote:bruh fuck ur boomernomics, there is no argument to not having a
On 2/25/26 4:30 PM, Dude wrote:We are going to have to see some ID and voter registration on that.
On 2/25/2026 2:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 1:29 PM, Wilson wrote:Until you start paying some income tax maybe it would be better if
On 2/25/2026 10:07 AM, Julian wrote:
Despite soaking up more than -u200 billion of taxpayersrCO money >>>>>>>> per year,
(over 40% of all UK government day-to-day departmental spending, >>>>>>>> around 11% GDP)
the NHS and health policy more widely are two areas which have >>>>>>>> gone ignored. Since the coalition governmentrCOs half-baked
reforms, BritainrCOs approach to health policy can be summarised >>>>>>>> as: give the NHS money and hope for the best.
https://x.com/Handrev/status/2026380787134734353
LASIK eye surgery cost $2,200 per eye in 2000. Today it's around >>>>>>> $1,000 per eye despite 24 years of inflation. Meanwhile, an MRI >>>>>>> that cost $1,200 in 2000 now costs $3,000+. The difference? LASIK >>>>>>> operates in a free market with no insurance interference and
minimal regulation.
When patients pay directly, providers must compete on price and >>>>>>> quality. LASIK clinics advertise prices, offer financing, and
constantly improve technology to attract customers. Compare this >>>>>>> to hospital procedures where prices are hidden, patients never
see bills, and insurance companies negotiate opaque rates that
somehow always increase faster than inflation.
Cosmetic surgery follows the same pattern. Breast augmentation, >>>>>>> rhinoplasty, and other elective procedures have become more
affordable and safer over decades. Surgeons invest in better
techniques and equipment because they must satisfy paying
customers, not insurance bureaucrats or hospital administrators >>>>>>> focused on maximizing reimbursements.
The lesson is clear: remove third-party payment systems and
excessive regulation, and you get Austrian economics in action. >>>>>>> Prices fall, quality rises, and innovation accelerates.
Healthcare costs aren't rising because of aging populations or
new technology rCo they're rising because we've destroyed the price >>>>>>> mechanism that makes markets work.
imagine comparing elective procedures to necessary healthcare
people must get or die, as if those markets are even remotely
comparable
free market fundies are fucking insane, it's literally the only
thing u ever push ever
u just don't fking care what happens to people wilson
you just started paying up.
i have a decade of work experience u retard
i've payed plenty of income tax
Thanks.
My solution is simple:
Replace the progressive income tax system with a flat tax everyone pays, >>
progressive tax system
rich people do not drive innovation with their spending or investments
with a consumer luxury tax on imports to reduce the national debt and
the federal deficit. Balance the federal budget.
It has been proved that the higher the income tax, the less tax is
actually collected.
progressive taxes are not complicated in the slightest
The U.S. Tax Code IRS, is roughly 2,600 to over 6,000 pages long. When including federal tax regulations, IRS guidance, and related case law,
the total volume of tax-related material exceeds 70,000 to 75,000 pages.
The code has tripled in size over the last 40 years.
--
Make the tax code simple, equal, no loopholes. Transparent.
On 2/26/2026 10:21 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 09:46:19 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/25/2026 5:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 1:29 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/25/2026 10:07 AM, Julian wrote:
Despite soaking up more than -u200 billion of taxpayersrCO money per >>>>>> year,
(over 40% of all UK government day-to-day departmental spending,
around 11% GDP)
the NHS and health policy more widely are two areas which have gone >>>>>> ignored. Since the coalition governmentrCOs half-baked reforms,
BritainrCOs approach to health policy can be summarised as: give the >>>>>> NHS money and hope for the best.
https://x.com/Handrev/status/2026380787134734353
LASIK eye surgery cost $2,200 per eye in 2000. Today it's around
$1,000 per eye despite 24 years of inflation. Meanwhile, an MRI that >>>>> cost $1,200 in 2000 now costs $3,000+. The difference? LASIK operates >>>>> in a free market with no insurance interference and minimal
regulation.
When patients pay directly, providers must compete on price and
quality. LASIK clinics advertise prices, offer financing, and
constantly improve technology to attract customers. Compare this to
hospital procedures where prices are hidden, patients never see bills, >>>>> and insurance companies negotiate opaque rates that somehow always
increase faster than inflation.
Cosmetic surgery follows the same pattern. Breast augmentation,
rhinoplasty, and other elective procedures have become more affordable >>>>> and safer over decades. Surgeons invest in better techniques and
equipment because they must satisfy paying customers, not insurance
bureaucrats or hospital administrators focused on maximizing
reimbursements.
The lesson is clear: remove third-party payment systems and excessive >>>>> regulation, and you get Austrian economics in action. Prices fall,
quality rises, and innovation accelerates. Healthcare costs aren't
rising because of aging populations or new technologyrCothey're rising >>>>> because we've destroyed the price mechanism that makes markets work.
imagine comparing elective procedures to necessary healthcare people
must get or die, as if those markets are even remotely comparable
free market fundies are fucking insane, it's literally the only thing u >>>> ever push ever
u just don't fking care what happens to people wilson
Sure I do.
within the limits of your ideological commitments which means govt
will do nothing and neither will you.
You have no idea what I do.
On 2/26/26 9:58 AM, Dude wrote:
On 2/25/2026 4:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 4:44 PM, Dude wrote:It's all about choices, Nick.
On 2/25/2026 1:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 12:55 PM, Dude wrote:What are you, nuts?
On 2/25/2026 12:34 PM, Tara wrote:the fact a country has progress taxes is not contradictory to
Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Obviously, he's a moron.
On 2/25/2026 9:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
typical market fundie whiningYou moron!
uk/canada both pay less for it's system vs us/switzerland/
austria/ germany
because it's funded by taxes ya'll can just increase taxes in a >>>>>>>>> progressive manner instead of whining about muh reform
endlessly, and it
will hit ur average person less
why are you such a fking psychopathic retard julian?
The UK already has a progressive income tax system: higher
earners pay a
higher percentage of their income in tax. Tax rates increase as >>>>>>>> income rises
As does Canada.
Everyone already knows that Canada has a progressive, graduated
income tax system. Where higher earners pay a higher percentage of >>>>>> their income in taxes through both federal and provincial brackets. >>>>>
increasing heath funding thru increased progressive taxes
u moron
In Canada, if you earn $150,000 a year you would pay an average
income tax rate of roughly 34% to 38%, resulting in a take-home pay
of approximately $92,000 to $98,000 depending on the province.
Apparently, Quebec has the highest tax rate, with a $150k income
paying roughly $57,701, a 38.5% average.
Where's the incentive Nick?
i pay about the same in california and get no free healthcare ...
meaning both me and my employer are paying healthcare with premiums,
deductibles, and copays,
plus all the mind-numbing tracking, documentation, and back/forth in
regards to payment/claims/reimbursement,
nvm mind the fact if u job hob they may or may not have contracts
with ur current doctors/providers,
a small part of me is insistent to get a job just cause i need to
deal with that absolute nonsense again,
and i directly hold psychopathic assholes like urself responsible for
why our system is still so fucking insane
If I still had my youth, I'd think about a position in technology, in
a state that has no state income tax. YMMV.
For example, Elon Musk has a large, multi-facility manufacturing
compound in Bastrop, Texas. The main facilities include a massive
Starlink satellite factory operated by SpaceX and a Boring Company
facility for tunnel-drilling equipment.
Apparently, they are hiring. High pay and good benefits.
bruh, i hate modern software orgs, the way they produce and maintain software, and the ultimate user experiences born because of them. they
are an abject insult to the *universal* computing machines first
described by turing
u, on the otherhand, are a fking sheeplfried fuck
with no consideration past the salary number in the sales department.
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 10:01:11 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/25/2026 8:43 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 16:44:24 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Apparently, 99.9% of people on earth hate paying government taxes.
On 2/25/2026 1:00 PM, dart200 wrote:Some people simply don't think that way.
On 2/25/26 12:55 PM, Dude wrote:What are you, nuts?
On 2/25/2026 12:34 PM, Tara wrote:
Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Obviously, he's a moron.
On 2/25/2026 9:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
typical market fundie whiningYou moron!
uk/canada both pay less for it's system vs us/switzerland/austria/ >>>>>>>>> germany
because it's funded by taxes ya'll can just increase taxes in a >>>>>>>>> progressive manner instead of whining about muh reform endlessly, >>>>>>>>> and it
will hit ur average person less
why are you such a fking psychopathic retard julian?
The UK already has a progressive income tax system: higher earners >>>>>>>> pay a
higher percentage of their income in tax. Tax rates increase as >>>>>>>> income rises
As does Canada.
Everyone already knows that Canada has a progressive, graduated income >>>>>> tax system. Where higher earners pay a higher percentage of their
income in taxes through both federal and provincial brackets.
the fact a country has progress taxes is not contradictory to increasing >>>>> heath funding thru increased progressive taxes
u moron
In Canada, if you earn $150,000 a year you would pay an average income >>>> tax rate of roughly 34% to 38%, resulting in a take-home pay of
approximately $92,000 to $98,000 depending on the province.
Apparently, Quebec has the highest tax rate, with a $150k income paying >>>> roughly $57,701, a 38.5% average.
Where's the incentive Nick?
Bogus stat alert.
They
really dislike paying 50% of their earned income! Seriously?
On 2/26/2026 3:12 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 9:58 AM, Dude wrote:It's a battery factory.
On 2/25/2026 4:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 4:44 PM, Dude wrote:It's all about choices, Nick.
On 2/25/2026 1:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 12:55 PM, Dude wrote:What are you, nuts?
On 2/25/2026 12:34 PM, Tara wrote:
Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Obviously, he's a moron.
On 2/25/2026 9:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
typical market fundie whiningYou moron!
uk/canada both pay less for it's system vs us/switzerland/ >>>>>>>>>> austria/ germany
because it's funded by taxes ya'll can just increase taxes in a >>>>>>>>>> progressive manner instead of whining about muh reform
endlessly, and it
will hit ur average person less
why are you such a fking psychopathic retard julian?
The UK already has a progressive income tax system: higher
earners pay a
higher percentage of their income in tax. Tax rates increase as >>>>>>>>> income rises
As does Canada.
Everyone already knows that Canada has a progressive, graduated >>>>>>> income tax system. Where higher earners pay a higher percentage >>>>>>> of their income in taxes through both federal and provincial
brackets.
the fact a country has progress taxes is not contradictory to
increasing heath funding thru increased progressive taxes
u moron
In Canada, if you earn $150,000 a year you would pay an average
income tax rate of roughly 34% to 38%, resulting in a take-home pay >>>>> of approximately $92,000 to $98,000 depending on the province.
Apparently, Quebec has the highest tax rate, with a $150k income
paying roughly $57,701, a 38.5% average.
Where's the incentive Nick?
i pay about the same in california and get no free healthcare ...
meaning both me and my employer are paying healthcare with premiums,
deductibles, and copays,
plus all the mind-numbing tracking, documentation, and back/forth in
regards to payment/claims/reimbursement,
nvm mind the fact if u job hob they may or may not have contracts
with ur current doctors/providers,
a small part of me is insistent to get a job just cause i need to
deal with that absolute nonsense again,
and i directly hold psychopathic assholes like urself responsible
for why our system is still so fucking insane
If I still had my youth, I'd think about a position in technology, in
a state that has no state income tax. YMMV.
For example, Elon Musk has a large, multi-facility manufacturing
compound in Bastrop, Texas. The main facilities include a massive
Starlink satellite factory operated by SpaceX and a Boring Company
facility for tunnel-drilling equipment.
Apparently, they are hiring. High pay and good benefits.
bruh, i hate modern software orgs, the way they produce and maintain
software, and the ultimate user experiences born because of them. they
are an abject insult to the *universal* computing machines first
described by turing
u, on the otherhand, are a fking sheeplfried fuck
Don't put that on your resume!
with no consideration past the salary number in the sales department.
It's all about choices, Nick. How much per hour?
On 2/26/26 10:04 AM, Dude wrote:
On 2/25/2026 9:12 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 4:44 PM, Dude wrote:You are supposed to read the messages BEFORE you ask questions.
On 2/25/2026 1:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 12:55 PM, Dude wrote:What are you, nuts?
On 2/25/2026 12:34 PM, Tara wrote:the fact a country has progress taxes is not contradictory to
Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Obviously, he's a moron.
On 2/25/2026 9:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
typical market fundie whiningYou moron!
uk/canada both pay less for it's system vs us/switzerland/
austria/ germany
because it's funded by taxes ya'll can just increase taxes in a >>>>>>>>> progressive manner instead of whining about muh reform
endlessly, and it
will hit ur average person less
why are you such a fking psychopathic retard julian?
The UK already has a progressive income tax system: higher
earners pay a
higher percentage of their income in tax. Tax rates increase as >>>>>>>> income rises
As does Canada.
Everyone already knows that Canada has a progressive, graduated
income tax system. Where higher earners pay a higher percentage of >>>>>> their income in taxes through both federal and provincial brackets. >>>>>
increasing heath funding thru increased progressive taxes
u moron
In Canada, if you earn $150,000 a year you would pay an average
income tax rate of roughly 34% to 38%, resulting in a take-home pay
of approximately $92,000 to $98,000 depending on the province.
Apparently, Quebec has the highest tax rate, with a $150k income
paying roughly $57,701, a 38.5% average.
Where's the incentive Nick?
wait aren't u a fucking boomer on medicaid for seniors?????
So, I already posted that I'm fully vested from Dell Computers. Didn't
you read any of my posts about investing? Get some smarts, Nick.
avoiding the question ehhh? so u are on medicaid aren't ya???
that's just fucking rich: preaching against socialized medicine while
taking advantage of it yourself
On 2/26/2026 1:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 10:01:11 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Name one single person on the planet who loves paying payroll taxes.
On 2/25/2026 8:43 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 16:44:24 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>Apparently, 99.9% of people on earth hate paying government taxes.
On 2/25/2026 1:00 PM, dart200 wrote:Some people simply don't think that way.
On 2/25/26 12:55 PM, Dude wrote:What are you, nuts?
On 2/25/2026 12:34 PM, Tara wrote:
Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Obviously, he's a moron.
On 2/25/2026 9:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
typical market fundie whiningYou moron!
uk/canada both pay less for it's system vs us/switzerland/ >>>>>>>>>> austria/
germany
because it's funded by taxes ya'll can just increase taxes in a >>>>>>>>>> progressive manner instead of whining about muh reform endlessly, >>>>>>>>>> and it
will hit ur average person less
why are you such a fking psychopathic retard julian?
The UK already has a progressive income tax system: higher earners >>>>>>>>> pay a
higher percentage of their income in tax. Tax rates increase as >>>>>>>>> income rises
As does Canada.
Everyone already knows that Canada has a progressive, graduated >>>>>>> income
tax system. Where higher earners pay a higher percentage of their >>>>>>> income in taxes through both federal and provincial brackets.
the fact a country has progress taxes is not contradictory to
increasing
heath funding thru increased progressive taxes
u moron
In Canada, if you earn $150,000 a year you would pay an average income >>>>> tax rate of roughly 34% to 38%, resulting in a take-home pay of
approximately $92,000 to $98,000 depending on the province.
Apparently, Quebec has the highest tax rate, with a $150k income
paying
roughly $57,701, a 38.5% average.
Where's the incentive Nick?
Bogus stat alert.
They
really dislike paying 50% of their earned income! Seriously?
On 2/26/26 9:37 AM, Dude wrote:
On 2/25/2026 6:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 6:36 PM, Dude wrote:You idiot!
On 2/25/2026 4:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 4:30 PM, Dude wrote:We are going to have to see some ID and voter registration on that.
On 2/25/2026 2:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 1:29 PM, Wilson wrote:Until you start paying some income tax maybe it would be better if >>>>>> you just started paying up.
On 2/25/2026 10:07 AM, Julian wrote:
Despite soaking up more than -u200 billion of taxpayersrCO money >>>>>>>>> per year,
(over 40% of all UK government day-to-day departmental spending, >>>>>>>>> around 11% GDP)
the NHS and health policy more widely are two areas which have >>>>>>>>> gone ignored. Since the coalition governmentrCOs half-baked >>>>>>>>> reforms, BritainrCOs approach to health policy can be summarised >>>>>>>>> as: give the NHS money and hope for the best.
https://x.com/Handrev/status/2026380787134734353
LASIK eye surgery cost $2,200 per eye in 2000. Today it's around >>>>>>>> $1,000 per eye despite 24 years of inflation. Meanwhile, an MRI >>>>>>>> that cost $1,200 in 2000 now costs $3,000+. The difference?
LASIK operates in a free market with no insurance interference >>>>>>>> and minimal regulation.
When patients pay directly, providers must compete on price and >>>>>>>> quality. LASIK clinics advertise prices, offer financing, and >>>>>>>> constantly improve technology to attract customers. Compare this >>>>>>>> to hospital procedures where prices are hidden, patients never >>>>>>>> see bills, and insurance companies negotiate opaque rates that >>>>>>>> somehow always increase faster than inflation.
Cosmetic surgery follows the same pattern. Breast augmentation, >>>>>>>> rhinoplasty, and other elective procedures have become more
affordable and safer over decades. Surgeons invest in better
techniques and equipment because they must satisfy paying
customers, not insurance bureaucrats or hospital administrators >>>>>>>> focused on maximizing reimbursements.
The lesson is clear: remove third-party payment systems and
excessive regulation, and you get Austrian economics in action. >>>>>>>> Prices fall, quality rises, and innovation accelerates.
Healthcare costs aren't rising because of aging populations or >>>>>>>> new technology rCo they're rising because we've destroyed the >>>>>>>> price mechanism that makes markets work.
imagine comparing elective procedures to necessary healthcare
people must get or die, as if those markets are even remotely
comparable
free market fundies are fucking insane, it's literally the only >>>>>>> thing u ever push ever
u just don't fking care what happens to people wilson
i have a decade of work experience u retard
i've payed plenty of income tax
Thanks.
My solution is simple:
Replace the progressive income tax system with a flat tax everyone
pays,
bruh fuck ur boomernomics, there is no argument to not having a
progressive tax system
rich people do not drive innovation with their spending or investments
with a consumer luxury tax on imports to reduce the national debt
and the federal deficit. Balance the federal budget.
It has been proved that the higher the income tax, the less tax is
actually collected.
progressive taxes are not complicated in the slightest
The U.S. Tax Code IRS, is roughly 2,600 to over 6,000 pages long. When
including federal tax regulations, IRS guidance, and related case law,
the total volume of tax-related material exceeds 70,000 to 75,000 pages.
The code has tripled in size over the last 40 years.
so?
which is not from the fact we have multiple income brackets. that's like
a single table on one page, dude
what it's from is rich people using tax breaks to incentivize variousparts of the economy (taking the form of deductions, credits, loopholes, corporate rules, and other regulations) ... which rich people then take advantage of to lower their taxes, and which they would regardless of whether the tax is flat or progressive...
ur demonstrating a /false cause fallacy/
Make the tax code simple, equal, no loopholes. Transparent.
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 15:50:21 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/26/2026 10:21 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 09:46:19 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/25/2026 5:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 1:29 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/25/2026 10:07 AM, Julian wrote:imagine comparing elective procedures to necessary healthcare people >>>>> must get or die, as if those markets are even remotely comparable
Despite soaking up more than -u200 billion of taxpayersrCO money per year,
(over 40% of all UK government day-to-day departmental spending, >>>>>>> around 11% GDP)
the NHS and health policy more widely are two areas which have gone >>>>>>> ignored. Since the coalition governmentrCOs half-baked reforms,
BritainrCOs approach to health policy can be summarised as: give the >>>>>>> NHS money and hope for the best.
https://x.com/Handrev/status/2026380787134734353
LASIK eye surgery cost $2,200 per eye in 2000. Today it's around
$1,000 per eye despite 24 years of inflation. Meanwhile, an MRI that >>>>>> cost $1,200 in 2000 now costs $3,000+. The difference? LASIK operates >>>>>> in a free market with no insurance interference and minimal regulation. >>>>>>
When patients pay directly, providers must compete on price and
quality. LASIK clinics advertise prices, offer financing, and
constantly improve technology to attract customers. Compare this to >>>>>> hospital procedures where prices are hidden, patients never see bills, >>>>>> and insurance companies negotiate opaque rates that somehow always >>>>>> increase faster than inflation.
Cosmetic surgery follows the same pattern. Breast augmentation,
rhinoplasty, and other elective procedures have become more affordable >>>>>> and safer over decades. Surgeons invest in better techniques and
equipment because they must satisfy paying customers, not insurance >>>>>> bureaucrats or hospital administrators focused on maximizing
reimbursements.
The lesson is clear: remove third-party payment systems and excessive >>>>>> regulation, and you get Austrian economics in action. Prices fall, >>>>>> quality rises, and innovation accelerates. Healthcare costs aren't >>>>>> rising because of aging populations or new technologyrCothey're rising >>>>>> because we've destroyed the price mechanism that makes markets work. >>>>>
free market fundies are fucking insane, it's literally the only thing u >>>>> ever push ever
u just don't fking care what happens to people wilson
Sure I do.
within the limits of your ideological commitments which means govt
will do nothing and neither will you.
You have no idea what I do.
It is enough to know what you say.
On 2/26/2026 3:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 10:04 AM, Dude wrote:You dumb shit!
On 2/25/2026 9:12 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 4:44 PM, Dude wrote:You are supposed to read the messages BEFORE you ask questions.
On 2/25/2026 1:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 12:55 PM, Dude wrote:What are you, nuts?
On 2/25/2026 12:34 PM, Tara wrote:
Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Obviously, he's a moron.
On 2/25/2026 9:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
typical market fundie whiningYou moron!
uk/canada both pay less for it's system vs us/switzerland/ >>>>>>>>>> austria/ germany
because it's funded by taxes ya'll can just increase taxes in a >>>>>>>>>> progressive manner instead of whining about muh reform
endlessly, and it
will hit ur average person less
why are you such a fking psychopathic retard julian?
The UK already has a progressive income tax system: higher
earners pay a
higher percentage of their income in tax. Tax rates increase as >>>>>>>>> income rises
As does Canada.
Everyone already knows that Canada has a progressive, graduated >>>>>>> income tax system. Where higher earners pay a higher percentage >>>>>>> of their income in taxes through both federal and provincial
brackets.
the fact a country has progress taxes is not contradictory to
increasing heath funding thru increased progressive taxes
u moron
In Canada, if you earn $150,000 a year you would pay an average
income tax rate of roughly 34% to 38%, resulting in a take-home pay >>>>> of approximately $92,000 to $98,000 depending on the province.
Apparently, Quebec has the highest tax rate, with a $150k income
paying roughly $57,701, a 38.5% average.
Where's the incentive Nick?
wait aren't u a fucking boomer on medicaid for seniors?????
So, I already posted that I'm fully vested from Dell Computers.
Didn't you read any of my posts about investing? Get some smarts, Nick.
avoiding the question ehhh? so u are on medicaid aren't ya???
Apparently you don't understand the difference between Medicare and
Medicaid. Medicare is generally voluntary. We have Blue Cross.
Unlike Medicare, which is for those 65+ or with specific disabilities, Medicaid is strictly based on income and financial resources.
that's just fucking rich: preaching against socialized medicine whileSo, just for the record, I am not on Medicaid.
taking advantage of it yourself
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 15:50:21 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/26/2026 10:21 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 09:46:19 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/25/2026 5:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 1:29 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/25/2026 10:07 AM, Julian wrote:imagine comparing elective procedures to necessary healthcare people >>>>> must get or die, as if those markets are even remotely comparable
Despite soaking up more than -u200 billion of taxpayersrCO money per year,
(over 40% of all UK government day-to-day departmental spending, >>>>>>> around 11% GDP)
the NHS and health policy more widely are two areas which have gone >>>>>>> ignored. Since the coalition governmentrCOs half-baked reforms,
BritainrCOs approach to health policy can be summarised as: give the >>>>>>> NHS money and hope for the best.
https://x.com/Handrev/status/2026380787134734353
LASIK eye surgery cost $2,200 per eye in 2000. Today it's around
$1,000 per eye despite 24 years of inflation. Meanwhile, an MRI that >>>>>> cost $1,200 in 2000 now costs $3,000+. The difference? LASIK operates >>>>>> in a free market with no insurance interference and minimal regulation. >>>>>>
When patients pay directly, providers must compete on price and
quality. LASIK clinics advertise prices, offer financing, and
constantly improve technology to attract customers. Compare this to >>>>>> hospital procedures where prices are hidden, patients never see bills, >>>>>> and insurance companies negotiate opaque rates that somehow always >>>>>> increase faster than inflation.
Cosmetic surgery follows the same pattern. Breast augmentation,
rhinoplasty, and other elective procedures have become more affordable >>>>>> and safer over decades. Surgeons invest in better techniques and
equipment because they must satisfy paying customers, not insurance >>>>>> bureaucrats or hospital administrators focused on maximizing
reimbursements.
The lesson is clear: remove third-party payment systems and excessive >>>>>> regulation, and you get Austrian economics in action. Prices fall, >>>>>> quality rises, and innovation accelerates. Healthcare costs aren't >>>>>> rising because of aging populations or new technologyrCothey're rising >>>>>> because we've destroyed the price mechanism that makes markets work. >>>>>
free market fundies are fucking insane, it's literally the only thing u >>>>> ever push ever
u just don't fking care what happens to people wilson
Sure I do.
within the limits of your ideological commitments which means govt
will do nothing and neither will you.
You have no idea what I do.
It is enough to know what you say.
On 2/26/2026 3:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 9:37 AM, Dude wrote:The key term is transparency, Nick.
On 2/25/2026 6:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 6:36 PM, Dude wrote:You idiot!
On 2/25/2026 4:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 4:30 PM, Dude wrote:We are going to have to see some ID and voter registration on that. >>>>> Thanks.
On 2/25/2026 2:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 1:29 PM, Wilson wrote:Until you start paying some income tax maybe it would be better if >>>>>>> you just started paying up.
On 2/25/2026 10:07 AM, Julian wrote:
Despite soaking up more than u200 billion of taxpayersA money >>>>>>>>>> per year,
(over 40% of all UK government day-to-day departmental spending, >>>>>>>>>> around 11% GDP)
the NHS and health policy more widely are two areas which have >>>>>>>>>> gone ignored. Since the coalition governmentAs half-baked >>>>>>>>>> reforms, BritainAs approach to health policy can be summarised >>>>>>>>>> as: give the NHS money and hope for the best.
https://x.com/Handrev/status/2026380787134734353
LASIK eye surgery cost $2,200 per eye in 2000. Today it's around >>>>>>>>> $1,000 per eye despite 24 years of inflation. Meanwhile, an MRI >>>>>>>>> that cost $1,200 in 2000 now costs $3,000+. The difference? >>>>>>>>> LASIK operates in a free market with no insurance interference >>>>>>>>> and minimal regulation.
When patients pay directly, providers must compete on price and >>>>>>>>> quality. LASIK clinics advertise prices, offer financing, and >>>>>>>>> constantly improve technology to attract customers. Compare this >>>>>>>>> to hospital procedures where prices are hidden, patients never >>>>>>>>> see bills, and insurance companies negotiate opaque rates that >>>>>>>>> somehow always increase faster than inflation.
Cosmetic surgery follows the same pattern. Breast augmentation, >>>>>>>>> rhinoplasty, and other elective procedures have become more >>>>>>>>> affordable and safer over decades. Surgeons invest in better >>>>>>>>> techniques and equipment because they must satisfy paying
customers, not insurance bureaucrats or hospital administrators >>>>>>>>> focused on maximizing reimbursements.
The lesson is clear: remove third-party payment systems and >>>>>>>>> excessive regulation, and you get Austrian economics in action. >>>>>>>>> Prices fall, quality rises, and innovation accelerates.
Healthcare costs aren't rising because of aging populations or >>>>>>>>> new technology u they're rising because we've destroyed the >>>>>>>>> price mechanism that makes markets work.
imagine comparing elective procedures to necessary healthcare >>>>>>>> people must get or die, as if those markets are even remotely >>>>>>>> comparable
free market fundies are fucking insane, it's literally the only >>>>>>>> thing u ever push ever
u just don't fking care what happens to people wilson
i have a decade of work experience u retard
i've payed plenty of income tax
My solution is simple:
Replace the progressive income tax system with a flat tax everyone
pays,
bruh fuck ur boomernomics, there is no argument to not having a
progressive tax system
rich people do not drive innovation with their spending or investments >>>>
with a consumer luxury tax on imports to reduce the national debt
and the federal deficit. Balance the federal budget.
It has been proved that the higher the income tax, the less tax is
actually collected.
progressive taxes are not complicated in the slightest
The U.S. Tax Code IRS, is roughly 2,600 to over 6,000 pages long. When
including federal tax regulations, IRS guidance, and related case law,
the total volume of tax-related material exceeds 70,000 to 75,000 pages. >>>
The code has tripled in size over the last 40 years.
so?
which is not from the fact we have multiple income brackets. that's like
a single table on one page, dude
Flat taxx, no exceptions. Simple. Transparent.what it's from is rich people using tax breaks to incentivize variousparts of the economy (taking the form of deductions, credits, loopholes,
corporate rules, and other regulations) ... which rich people then take
advantage of to lower their taxes, and which they would regardless of
whether the tax is flat or progressive...
ur demonstrating a /false cause fallacy/What part of balance the federal budget do you not understand?
--
Make the tax code simple, equal, no loopholes. Transparent.
On 2/26/26 3:34 PM, Dude wrote:
On 2/26/2026 3:12 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 9:58 AM, Dude wrote:It's a battery factory.
On 2/25/2026 4:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 4:44 PM, Dude wrote:It's all about choices, Nick.
On 2/25/2026 1:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 12:55 PM, Dude wrote:What are you, nuts?
On 2/25/2026 12:34 PM, Tara wrote:
Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Obviously, he's a moron.
On 2/25/2026 9:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
typical market fundie whiningYou moron!
uk/canada both pay less for it's system vs us/switzerland/ >>>>>>>>>>> austria/ germany
because it's funded by taxes ya'll can just increase taxes in a >>>>>>>>>>> progressive manner instead of whining about muh reform
endlessly, and it
will hit ur average person less
why are you such a fking psychopathic retard julian?
The UK already has a progressive income tax system: higher >>>>>>>>>> earners pay a
higher percentage of their income in tax. Tax rates increase >>>>>>>>>> as income rises
As does Canada.
Everyone already knows that Canada has a progressive, graduated >>>>>>>> income tax system. Where higher earners pay a higher percentage >>>>>>>> of their income in taxes through both federal and provincial
brackets.
the fact a country has progress taxes is not contradictory to
increasing heath funding thru increased progressive taxes
u moron
In Canada, if you earn $150,000 a year you would pay an average
income tax rate of roughly 34% to 38%, resulting in a take-home
pay of approximately $92,000 to $98,000 depending on the province. >>>>>>
Apparently, Quebec has the highest tax rate, with a $150k income
paying roughly $57,701, a 38.5% average.
Where's the incentive Nick?
i pay about the same in california and get no free healthcare ...
meaning both me and my employer are paying healthcare with
premiums, deductibles, and copays,
plus all the mind-numbing tracking, documentation, and back/forth
in regards to payment/claims/reimbursement,
nvm mind the fact if u job hob they may or may not have contracts
with ur current doctors/providers,
a small part of me is insistent to get a job just cause i need to
deal with that absolute nonsense again,
and i directly hold psychopathic assholes like urself responsible
for why our system is still so fucking insane
If I still had my youth, I'd think about a position in technology,
in a state that has no state income tax. YMMV.
For example, Elon Musk has a large, multi-facility manufacturing
compound in Bastrop, Texas. The main facilities include a massive
Starlink satellite factory operated by SpaceX and a Boring Company
facility for tunnel-drilling equipment.
Apparently, they are hiring. High pay and good benefits.
bruh, i hate modern software orgs, the way they produce and maintain
software, and the ultimate user experiences born because of them.
they are an abject insult to the *universal* computing machines first
described by turing
i'm a software engineer moron. yeah maybe i should have been mechanical
but i am what i am
u, on the otherhand, are a fking sheeplfried fuck
Don't put that on your resume!
yeah but i think it evertime i see a manager in the workplace
with no consideration past the salary number in the sales department.
It's all about choices, Nick. How much per hour?
simple honesty is what i'm looking for and employers can't even manage that
On 2/26/26 3:36 PM, Dude wrote:
On 2/26/2026 1:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 10:01:11 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Name one single person on the planet who loves paying payroll taxes.
On 2/25/2026 8:43 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 16:44:24 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>Apparently, 99.9% of people on earth hate paying government taxes.
On 2/25/2026 1:00 PM, dart200 wrote:Some people simply don't think that way.
On 2/25/26 12:55 PM, Dude wrote:What are you, nuts?
On 2/25/2026 12:34 PM, Tara wrote:
Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Obviously, he's a moron.
On 2/25/2026 9:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
typical market fundie whiningYou moron!
uk/canada both pay less for it's system vs us/switzerland/ >>>>>>>>>>> austria/
germany
because it's funded by taxes ya'll can just increase taxes in a >>>>>>>>>>> progressive manner instead of whining about muh reform
endlessly,
and it
will hit ur average person less
why are you such a fking psychopathic retard julian?
The UK already has a progressive income tax system: higher >>>>>>>>>> earners
pay a
higher percentage of their income in tax. Tax rates increase as >>>>>>>>>> income rises
As does Canada.
Everyone already knows that Canada has a progressive, graduated >>>>>>>> income
tax system. Where higher earners pay a higher percentage of their >>>>>>>> income in taxes through both federal and provincial brackets.
the fact a country has progress taxes is not contradictory to
increasing
heath funding thru increased progressive taxes
u moron
In Canada, if you earn $150,000 a year you would pay an average
income
tax rate of roughly 34% to 38%, resulting in a take-home pay of
approximately $92,000 to $98,000 depending on the province.
Apparently, Quebec has the highest tax rate, with a $150k income
paying
roughly $57,701, a 38.5% average.
Where's the incentive Nick?
Bogus stat alert.
99.9% hate paying for anything what's ur point dude???
They
really dislike paying 50% of their earned income! Seriously?
On 2/26/26 3:46 PM, Dude wrote:
On 2/26/2026 3:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 10:04 AM, Dude wrote:You dumb shit!
On 2/25/2026 9:12 PM, dart200 wrote:avoiding the question ehhh? so u are on medicaid aren't ya???
On 2/25/26 4:44 PM, Dude wrote:You are supposed to read the messages BEFORE you ask questions.
On 2/25/2026 1:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 12:55 PM, Dude wrote:What are you, nuts?
On 2/25/2026 12:34 PM, Tara wrote:
Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Obviously, he's a moron.
On 2/25/2026 9:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
typical market fundie whiningYou moron!
uk/canada both pay less for it's system vs us/switzerland/ >>>>>>>>>>> austria/ germany
because it's funded by taxes ya'll can just increase taxes in a >>>>>>>>>>> progressive manner instead of whining about muh reform
endlessly, and it
will hit ur average person less
why are you such a fking psychopathic retard julian?
The UK already has a progressive income tax system: higher >>>>>>>>>> earners pay a
higher percentage of their income in tax. Tax rates increase >>>>>>>>>> as income rises
As does Canada.
Everyone already knows that Canada has a progressive, graduated >>>>>>>> income tax system. Where higher earners pay a higher percentage >>>>>>>> of their income in taxes through both federal and provincial
brackets.
the fact a country has progress taxes is not contradictory to
increasing heath funding thru increased progressive taxes
u moron
In Canada, if you earn $150,000 a year you would pay an average
income tax rate of roughly 34% to 38%, resulting in a take-home
pay of approximately $92,000 to $98,000 depending on the province. >>>>>>
Apparently, Quebec has the highest tax rate, with a $150k income
paying roughly $57,701, a 38.5% average.
Where's the incentive Nick?
wait aren't u a fucking boomer on medicaid for seniors?????
So, I already posted that I'm fully vested from Dell Computers.
Didn't you read any of my posts about investing? Get some smarts, Nick. >>>
Apparently you don't understand the difference between Medicare and
no i just get the terms mixed up cause the names are so arbitrary
like in ca medicaid is called medical ... like what?
yeah i have medical kind of medical coverage eh???
Medicaid. Medicare is generally voluntary. We have Blue Cross.
oh so the BCBS medicare plans???
so still socialized medicine ... just done via the subsidized mUh
FrEeEeEeE mARkEt method
while advocating against socialized medicine...
Unlike Medicare, which is for those 65+ or with specific disabilities,
Medicaid is strictly based on income and financial resources.
that's just fucking rich: preaching against socialized medicine whileSo, just for the record, I am not on Medicaid.
taking advantage of it yourself
i am tho:
no premiums. no deductible. no co-pay. no co-insurance. no fsa/hsa reimbursement bullshit. no separate dental/vision plans.
just go to doctor and get treated. i can just go the ER without worrying about costs. i can call an ambulance without having to worry about
costs. if there is a *pressing* issue i get treated within necessary timeframes, and i have access to some of the best doctors around (wife
will give birth at stanford). if not maybe i need to wait longer. tbh
i'll take waiting a bit over not have to worry about the astronomically retarded payment systems american financiers devised for medicine so consumers *cant* figure out what the true costs of service ever are...
like holy fuck anyone advocating for non-socialized care is engaging
with nothing but a fantastically fallacious facade of critical thot
On 2/26/26 12:50 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/26/2026 10:21 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 09:46:19 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/25/2026 5:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 1:29 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/25/2026 10:07 AM, Julian wrote:imagine comparing elective procedures to necessary healthcare people >>>>> must get or die, as if those markets are even remotely comparable
Despite soaking up more than -u200 billion of taxpayersrCO money per >>>>>>> year,
(over 40% of all UK government day-to-day departmental spending, >>>>>>> around 11% GDP)
the NHS and health policy more widely are two areas which have gone >>>>>>> ignored. Since the coalition governmentrCOs half-baked reforms,
BritainrCOs approach to health policy can be summarised as: give the >>>>>>> NHS money and hope for the best.
https://x.com/Handrev/status/2026380787134734353
LASIK eye surgery cost $2,200 per eye in 2000. Today it's around
$1,000 per eye despite 24 years of inflation. Meanwhile, an MRI that >>>>>> cost $1,200 in 2000 now costs $3,000+. The difference? LASIK operates >>>>>> in a free market with no insurance interference and minimal
regulation.
When patients pay directly, providers must compete on price and
quality. LASIK clinics advertise prices, offer financing, and
constantly improve technology to attract customers. Compare this to >>>>>> hospital procedures where prices are hidden, patients never see
bills,
and insurance companies negotiate opaque rates that somehow always >>>>>> increase faster than inflation.
Cosmetic surgery follows the same pattern. Breast augmentation,
rhinoplasty, and other elective procedures have become more
affordable
and safer over decades. Surgeons invest in better techniques and
equipment because they must satisfy paying customers, not insurance >>>>>> bureaucrats or hospital administrators focused on maximizing
reimbursements.
The lesson is clear: remove third-party payment systems and excessive >>>>>> regulation, and you get Austrian economics in action. Prices fall, >>>>>> quality rises, and innovation accelerates. Healthcare costs aren't >>>>>> rising because of aging populations or new technologyrCothey're rising >>>>>> because we've destroyed the price mechanism that makes markets work. >>>>>
free market fundies are fucking insane, it's literally the only
thing u
ever push ever
u just don't fking care what happens to people wilson
Sure I do.
within the limits of your ideological commitments which means govt
will do nothing and neither will you.
You have no idea what I do.
u could donate billions and i'd still call u a fking regressive idiot getting in the way more than helping
*the problems of wealth inequity are not going to solved by donations*
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 15:55:46 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/26/2026 3:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 9:37 AM, Dude wrote:The key term is transparency, Nick.
On 2/25/2026 6:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 6:36 PM, Dude wrote:You idiot!
On 2/25/2026 4:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 4:30 PM, Dude wrote:We are going to have to see some ID and voter registration on that. >>>>>> Thanks.
On 2/25/2026 2:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 1:29 PM, Wilson wrote:Until you start paying some income tax maybe it would be better if >>>>>>>> you just started paying up.
On 2/25/2026 10:07 AM, Julian wrote:
Despite soaking up more than -u200 billion of taxpayersrCO money >>>>>>>>>>> per year,
(over 40% of all UK government day-to-day departmental spending, >>>>>>>>>>> around 11% GDP)
the NHS and health policy more widely are two areas which have >>>>>>>>>>> gone ignored. Since the coalition governmentrCOs half-baked >>>>>>>>>>> reforms, BritainrCOs approach to health policy can be summarised >>>>>>>>>>> as: give the NHS money and hope for the best.
https://x.com/Handrev/status/2026380787134734353
LASIK eye surgery cost $2,200 per eye in 2000. Today it's around >>>>>>>>>> $1,000 per eye despite 24 years of inflation. Meanwhile, an MRI >>>>>>>>>> that cost $1,200 in 2000 now costs $3,000+. The difference? >>>>>>>>>> LASIK operates in a free market with no insurance interference >>>>>>>>>> and minimal regulation.
When patients pay directly, providers must compete on price and >>>>>>>>>> quality. LASIK clinics advertise prices, offer financing, and >>>>>>>>>> constantly improve technology to attract customers. Compare this >>>>>>>>>> to hospital procedures where prices are hidden, patients never >>>>>>>>>> see bills, and insurance companies negotiate opaque rates that >>>>>>>>>> somehow always increase faster than inflation.
Cosmetic surgery follows the same pattern. Breast augmentation, >>>>>>>>>> rhinoplasty, and other elective procedures have become more >>>>>>>>>> affordable and safer over decades. Surgeons invest in better >>>>>>>>>> techniques and equipment because they must satisfy paying
customers, not insurance bureaucrats or hospital administrators >>>>>>>>>> focused on maximizing reimbursements.
The lesson is clear: remove third-party payment systems and >>>>>>>>>> excessive regulation, and you get Austrian economics in action. >>>>>>>>>> Prices fall, quality rises, and innovation accelerates.
Healthcare costs aren't rising because of aging populations or >>>>>>>>>> new technology rCo they're rising because we've destroyed the >>>>>>>>>> price mechanism that makes markets work.
imagine comparing elective procedures to necessary healthcare >>>>>>>>> people must get or die, as if those markets are even remotely >>>>>>>>> comparable
free market fundies are fucking insane, it's literally the only >>>>>>>>> thing u ever push ever
u just don't fking care what happens to people wilson
i have a decade of work experience u retard
i've payed plenty of income tax
My solution is simple:
Replace the progressive income tax system with a flat tax everyone >>>>>> pays,
bruh fuck ur boomernomics, there is no argument to not having a
progressive tax system
rich people do not drive innovation with their spending or investments >>>>>
with a consumer luxury tax on imports to reduce the national debt
and the federal deficit. Balance the federal budget.
It has been proved that the higher the income tax, the less tax is >>>>>> actually collected.
progressive taxes are not complicated in the slightest
The U.S. Tax Code IRS, is roughly 2,600 to over 6,000 pages long. When >>>> including federal tax regulations, IRS guidance, and related case law, >>>> the total volume of tax-related material exceeds 70,000 to 75,000 pages. >>>>
The code has tripled in size over the last 40 years.
so?
which is not from the fact we have multiple income brackets. that's like >>> a single table on one page, dude
Flat taxx, no exceptions. Simple. Transparent.what it's from is rich people using tax breaks to incentivize variousparts of the economy (taking the form of deductions, credits, loopholes, >>> corporate rules, and other regulations) ... which rich people then take
advantage of to lower their taxes, and which they would regardless of
whether the tax is flat or progressive...
What part of balance the federal budget do you not understand?
ur demonstrating a /false cause fallacy/
The part where some people think there is some urgency about that.
Balancing the federal budget is urgent.
On 2/26/2026 6:34 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 15:55:46 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/26/2026 3:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 9:37 AM, Dude wrote:The key term is transparency, Nick.
On 2/25/2026 6:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 6:36 PM, Dude wrote:You idiot!
On 2/25/2026 4:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 4:30 PM, Dude wrote:We are going to have to see some ID and voter registration on that. >>>>>>> Thanks.
On 2/25/2026 2:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 1:29 PM, Wilson wrote:Until you start paying some income tax maybe it would be better if >>>>>>>>> you just started paying up.
On 2/25/2026 10:07 AM, Julian wrote:
Despite soaking up more than u200 billion of taxpayersA money >>>>>>>>>>>> per year,
(over 40% of all UK government day-to-day departmental spending, >>>>>>>>>>>> around 11% GDP)
the NHS and health policy more widely are two areas which have >>>>>>>>>>>> gone ignored. Since the coalition governmentAs half-baked >>>>>>>>>>>> reforms, BritainAs approach to health policy can be summarised >>>>>>>>>>>> as: give the NHS money and hope for the best.
https://x.com/Handrev/status/2026380787134734353
LASIK eye surgery cost $2,200 per eye in 2000. Today it's around >>>>>>>>>>> $1,000 per eye despite 24 years of inflation. Meanwhile, an MRI >>>>>>>>>>> that cost $1,200 in 2000 now costs $3,000+. The difference? >>>>>>>>>>> LASIK operates in a free market with no insurance interference >>>>>>>>>>> and minimal regulation.
When patients pay directly, providers must compete on price and >>>>>>>>>>> quality. LASIK clinics advertise prices, offer financing, and >>>>>>>>>>> constantly improve technology to attract customers. Compare this >>>>>>>>>>> to hospital procedures where prices are hidden, patients never >>>>>>>>>>> see bills, and insurance companies negotiate opaque rates that >>>>>>>>>>> somehow always increase faster than inflation.
Cosmetic surgery follows the same pattern. Breast augmentation, >>>>>>>>>>> rhinoplasty, and other elective procedures have become more >>>>>>>>>>> affordable and safer over decades. Surgeons invest in better >>>>>>>>>>> techniques and equipment because they must satisfy paying >>>>>>>>>>> customers, not insurance bureaucrats or hospital administrators >>>>>>>>>>> focused on maximizing reimbursements.
The lesson is clear: remove third-party payment systems and >>>>>>>>>>> excessive regulation, and you get Austrian economics in action. >>>>>>>>>>> Prices fall, quality rises, and innovation accelerates.
Healthcare costs aren't rising because of aging populations or >>>>>>>>>>> new technology u they're rising because we've destroyed the >>>>>>>>>>> price mechanism that makes markets work.
imagine comparing elective procedures to necessary healthcare >>>>>>>>>> people must get or die, as if those markets are even remotely >>>>>>>>>> comparable
free market fundies are fucking insane, it's literally the only >>>>>>>>>> thing u ever push ever
u just don't fking care what happens to people wilson
i have a decade of work experience u retard
i've payed plenty of income tax
My solution is simple:
Replace the progressive income tax system with a flat tax everyone >>>>>>> pays,
bruh fuck ur boomernomics, there is no argument to not having a
progressive tax system
rich people do not drive innovation with their spending or investments >>>>>>
with a consumer luxury tax on imports to reduce the national debt >>>>>>> and the federal deficit. Balance the federal budget.
It has been proved that the higher the income tax, the less tax is >>>>>>> actually collected.
progressive taxes are not complicated in the slightest
The U.S. Tax Code IRS, is roughly 2,600 to over 6,000 pages long. When >>>>> including federal tax regulations, IRS guidance, and related case law, >>>>> the total volume of tax-related material exceeds 70,000 to 75,000 pages. >>>>>
The code has tripled in size over the last 40 years.
so?
which is not from the fact we have multiple income brackets. that's like >>>> a single table on one page, dude
Flat taxx, no exceptions. Simple. Transparent.what it's from is rich people using tax breaks to incentivize various >>>> parts of the economy (taking the form of deductions, credits, loopholes, >>>> corporate rules, and other regulations) ... which rich people then take >>>> advantage of to lower their taxes, and which they would regardless ofwhether the tax is flat or progressive...
What part of balance the federal budget do you not understand?
ur demonstrating a /false cause fallacy/
The part where some people think there is some urgency about that. >>Balancing the federal budget is urgent.
We need to balance the federal budget or else the US Mint will have to
print more fiat money. Then, the inflation goes up. At some point the >interest on the federal debt exceeds the amount of dollars you can store
in the Grand Canyon.
Or, no worries.
Do the math.
On 2/26/2026 3:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 3:34 PM, Dude wrote:So, if I had my youth, I'd probably go check out the Boring Company! You could be there in one day in a Tesla S.
On 2/26/2026 3:12 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 9:58 AM, Dude wrote:It's a battery factory.
On 2/25/2026 4:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 4:44 PM, Dude wrote:It's all about choices, Nick.
On 2/25/2026 1:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 12:55 PM, Dude wrote:What are you, nuts?
On 2/25/2026 12:34 PM, Tara wrote:
Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Obviously, he's a moron.
On 2/25/2026 9:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
typical market fundie whiningYou moron!
uk/canada both pay less for it's system vs us/switzerland/ >>>>>>>>>>>> austria/ germany
because it's funded by taxes ya'll can just increase taxes in a >>>>>>>>>>>> progressive manner instead of whining about muh reform >>>>>>>>>>>> endlessly, and it
will hit ur average person less
why are you such a fking psychopathic retard julian?
The UK already has a progressive income tax system: higher >>>>>>>>>>> earners pay a
higher percentage of their income in tax. Tax rates increase >>>>>>>>>>> as income rises
As does Canada.
Everyone already knows that Canada has a progressive, graduated >>>>>>>>> income tax system. Where higher earners pay a higher percentage >>>>>>>>> of their income in taxes through both federal and provincial >>>>>>>>> brackets.
the fact a country has progress taxes is not contradictory to >>>>>>>> increasing heath funding thru increased progressive taxes
u moron
In Canada, if you earn $150,000 a year you would pay an average >>>>>>> income tax rate of roughly 34% to 38%, resulting in a take-home >>>>>>> pay of approximately $92,000 to $98,000 depending on the province. >>>>>>>
Apparently, Quebec has the highest tax rate, with a $150k income >>>>>>> paying roughly $57,701, a 38.5% average.
Where's the incentive Nick?
i pay about the same in california and get no free healthcare ...
meaning both me and my employer are paying healthcare with
premiums, deductibles, and copays,
plus all the mind-numbing tracking, documentation, and back/forth >>>>>> in regards to payment/claims/reimbursement,
nvm mind the fact if u job hob they may or may not have contracts >>>>>> with ur current doctors/providers,
a small part of me is insistent to get a job just cause i need to >>>>>> deal with that absolute nonsense again,
and i directly hold psychopathic assholes like urself responsible >>>>>> for why our system is still so fucking insane
If I still had my youth, I'd think about a position in technology,
in a state that has no state income tax. YMMV.
For example, Elon Musk has a large, multi-facility manufacturing
compound in Bastrop, Texas. The main facilities include a massive
Starlink satellite factory operated by SpaceX and a Boring Company
facility for tunnel-drilling equipment.
Apparently, they are hiring. High pay and good benefits.
bruh, i hate modern software orgs, the way they produce and maintain
software, and the ultimate user experiences born because of them.
they are an abject insult to the *universal* computing machines
first described by turing
i'm a software engineer moron. yeah maybe i should have been
mechanical but i am what i am
u, on the otherhand, are a fking sheeplfried fuck
Don't put that on your resume!
yeah but i think it evertime i see a manager in the workplace
with no consideration past the salary number in the sales department.
It's all about choices, Nick. How much per hour?
simple honesty is what i'm looking for and employers can't even manage
that
Get in on the ground floor. Tear it up. Go for the long run. Save up and start my own boring company. YMMV.
Software engineers in Austin, Texas, typically earn between $49 and $70+
per hour. With an average of roughly $70.30/hr ($146k/year) for
experienced technicians. And $49/hr for entry-level as of Feb 2026.
Advanced experienced engineers, such as yourself, at top firms in
Austin, can exceed $100-$200+ per hour!
On 2/26/2026 3:51 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 3:36 PM, Dude wrote:First, you have to apply for the job, Nick.
On 2/26/2026 1:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 10:01:11 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>Name one single person on the planet who loves paying payroll taxes.
On 2/25/2026 8:43 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 16:44:24 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com>Apparently, 99.9% of people on earth hate paying government taxes.
wrote:
On 2/25/2026 1:00 PM, dart200 wrote:Some people simply don't think that way.
On 2/25/26 12:55 PM, Dude wrote:What are you, nuts?
On 2/25/2026 12:34 PM, Tara wrote:the fact a country has progress taxes is not contradictory to >>>>>>>> increasing
Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Obviously, he's a moron.
On 2/25/2026 9:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
typical market fundie whiningYou moron!
uk/canada both pay less for it's system vs us/switzerland/ >>>>>>>>>>>> austria/
germany
because it's funded by taxes ya'll can just increase taxes in a >>>>>>>>>>>> progressive manner instead of whining about muh reform >>>>>>>>>>>> endlessly,
and it
will hit ur average person less
why are you such a fking psychopathic retard julian?
The UK already has a progressive income tax system: higher >>>>>>>>>>> earners
pay a
higher percentage of their income in tax. Tax rates increase as >>>>>>>>>>> income rises
As does Canada.
Everyone already knows that Canada has a progressive, graduated >>>>>>>>> income
tax system. Where higher earners pay a higher percentage of their >>>>>>>>> income in taxes through both federal and provincial brackets. >>>>>>>>
heath funding thru increased progressive taxes
u moron
In Canada, if you earn $150,000 a year you would pay an average >>>>>>> income
tax rate of roughly 34% to 38%, resulting in a take-home pay of
approximately $92,000 to $98,000 depending on the province.
Apparently, Quebec has the highest tax rate, with a $150k income >>>>>>> paying
roughly $57,701, a 38.5% average.
Where's the incentive Nick?
Bogus stat alert.
99.9% hate paying for anything what's ur point dude???
Go to a Men's Warehouse. You're going to love the way you look. Dress
for success and remember, shoes make the man.
Don't go in there looking like that loser Joey Ramone. Everyone knows
bikers don't wear sneakers!
They
really dislike paying 50% of their earned income! Seriously?
On 2/26/2026 4:09 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 3:46 PM, Dude wrote:Apparently, you have not thot this thru:
On 2/26/2026 3:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 10:04 AM, Dude wrote:You dumb shit!
On 2/25/2026 9:12 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 4:44 PM, Dude wrote:You are supposed to read the messages BEFORE you ask questions.
On 2/25/2026 1:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 12:55 PM, Dude wrote:What are you, nuts?
On 2/25/2026 12:34 PM, Tara wrote:
Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Obviously, he's a moron.
On 2/25/2026 9:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
typical market fundie whiningYou moron!
uk/canada both pay less for it's system vs us/switzerland/ >>>>>>>>>>>> austria/ germany
because it's funded by taxes ya'll can just increase taxes in a >>>>>>>>>>>> progressive manner instead of whining about muh reform >>>>>>>>>>>> endlessly, and it
will hit ur average person less
why are you such a fking psychopathic retard julian?
The UK already has a progressive income tax system: higher >>>>>>>>>>> earners pay a
higher percentage of their income in tax. Tax rates increase >>>>>>>>>>> as income rises
As does Canada.
Everyone already knows that Canada has a progressive, graduated >>>>>>>>> income tax system. Where higher earners pay a higher percentage >>>>>>>>> of their income in taxes through both federal and provincial >>>>>>>>> brackets.
the fact a country has progress taxes is not contradictory to >>>>>>>> increasing heath funding thru increased progressive taxes
u moron
In Canada, if you earn $150,000 a year you would pay an average >>>>>>> income tax rate of roughly 34% to 38%, resulting in a take-home >>>>>>> pay of approximately $92,000 to $98,000 depending on the province. >>>>>>>
Apparently, Quebec has the highest tax rate, with a $150k income >>>>>>> paying roughly $57,701, a 38.5% average.
Where's the incentive Nick?
wait aren't u a fucking boomer on medicaid for seniors?????
So, I already posted that I'm fully vested from Dell Computers.
Didn't you read any of my posts about investing? Get some smarts,
Nick.
avoiding the question ehhh? so u are on medicaid aren't ya???
Apparently you don't understand the difference between Medicare and
no i just get the terms mixed up cause the names are so arbitrary
like in ca medicaid is called medical ... like what?
yeah i have medical kind of medical coverage eh???
Medicaid. Medicare is generally voluntary. We have Blue Cross.
oh so the BCBS medicare plans???
so still socialized medicine ... just done via the subsidized mUh
FrEeEeEeE mARkEt method
while advocating against socialized medicine...
Unlike Medicare, which is for those 65+ or with specific
disabilities, Medicaid is strictly based on income and financial
resources.
that's just fucking rich: preaching against socialized medicineSo, just for the record, I am not on Medicaid.
while taking advantage of it yourself
i am tho:
no premiums. no deductible. no co-pay. no co-insurance. no fsa/hsa
reimbursement bullshit. no separate dental/vision plans.
just go to doctor and get treated. i can just go the ER without
worrying about costs. i can call an ambulance without having to worry
about costs. if there is a *pressing* issue i get treated within
necessary timeframes, and i have access to some of the best doctors
around (wife will give birth at stanford). if not maybe i need to wait
longer. tbh i'll take waiting a bit over not have to worry about the
astronomically retarded payment systems american financiers devised
for medicine so consumers *cant* figure out what the true costs of
service ever are...
like holy fuck anyone advocating for non-socialized care is engaging
with nothing but a fantastically fallacious facade of critical thot
The solution to free medical care and a balanced US budget is a flat tax that everyone pays, no exceptions. No loopholes. Can't you read?
Do the math.--
On 2/26/2026 3:25 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 12:50 PM, Wilson wrote:Apparently, wealth isn't your problem. Your problem is the wealth of
On 2/26/2026 10:21 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 09:46:19 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/25/2026 5:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 1:29 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/25/2026 10:07 AM, Julian wrote:imagine comparing elective procedures to necessary healthcare people >>>>>> must get or die, as if those markets are even remotely comparable
Despite soaking up more than -u200 billion of taxpayersrCO money >>>>>>>> per year,
(over 40% of all UK government day-to-day departmental spending, >>>>>>>> around 11% GDP)
the NHS and health policy more widely are two areas which have gone >>>>>>>> ignored. Since the coalition governmentrCOs half-baked reforms, >>>>>>>> BritainrCOs approach to health policy can be summarised as: give the >>>>>>>> NHS money and hope for the best.
https://x.com/Handrev/status/2026380787134734353
LASIK eye surgery cost $2,200 per eye in 2000. Today it's around >>>>>>> $1,000 per eye despite 24 years of inflation. Meanwhile, an MRI that >>>>>>> cost $1,200 in 2000 now costs $3,000+. The difference? LASIK
operates
in a free market with no insurance interference and minimal
regulation.
When patients pay directly, providers must compete on price and
quality. LASIK clinics advertise prices, offer financing, and
constantly improve technology to attract customers. Compare this to >>>>>>> hospital procedures where prices are hidden, patients never see >>>>>>> bills,
and insurance companies negotiate opaque rates that somehow always >>>>>>> increase faster than inflation.
Cosmetic surgery follows the same pattern. Breast augmentation,
rhinoplasty, and other elective procedures have become more
affordable
and safer over decades. Surgeons invest in better techniques and >>>>>>> equipment because they must satisfy paying customers, not insurance >>>>>>> bureaucrats or hospital administrators focused on maximizing
reimbursements.
The lesson is clear: remove third-party payment systems and
excessive
regulation, and you get Austrian economics in action. Prices fall, >>>>>>> quality rises, and innovation accelerates. Healthcare costs aren't >>>>>>> rising because of aging populations or new technologyrCothey're rising >>>>>>> because we've destroyed the price mechanism that makes markets work. >>>>>>
free market fundies are fucking insane, it's literally the only
thing u
ever push ever
u just don't fking care what happens to people wilson
Sure I do.
within the limits of your ideological commitments which means govt
will do nothing and neither will you.
You have no idea what I do.
u could donate billions and i'd still call u a fking regressive idiot
getting in the way more than helping
*the problems of wealth inequity are not going to solved by donations*
others.
"If you canrCOt beat them, join them." - James Watson
On 2/26/26 7:23 PM, Dude wrote:
On 2/26/2026 3:25 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 12:50 PM, Wilson wrote:Apparently, wealth isn't your problem. Your problem is the wealth of
On 2/26/2026 10:21 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 09:46:19 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/25/2026 5:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 1:29 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/25/2026 10:07 AM, Julian wrote:
Despite soaking up more than -u200 billion of taxpayersrCO money >>>>>>>>> per year,
(over 40% of all UK government day-to-day departmental spending, >>>>>>>>> around 11% GDP)
the NHS and health policy more widely are two areas which have >>>>>>>>> gone
ignored. Since the coalition governmentrCOs half-baked reforms, >>>>>>>>> BritainrCOs approach to health policy can be summarised as: give the >>>>>>>>> NHS money and hope for the best.
https://x.com/Handrev/status/2026380787134734353
LASIK eye surgery cost $2,200 per eye in 2000. Today it's around >>>>>>>> $1,000 per eye despite 24 years of inflation. Meanwhile, an MRI >>>>>>>> that
cost $1,200 in 2000 now costs $3,000+. The difference? LASIK
operates
in a free market with no insurance interference and minimal
regulation.
When patients pay directly, providers must compete on price and >>>>>>>> quality. LASIK clinics advertise prices, offer financing, and
constantly improve technology to attract customers. Compare this to >>>>>>>> hospital procedures where prices are hidden, patients never see >>>>>>>> bills,
and insurance companies negotiate opaque rates that somehow always >>>>>>>> increase faster than inflation.
Cosmetic surgery follows the same pattern. Breast augmentation, >>>>>>>> rhinoplasty, and other elective procedures have become more
affordable
and safer over decades. Surgeons invest in better techniques and >>>>>>>> equipment because they must satisfy paying customers, not insurance >>>>>>>> bureaucrats or hospital administrators focused on maximizing
reimbursements.
The lesson is clear: remove third-party payment systems and
excessive
regulation, and you get Austrian economics in action. Prices fall, >>>>>>>> quality rises, and innovation accelerates. Healthcare costs aren't >>>>>>>> rising because of aging populations or new technologyrCothey're >>>>>>>> rising
because we've destroyed the price mechanism that makes markets >>>>>>>> work.
imagine comparing elective procedures to necessary healthcare people >>>>>>> must get or die, as if those markets are even remotely comparable >>>>>>>
free market fundies are fucking insane, it's literally the only >>>>>>> thing u
ever push ever
u just don't fking care what happens to people wilson
Sure I do.
within the limits of your ideological commitments which means govt
will do nothing and neither will you.
You have no idea what I do.
u could donate billions and i'd still call u a fking regressive idiot
getting in the way more than helping
*the problems of wealth inequity are not going to solved by donations*
others.
"If you canrCOt beat them, join them." - James Watson
what about eating them?
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 19:51:56 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/26/2026 6:34 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 15:55:46 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/26/2026 3:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 9:37 AM, Dude wrote:The key term is transparency, Nick.
On 2/25/2026 6:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 6:36 PM, Dude wrote:You idiot!
On 2/25/2026 4:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 4:30 PM, Dude wrote:We are going to have to see some ID and voter registration on that. >>>>>>>> Thanks.
On 2/25/2026 2:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 1:29 PM, Wilson wrote:Until you start paying some income tax maybe it would be better if >>>>>>>>>> you just started paying up.
On 2/25/2026 10:07 AM, Julian wrote:
Despite soaking up more than -u200 billion of taxpayersrCO money >>>>>>>>>>>>> per year,
(over 40% of all UK government day-to-day departmental spending, >>>>>>>>>>>>> around 11% GDP)
the NHS and health policy more widely are two areas which have >>>>>>>>>>>>> gone ignored. Since the coalition governmentrCOs half-baked >>>>>>>>>>>>> reforms, BritainrCOs approach to health policy can be summarised >>>>>>>>>>>>> as: give the NHS money and hope for the best.
https://x.com/Handrev/status/2026380787134734353
LASIK eye surgery cost $2,200 per eye in 2000. Today it's around >>>>>>>>>>>> $1,000 per eye despite 24 years of inflation. Meanwhile, an MRI >>>>>>>>>>>> that cost $1,200 in 2000 now costs $3,000+. The difference? >>>>>>>>>>>> LASIK operates in a free market with no insurance interference >>>>>>>>>>>> and minimal regulation.
When patients pay directly, providers must compete on price and >>>>>>>>>>>> quality. LASIK clinics advertise prices, offer financing, and >>>>>>>>>>>> constantly improve technology to attract customers. Compare this >>>>>>>>>>>> to hospital procedures where prices are hidden, patients never >>>>>>>>>>>> see bills, and insurance companies negotiate opaque rates that >>>>>>>>>>>> somehow always increase faster than inflation.
Cosmetic surgery follows the same pattern. Breast augmentation, >>>>>>>>>>>> rhinoplasty, and other elective procedures have become more >>>>>>>>>>>> affordable and safer over decades. Surgeons invest in better >>>>>>>>>>>> techniques and equipment because they must satisfy paying >>>>>>>>>>>> customers, not insurance bureaucrats or hospital administrators >>>>>>>>>>>> focused on maximizing reimbursements.
The lesson is clear: remove third-party payment systems and >>>>>>>>>>>> excessive regulation, and you get Austrian economics in action. >>>>>>>>>>>> Prices fall, quality rises, and innovation accelerates. >>>>>>>>>>>> Healthcare costs aren't rising because of aging populations or >>>>>>>>>>>> new technology rCo they're rising because we've destroyed the >>>>>>>>>>>> price mechanism that makes markets work.
imagine comparing elective procedures to necessary healthcare >>>>>>>>>>> people must get or die, as if those markets are even remotely >>>>>>>>>>> comparable
free market fundies are fucking insane, it's literally the only >>>>>>>>>>> thing u ever push ever
u just don't fking care what happens to people wilson
i have a decade of work experience u retard
i've payed plenty of income tax
My solution is simple:
Replace the progressive income tax system with a flat tax everyone >>>>>>>> pays,
bruh fuck ur boomernomics, there is no argument to not having a
progressive tax system
rich people do not drive innovation with their spending or investments >>>>>>>
with a consumer luxury tax on imports to reduce the national debt >>>>>>>> and the federal deficit. Balance the federal budget.
It has been proved that the higher the income tax, the less tax is >>>>>>>> actually collected.
progressive taxes are not complicated in the slightest
The U.S. Tax Code IRS, is roughly 2,600 to over 6,000 pages long. When >>>>>> including federal tax regulations, IRS guidance, and related case law, >>>>>> the total volume of tax-related material exceeds 70,000 to 75,000 pages. >>>>>>
The code has tripled in size over the last 40 years.
so?
which is not from the fact we have multiple income brackets. that's like >>>>> a single table on one page, dude
Flat taxx, no exceptions. Simple. Transparent.what it's from is rich people using tax breaks to incentivize various >>>>> parts of the economy (taking the form of deductions, credits, loopholes, >>>>> corporate rules, and other regulations) ... which rich people then take >>>>> advantage of to lower their taxes, and which they would regardless of >>>>> whether the tax is flat or progressive...
What part of balance the federal budget do you not understand?
ur demonstrating a /false cause fallacy/
The part where some people think there is some urgency about that.
Balancing the federal budget is urgent.
We need to balance the federal budget or else the US Mint will have to
print more fiat money. Then, the inflation goes up. At some point the
interest on the federal debt exceeds the amount of dollars you can store
in the Grand Canyon.
Or, no worries.
Do the math.
Sorry that is gospel to you, but it ain't gospel.
On 2/26/26 7:12 PM, Dude wrote:
On 2/26/2026 4:09 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 3:46 PM, Dude wrote:Apparently, you have not thot this thru:
On 2/26/2026 3:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 10:04 AM, Dude wrote:You dumb shit!
On 2/25/2026 9:12 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 4:44 PM, Dude wrote:You are supposed to read the messages BEFORE you ask questions.
On 2/25/2026 1:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 12:55 PM, Dude wrote:What are you, nuts?
On 2/25/2026 12:34 PM, Tara wrote:
Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Obviously, he's a moron.
On 2/25/2026 9:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
typical market fundie whiningYou moron!
uk/canada both pay less for it's system vs us/switzerland/ >>>>>>>>>>>>> austria/ germany
because it's funded by taxes ya'll can just increase taxes >>>>>>>>>>>>> in a
progressive manner instead of whining about muh reform >>>>>>>>>>>>> endlessly, and it
will hit ur average person less
why are you such a fking psychopathic retard julian? >>>>>>>>>>>>>
The UK already has a progressive income tax system: higher >>>>>>>>>>>> earners pay a
higher percentage of their income in tax. Tax rates increase >>>>>>>>>>>> as income rises
As does Canada.
Everyone already knows that Canada has a progressive,
graduated income tax system. Where higher earners pay a higher >>>>>>>>>> percentage of their income in taxes through both federal and >>>>>>>>>> provincial brackets.
the fact a country has progress taxes is not contradictory to >>>>>>>>> increasing heath funding thru increased progressive taxes
u moron
In Canada, if you earn $150,000 a year you would pay an average >>>>>>>> income tax rate of roughly 34% to 38%, resulting in a take-home >>>>>>>> pay of approximately $92,000 to $98,000 depending on the province. >>>>>>>>
Apparently, Quebec has the highest tax rate, with a $150k income >>>>>>>> paying roughly $57,701, a 38.5% average.
Where's the incentive Nick?
wait aren't u a fucking boomer on medicaid for seniors?????
So, I already posted that I'm fully vested from Dell Computers.
Didn't you read any of my posts about investing? Get some smarts, >>>>>> Nick.
avoiding the question ehhh? so u are on medicaid aren't ya???
Apparently you don't understand the difference between Medicare and
no i just get the terms mixed up cause the names are so arbitrary
like in ca medicaid is called medical ... like what?
yeah i have medical kind of medical coverage eh???
Medicaid. Medicare is generally voluntary. We have Blue Cross.
oh so the BCBS medicare plans???
so still socialized medicine ... just done via the subsidized mUh
FrEeEeEeE mARkEt method
while advocating against socialized medicine...
Unlike Medicare, which is for those 65+ or with specific
disabilities, Medicaid is strictly based on income and financial
resources.
that's just fucking rich: preaching against socialized medicineSo, just for the record, I am not on Medicaid.
while taking advantage of it yourself
i am tho:
no premiums. no deductible. no co-pay. no co-insurance. no fsa/hsa
reimbursement bullshit. no separate dental/vision plans.
just go to doctor and get treated. i can just go the ER without
worrying about costs. i can call an ambulance without having to worry
about costs. if there is a *pressing* issue i get treated within
necessary timeframes, and i have access to some of the best doctors
around (wife will give birth at stanford). if not maybe i need to
wait longer. tbh i'll take waiting a bit over not have to worry about
the astronomically retarded payment systems american financiers
devised for medicine so consumers *cant* figure out what the true
costs of service ever are...
like holy fuck anyone advocating for non-socialized care is engaging
with nothing but a fantastically fallacious facade of critical thot
The solution to free medical care and a balanced US budget is a flat
tax that everyone pays, no exceptions. No loopholes. Can't you read?
i'm sorry how does a balanced budget magically get us universal medical care???
Do the math.
On 2/26/26 7:02 PM, Dude wrote:
On 2/26/2026 3:51 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 3:36 PM, Dude wrote:First, you have to apply for the job, Nick.
On 2/26/2026 1:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 10:01:11 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>Name one single person on the planet who loves paying payroll taxes.
On 2/25/2026 8:43 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 16:44:24 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:Apparently, 99.9% of people on earth hate paying government taxes.
On 2/25/2026 1:00 PM, dart200 wrote:Some people simply don't think that way.
On 2/25/26 12:55 PM, Dude wrote:What are you, nuts?
On 2/25/2026 12:34 PM, Tara wrote:the fact a country has progress taxes is not contradictory to >>>>>>>>> increasing
Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Obviously, he's a moron.
On 2/25/2026 9:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
typical market fundie whiningYou moron!
uk/canada both pay less for it's system vs us/switzerland/ >>>>>>>>>>>>> austria/
germany
because it's funded by taxes ya'll can just increase taxes >>>>>>>>>>>>> in a
progressive manner instead of whining about muh reform >>>>>>>>>>>>> endlessly,
and it
will hit ur average person less
why are you such a fking psychopathic retard julian? >>>>>>>>>>>>>
The UK already has a progressive income tax system: higher >>>>>>>>>>>> earners
pay a
higher percentage of their income in tax. Tax rates increase as >>>>>>>>>>>> income rises
As does Canada.
Everyone already knows that Canada has a progressive,
graduated income
tax system. Where higher earners pay a higher percentage of their >>>>>>>>>> income in taxes through both federal and provincial brackets. >>>>>>>>>
heath funding thru increased progressive taxes
u moron
In Canada, if you earn $150,000 a year you would pay an average >>>>>>>> income
tax rate of roughly 34% to 38%, resulting in a take-home pay of >>>>>>>> approximately $92,000 to $98,000 depending on the province.
Apparently, Quebec has the highest tax rate, with a $150k income >>>>>>>> paying
roughly $57,701, a 38.5% average.
Where's the incentive Nick?
Bogus stat alert.
99.9% hate paying for anything what's ur point dude???
Go to a Men's Warehouse. You're going to love the way you look. Dress
for success and remember, shoes make the man.
what kinda moron would take a software engineer in a suit seriously???
Don't go in there looking like that loser Joey Ramone. Everyone knows
bikers don't wear sneakers!
They
really dislike paying 50% of their earned income! Seriously?
On 2/26/26 6:56 PM, Dude wrote:
On 2/26/2026 3:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 3:34 PM, Dude wrote:So, if I had my youth, I'd probably go check out the Boring Company!
On 2/26/2026 3:12 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 9:58 AM, Dude wrote:It's a battery factory.
On 2/25/2026 4:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 4:44 PM, Dude wrote:It's all about choices, Nick.
On 2/25/2026 1:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 12:55 PM, Dude wrote:What are you, nuts?
On 2/25/2026 12:34 PM, Tara wrote:
Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Obviously, he's a moron.
On 2/25/2026 9:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
typical market fundie whiningYou moron!
uk/canada both pay less for it's system vs us/switzerland/ >>>>>>>>>>>>> austria/ germany
because it's funded by taxes ya'll can just increase taxes >>>>>>>>>>>>> in a
progressive manner instead of whining about muh reform >>>>>>>>>>>>> endlessly, and it
will hit ur average person less
why are you such a fking psychopathic retard julian? >>>>>>>>>>>>>
The UK already has a progressive income tax system: higher >>>>>>>>>>>> earners pay a
higher percentage of their income in tax. Tax rates increase >>>>>>>>>>>> as income rises
As does Canada.
Everyone already knows that Canada has a progressive,
graduated income tax system. Where higher earners pay a higher >>>>>>>>>> percentage of their income in taxes through both federal and >>>>>>>>>> provincial brackets.
the fact a country has progress taxes is not contradictory to >>>>>>>>> increasing heath funding thru increased progressive taxes
u moron
In Canada, if you earn $150,000 a year you would pay an average >>>>>>>> income tax rate of roughly 34% to 38%, resulting in a take-home >>>>>>>> pay of approximately $92,000 to $98,000 depending on the province. >>>>>>>>
Apparently, Quebec has the highest tax rate, with a $150k income >>>>>>>> paying roughly $57,701, a 38.5% average.
Where's the incentive Nick?
i pay about the same in california and get no free healthcare ... >>>>>>>
meaning both me and my employer are paying healthcare with
premiums, deductibles, and copays,
plus all the mind-numbing tracking, documentation, and back/forth >>>>>>> in regards to payment/claims/reimbursement,
nvm mind the fact if u job hob they may or may not have contracts >>>>>>> with ur current doctors/providers,
a small part of me is insistent to get a job just cause i need to >>>>>>> deal with that absolute nonsense again,
and i directly hold psychopathic assholes like urself responsible >>>>>>> for why our system is still so fucking insane
If I still had my youth, I'd think about a position in technology, >>>>>> in a state that has no state income tax. YMMV.
For example, Elon Musk has a large, multi-facility manufacturing
compound in Bastrop, Texas. The main facilities include a massive >>>>>> Starlink satellite factory operated by SpaceX and a Boring Company >>>>>> facility for tunnel-drilling equipment.
Apparently, they are hiring. High pay and good benefits.
bruh, i hate modern software orgs, the way they produce and
maintain software, and the ultimate user experiences born because
of them. they are an abject insult to the *universal* computing
machines first described by turing
i'm a software engineer moron. yeah maybe i should have been
mechanical but i am what i am
u, on the otherhand, are a fking sheeplfried fuck
Don't put that on your resume!
yeah but i think it evertime i see a manager in the workplace
with no consideration past the salary number in the sales department. >>>>It's all about choices, Nick. How much per hour?
simple honesty is what i'm looking for and employers can't even
manage that
You could be there in one day in a Tesla S.
EfN# the boring company has a stupid goal
Get in on the ground floor. Tear it up. Go for the long run. Save up
and start my own boring company. YMMV.
Software engineers in Austin, Texas, typically earn between $49 and
$70+ per hour. With an average of roughly $70.30/hr ($146k/year) for
experienced technicians. And $49/hr for entry-level as of Feb 2026.
Advanced experienced engineers, such as yourself, at top firms in
Austin, can exceed $100-$200+ per hour!
ok elmo
On 2/26/2026 8:25 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 6:56 PM, Dude wrote:You may have missed one important point: The Boring Company is hiring.
Get in on the ground floor. Tear it up. Go for the long run. Save up
and start my own boring company. YMMV.
Software engineers in Austin, Texas, typically earn between $49 and
$70+ per hour. With an average of roughly $70.30/hr ($146k/year) for
experienced technicians. And $49/hr for entry-level as of Feb 2026.
Advanced experienced engineers, such as yourself, at top firms in
Austin, can exceed $100-$200+ per hour!
ok elmo
While the tech industry as a whole is laying off workers in droves.
Think that over for awhile, Nick.
On 2/26/26 10:04 AM, Dude wrote:
On 2/25/2026 9:12 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 4:44 PM, Dude wrote:You are supposed to read the messages BEFORE you ask questions.
On 2/25/2026 1:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 12:55 PM, Dude wrote:What are you, nuts?
On 2/25/2026 12:34 PM, Tara wrote:the fact a country has progress taxes is not contradictory to
Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Obviously, he's a moron.
On 2/25/2026 9:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
typical market fundie whiningYou moron!
uk/canada both pay less for it's system vs us/switzerland/
austria/ germany
because it's funded by taxes ya'll can just increase taxes in a >>>>>>>>> progressive manner instead of whining about muh reform
endlessly, and it
will hit ur average person less
why are you such a fking psychopathic retard julian?
The UK already has a progressive income tax system: higher
earners pay a
higher percentage of their income in tax. Tax rates increase as >>>>>>>> income rises
As does Canada.
Everyone already knows that Canada has a progressive, graduated
income tax system. Where higher earners pay a higher percentage of >>>>>> their income in taxes through both federal and provincial brackets. >>>>>
increasing heath funding thru increased progressive taxes
u moron
In Canada, if you earn $150,000 a year you would pay an average
income tax rate of roughly 34% to 38%, resulting in a take-home pay
of approximately $92,000 to $98,000 depending on the province.
Apparently, Quebec has the highest tax rate, with a $150k income
paying roughly $57,701, a 38.5% average.
Where's the incentive Nick?
wait aren't u a fucking boomer on medicaid for seniors?????
So, I already posted that I'm fully vested from Dell Computers. Didn't
you read any of my posts about investing? Get some smarts, Nick.
avoiding the question ehhh? so u are on medicaid aren't ya???
that's just fucking rich: preaching against socialized medicine while
taking advantage of it yourself
On 2/27/2026 11:49 AM, Dude wrote:
On 2/26/2026 8:25 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 6:56 PM, Dude wrote:You may have missed one important point: The Boring Company is hiring.
Get in on the ground floor. Tear it up. Go for the long run. Save up
and start my own boring company. YMMV.
Software engineers in Austin, Texas, typically earn between $49 and
$70+ per hour. With an average of roughly $70.30/hr ($146k/year) for
experienced technicians. And $49/hr for entry-level as of Feb 2026.
Advanced experienced engineers, such as yourself, at top firms in
Austin, can exceed $100-$200+ per hour!
ok elmo
While the tech industry as a whole is laying off workers in droves.
Think that over for awhile, Nick.
Collectivists making bad decisions and then blaming society for the sad >state of their personal affairs is a thing as old as time.
On 2/26/2026 6:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 10:04 AM, Dude wrote:
On 2/25/2026 9:12 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 4:44 PM, Dude wrote:You are supposed to read the messages BEFORE you ask questions.
On 2/25/2026 1:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 12:55 PM, Dude wrote:What are you, nuts?
On 2/25/2026 12:34 PM, Tara wrote:the fact a country has progress taxes is not contradictory to
Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Obviously, he's a moron.
On 2/25/2026 9:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
typical market fundie whiningYou moron!
uk/canada both pay less for it's system vs us/switzerland/ >>>>>>>>>> austria/ germany
because it's funded by taxes ya'll can just increase taxes in a >>>>>>>>>> progressive manner instead of whining about muh reform
endlessly, and it
will hit ur average person less
why are you such a fking psychopathic retard julian?
The UK already has a progressive income tax system: higher
earners pay a
higher percentage of their income in tax. Tax rates increase as >>>>>>>>> income rises
As does Canada.
Everyone already knows that Canada has a progressive, graduated >>>>>>> income tax system. Where higher earners pay a higher percentage of >>>>>>> their income in taxes through both federal and provincial brackets. >>>>>>
increasing heath funding thru increased progressive taxes
u moron
In Canada, if you earn $150,000 a year you would pay an average
income tax rate of roughly 34% to 38%, resulting in a take-home pay >>>>> of approximately $92,000 to $98,000 depending on the province.
Apparently, Quebec has the highest tax rate, with a $150k income
paying roughly $57,701, a 38.5% average.
Where's the incentive Nick?
wait aren't u a fucking boomer on medicaid for seniors?????
So, I already posted that I'm fully vested from Dell Computers. Didn't
you read any of my posts about investing? Get some smarts, Nick.
avoiding the question ehhh? so u are on medicaid aren't ya???
that's just fucking rich: preaching against socialized medicine while
taking advantage of it yourself
Medicaid is for poor people. Medicare is for people over 65. Both are a
scam perpetrated on the working people by a government brimming with
graft and greed masquerading as good intentions.
But hey, it's a good idea in theory.
On 2/26/26 12:50 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/26/2026 10:21 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 09:46:19 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/25/2026 5:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
free market fundies are fucking insane, it's literally the only
thing u ever push ever
u just don't fking care what happens to people wilson
Sure I do.
within the limits of your ideological commitments which means govt
will do nothing and neither will you.
You have no idea what I do.
u could donate billions and i'd still call u a fking regressive idiot getting in the way more than helping
*the problems of wealth inequity are not going to solved by donations*
On 2/26/2026 8:29 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 7:23 PM, Dude wrote:Talk is cheap, Nick.
On 2/26/2026 3:25 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 12:50 PM, Wilson wrote:Apparently, wealth isn't your problem. Your problem is the wealth of
On 2/26/2026 10:21 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 09:46:19 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 2/25/2026 5:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 1:29 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/25/2026 10:07 AM, Julian wrote:
Despite soaking up more than -u200 billion of taxpayersrCO money >>>>>>>>>> per year,
(over 40% of all UK government day-to-day departmental spending, >>>>>>>>>> around 11% GDP)
the NHS and health policy more widely are two areas which have >>>>>>>>>> gone
ignored. Since the coalition governmentrCOs half-baked reforms, >>>>>>>>>> BritainrCOs approach to health policy can be summarised as: give >>>>>>>>>> the
NHS money and hope for the best.
https://x.com/Handrev/status/2026380787134734353
LASIK eye surgery cost $2,200 per eye in 2000. Today it's around >>>>>>>>> $1,000 per eye despite 24 years of inflation. Meanwhile, an MRI >>>>>>>>> that
cost $1,200 in 2000 now costs $3,000+. The difference? LASIK >>>>>>>>> operates
in a free market with no insurance interference and minimal >>>>>>>>> regulation.
When patients pay directly, providers must compete on price and >>>>>>>>> quality. LASIK clinics advertise prices, offer financing, and >>>>>>>>> constantly improve technology to attract customers. Compare >>>>>>>>> this to
hospital procedures where prices are hidden, patients never see >>>>>>>>> bills,
and insurance companies negotiate opaque rates that somehow always >>>>>>>>> increase faster than inflation.
Cosmetic surgery follows the same pattern. Breast augmentation, >>>>>>>>> rhinoplasty, and other elective procedures have become more >>>>>>>>> affordable
and safer over decades. Surgeons invest in better techniques and >>>>>>>>> equipment because they must satisfy paying customers, not
insurance
bureaucrats or hospital administrators focused on maximizing >>>>>>>>> reimbursements.
The lesson is clear: remove third-party payment systems and >>>>>>>>> excessive
regulation, and you get Austrian economics in action. Prices fall, >>>>>>>>> quality rises, and innovation accelerates. Healthcare costs aren't >>>>>>>>> rising because of aging populations or new technologyrCothey're >>>>>>>>> rising
because we've destroyed the price mechanism that makes markets >>>>>>>>> work.
imagine comparing elective procedures to necessary healthcare >>>>>>>> people
must get or die, as if those markets are even remotely comparable >>>>>>>>
free market fundies are fucking insane, it's literally the only >>>>>>>> thing u
ever push ever
u just don't fking care what happens to people wilson
Sure I do.
within the limits of your ideological commitments which means govt >>>>>> will do nothing and neither will you.
You have no idea what I do.
u could donate billions and i'd still call u a fking regressive
idiot getting in the way more than helping
*the problems of wealth inequity are not going to solved by donations* >>>>
others.
"If you canrCOt beat them, join them." - James Watson
what about eating them?
On 2/27/2026 11:13 AM, Dude wrote:
On 2/26/2026 8:29 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 7:23 PM, Dude wrote:Talk is cheap, Nick.
On 2/26/2026 3:25 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 12:50 PM, Wilson wrote:Apparently, wealth isn't your problem. Your problem is the wealth of
On 2/26/2026 10:21 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 09:46:19 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/25/2026 5:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 1:29 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/25/2026 10:07 AM, Julian wrote:
Despite soaking up more than u200 billion of taxpayersA money >>>>>>>>>>> per year,
(over 40% of all UK government day-to-day departmental spending, >>>>>>>>>>> around 11% GDP)
the NHS and health policy more widely are two areas which have >>>>>>>>>>> gone
ignored. Since the coalition governmentAs half-baked reforms, >>>>>>>>>>> BritainAs approach to health policy can be summarised as: give >>>>>>>>>>> the
NHS money and hope for the best.
https://x.com/Handrev/status/2026380787134734353
LASIK eye surgery cost $2,200 per eye in 2000. Today it's around >>>>>>>>>> $1,000 per eye despite 24 years of inflation. Meanwhile, an MRI >>>>>>>>>> that
cost $1,200 in 2000 now costs $3,000+. The difference? LASIK >>>>>>>>>> operates
in a free market with no insurance interference and minimal >>>>>>>>>> regulation.
When patients pay directly, providers must compete on price and >>>>>>>>>> quality. LASIK clinics advertise prices, offer financing, and >>>>>>>>>> constantly improve technology to attract customers. Compare >>>>>>>>>> this to
hospital procedures where prices are hidden, patients never see >>>>>>>>>> bills,
and insurance companies negotiate opaque rates that somehow always >>>>>>>>>> increase faster than inflation.
Cosmetic surgery follows the same pattern. Breast augmentation, >>>>>>>>>> rhinoplasty, and other elective procedures have become more >>>>>>>>>> affordable
and safer over decades. Surgeons invest in better techniques and >>>>>>>>>> equipment because they must satisfy paying customers, not >>>>>>>>>> insurance
bureaucrats or hospital administrators focused on maximizing >>>>>>>>>> reimbursements.
The lesson is clear: remove third-party payment systems and >>>>>>>>>> excessive
regulation, and you get Austrian economics in action. Prices fall, >>>>>>>>>> quality rises, and innovation accelerates. Healthcare costs aren't >>>>>>>>>> rising because of aging populations or new technologyuthey're >>>>>>>>>> rising
because we've destroyed the price mechanism that makes markets >>>>>>>>>> work.
imagine comparing elective procedures to necessary healthcare >>>>>>>>> people
must get or die, as if those markets are even remotely comparable >>>>>>>>>
free market fundies are fucking insane, it's literally the only >>>>>>>>> thing u
ever push ever
u just don't fking care what happens to people wilson
Sure I do.
within the limits of your ideological commitments which means govt >>>>>>> will do nothing and neither will you.
You have no idea what I do.
u could donate billions and i'd still call u a fking regressive
idiot getting in the way more than helping
*the problems of wealth inequity are not going to solved by donations* >>>>>
others.
"If you canAt beat them, join them." - James Watson
what about eating them?
Eating other people is also the usual result of centralized collectivist >systems.
On 2/26/2026 6:25 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 12:50 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/26/2026 10:21 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 09:46:19 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/25/2026 5:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
free market fundies are fucking insane, it's literally the only
thing u ever push ever
u just don't fking care what happens to people wilson
Sure I do.
within the limits of your ideological commitments which means govt
will do nothing and neither will you.
You have no idea what I do.
u could donate billions and i'd still call u a fking regressive idiot
getting in the way more than helping
*the problems of wealth inequity are not going to solved by donations*
It could be erased by donations. That's unlikely though.
It could also be erased by confiscation. Though that would also destroy
the economy and make everyone (except for the commissars) equally >impoverished.
Socialists and other authoritarian collectivists see that as a feature
not a bug. Making people completely reliant on the state is their
desired end state.
It's widely agreed that wealth inequality in the US has been made worse
over the past six years because of government actions.
On 2/27/2026 11:49 AM, Dude wrote:
On 2/26/2026 8:25 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 6:56 PM, Dude wrote:You may have missed one important point: The Boring Company is hiring.
Get in on the ground floor. Tear it up. Go for the long run. Save up
and start my own boring company. YMMV.
Software engineers in Austin, Texas, typically earn between $49 and
$70+ per hour. With an average of roughly $70.30/hr ($146k/year) for
experienced technicians. And $49/hr for entry-level as of Feb 2026.
Advanced experienced engineers, such as yourself, at top firms in
Austin, can exceed $100-$200+ per hour!
ok elmo
While the tech industry as a whole is laying off workers in droves.
Think that over for awhile, Nick.
Collectivists making bad decisions and then blaming society for the sad state of their personal affairs is a thing as old as time.
On 2/26/2026 8:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 7:12 PM, Dude wrote:Apparently, you have not thought this through.
On 2/26/2026 4:09 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 3:46 PM, Dude wrote:Apparently, you have not thot this thru:
On 2/26/2026 3:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 10:04 AM, Dude wrote:You dumb shit!
On 2/25/2026 9:12 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 4:44 PM, Dude wrote:You are supposed to read the messages BEFORE you ask questions.
On 2/25/2026 1:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 12:55 PM, Dude wrote:What are you, nuts?
On 2/25/2026 12:34 PM, Tara wrote:
Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Obviously, he's a moron.
On 2/25/2026 9:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
typical market fundie whiningYou moron!
uk/canada both pay less for it's system vs us/switzerland/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> austria/ germany
because it's funded by taxes ya'll can just increase taxes >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a
progressive manner instead of whining about muh reform >>>>>>>>>>>>>> endlessly, and it
will hit ur average person less
why are you such a fking psychopathic retard julian? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The UK already has a progressive income tax system: higher >>>>>>>>>>>>> earners pay a
higher percentage of their income in tax. Tax rates >>>>>>>>>>>>> increase as income rises
As does Canada.
Everyone already knows that Canada has a progressive,
graduated income tax system. Where higher earners pay a >>>>>>>>>>> higher percentage of their income in taxes through both >>>>>>>>>>> federal and provincial brackets.
the fact a country has progress taxes is not contradictory to >>>>>>>>>> increasing heath funding thru increased progressive taxes
u moron
In Canada, if you earn $150,000 a year you would pay an average >>>>>>>>> income tax rate of roughly 34% to 38%, resulting in a take-home >>>>>>>>> pay of approximately $92,000 to $98,000 depending on the province. >>>>>>>>>
Apparently, Quebec has the highest tax rate, with a $150k
income paying roughly $57,701, a 38.5% average.
Where's the incentive Nick?
wait aren't u a fucking boomer on medicaid for seniors?????
So, I already posted that I'm fully vested from Dell Computers. >>>>>>> Didn't you read any of my posts about investing? Get some smarts, >>>>>>> Nick.
avoiding the question ehhh? so u are on medicaid aren't ya???
Apparently you don't understand the difference between Medicare and
no i just get the terms mixed up cause the names are so arbitrary
like in ca medicaid is called medical ... like what?
yeah i have medical kind of medical coverage eh???
Medicaid. Medicare is generally voluntary. We have Blue Cross.
oh so the BCBS medicare plans???
so still socialized medicine ... just done via the subsidized mUh
FrEeEeEeE mARkEt method
while advocating against socialized medicine...
Unlike Medicare, which is for those 65+ or with specific
disabilities, Medicaid is strictly based on income and financial
resources.
that's just fucking rich: preaching against socialized medicineSo, just for the record, I am not on Medicaid.
while taking advantage of it yourself
i am tho:
no premiums. no deductible. no co-pay. no co-insurance. no fsa/hsa
reimbursement bullshit. no separate dental/vision plans.
just go to doctor and get treated. i can just go the ER without
worrying about costs. i can call an ambulance without having to
worry about costs. if there is a *pressing* issue i get treated
within necessary timeframes, and i have access to some of the best
doctors around (wife will give birth at stanford). if not maybe i
need to wait longer. tbh i'll take waiting a bit over not have to
worry about the astronomically retarded payment systems american
financiers devised for medicine so consumers *cant* figure out what
the true costs of service ever are...
like holy fuck anyone advocating for non-socialized care is engaging
with nothing but a fantastically fallacious facade of critical thot
The solution to free medical care and a balanced US budget is a flat
tax that everyone pays, no exceptions. No loopholes. Can't you read?
i'm sorry how does a balanced budget magically get us universal
medical care???
A flat federal income tax would fund universal health care. It's not complicated. Everyone pays equally, everyone get care equitably.
The question is, how much would the federal income tax be?
A balanced federal budget enforces fiscal discipline on Congress. That prevents passing debt burdens to future generations.
A balanced budget encourages a stronger economy with higher family
incomes, so you can earn a living with high wages. Think about that for awhile, Nick
Do the math.
On 2/27/26 9:01 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/27/2026 11:49 AM, Dude wrote:
On 2/26/2026 8:25 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 6:56 PM, Dude wrote:You may have missed one important point: The Boring Company is hiring.
Get in on the ground floor. Tear it up. Go for the long run. Save
up and start my own boring company. YMMV.
Software engineers in Austin, Texas, typically earn between $49 and >>>>> $70+ per hour. With an average of roughly $70.30/hr ($146k/year)
for experienced technicians. And $49/hr for entry-level as of Feb
2026.
Advanced experienced engineers, such as yourself, at top firms in
Austin, can exceed $100-$200+ per hour!
ok elmo
While the tech industry as a whole is laying off workers in droves.
Think that over for awhile, Nick.
Collectivists making bad decisions and then blaming society for the
sad state of their personal affairs is a thing as old as time.
the only decision u can recommend is completely forgoing any amount of critical thot on the matter, like a desire to engage with honest
systems, and simply accepting whatever the stupidity society throws at
me for $$$
it's hard enough to explain to an aging boomer how ungodly fking moronic
our software industry is,
and certainly not a sheelefried fuckwit who can't tell the difference between mind numbingly chasing dollars, and actual intelligence
making money =/= being productive, and i'm fucking tired of having to
work against all my best intuitions in order operate at the low common dominator everyone else is...
On 2/27/26 8:34 AM, Dude wrote:
On 2/26/2026 8:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 7:12 PM, Dude wrote:Apparently, you have not thought this through.
On 2/26/2026 4:09 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 3:46 PM, Dude wrote:Apparently, you have not thot this thru:
So, just for the record, I am not on Medicaid.
i am tho:
no premiums. no deductible. no co-pay. no co-insurance. no fsa/hsa
reimbursement bullshit. no separate dental/vision plans.
just go to doctor and get treated. i can just go the ER without
worrying about costs. i can call an ambulance without having to
worry about costs. if there is a *pressing* issue i get treated
within necessary timeframes, and i have access to some of the best
doctors around (wife will give birth at stanford). if not maybe i
need to wait longer. tbh i'll take waiting a bit over not have to
worry about the astronomically retarded payment systems american
financiers devised for medicine so consumers *cant* figure out what >>>>> the true costs of service ever are...
like holy fuck anyone advocating for non-socialized care is
engaging with nothing but a fantastically fallacious facade of
critical thot
The solution to free medical care and a balanced US budget is a flat
tax that everyone pays, no exceptions. No loopholes. Can't you read?
i'm sorry how does a balanced budget magically get us universal
medical care???
A flat federal income tax would fund universal health care. It's not
complicated. Everyone pays equally, everyone get care equitably.
bruh ur a fking retard dude
ur focus on this nonsense form of false equity is total brainrot
On 2/27/2026 12:58 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/27/26 9:01 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/27/2026 11:49 AM, Dude wrote:
On 2/26/2026 8:25 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 6:56 PM, Dude wrote:You may have missed one important point: The Boring Company is hiring. >>>>
Get in on the ground floor. Tear it up. Go for the long run. Save >>>>>> up and start my own boring company. YMMV.
Software engineers in Austin, Texas, typically earn between $49
and $70+ per hour. With an average of roughly $70.30/hr ($146k/
year) for experienced technicians. And $49/hr for entry-level as
of Feb 2026.
Advanced experienced engineers, such as yourself, at top firms in >>>>>> Austin, can exceed $100-$200+ per hour!
ok elmo
While the tech industry as a whole is laying off workers in droves.
Think that over for awhile, Nick.
Collectivists making bad decisions and then blaming society for the
sad state of their personal affairs is a thing as old as time.
the only decision u can recommend is completely forgoing any amount of
critical thot on the matter, like a desire to engage with honest
systems, and simply accepting whatever the stupidity society throws at
me for $$$
it's hard enough to explain to an aging boomer how ungodly fking
moronic our software industry is,
and certainly not a sheelefried fuckwit who can't tell the difference
between mind numbingly chasing dollars, and actual intelligence
making money =/= being productive, and i'm fucking tired of having to
work against all my best intuitions in order operate at the low common
dominator everyone else is...
I fully agree that making money doesn't equal being "productive".
My ancestral heritage is an unbroken 250+ year lineage of farmers who supported themselves with their own labor and rejected the wider society
on principle. This included going to jail for refusing the military
draft as they considered war to be murder. They also rejected any sort
of reliance on or financial support from that society, instead depending
on their like-minded neighbors when the need arose. They freely made
those choices and considered them necessary to maintain their integrity.
That is a valid path.
Demanding that other people support you just because you're breathing is not.
On 2/27/2026 1:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/27/26 8:34 AM, Dude wrote:
On 2/26/2026 8:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 7:12 PM, Dude wrote:Apparently, you have not thought this through.
On 2/26/2026 4:09 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 3:46 PM, Dude wrote:Apparently, you have not thot this thru:
So, just for the record, I am not on Medicaid.
i am tho:
no premiums. no deductible. no co-pay. no co-insurance. no fsa/hsa >>>>>> reimbursement bullshit. no separate dental/vision plans.
just go to doctor and get treated. i can just go the ER without
worrying about costs. i can call an ambulance without having to
worry about costs. if there is a *pressing* issue i get treated
within necessary timeframes, and i have access to some of the best >>>>>> doctors around (wife will give birth at stanford). if not maybe i >>>>>> need to wait longer. tbh i'll take waiting a bit over not have to >>>>>> worry about the astronomically retarded payment systems american
financiers devised for medicine so consumers *cant* figure out
what the true costs of service ever are...
like holy fuck anyone advocating for non-socialized care is
engaging with nothing but a fantastically fallacious facade of
critical thot
The solution to free medical care and a balanced US budget is a
flat tax that everyone pays, no exceptions. No loopholes. Can't you >>>>> read?
i'm sorry how does a balanced budget magically get us universal
medical care???
A flat federal income tax would fund universal health care. It's not
complicated. Everyone pays equally, everyone get care equitably.
bruh ur a fking retard dude
ur focus on this nonsense form of false equity is total brainrot
Equity is a demand for equal outcomes. That is retarded and ultimately
leads to social decay and eventual destruction.
Equality before the law is a principle based on cooperation and fairness that ultimately leads to greater social harmony and prosperity.
They are not even remotely the same thing at all.
On 2/27/26 10:18 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/27/2026 12:58 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/27/26 9:01 AM, Wilson wrote:
Collectivists making bad decisions and then blaming society for the
sad state of their personal affairs is a thing as old as time.
the only decision u can recommend is completely forgoing any amount
of critical thot on the matter, like a desire to engage with honest
systems, and simply accepting whatever the stupidity society throws
at me for $$$
it's hard enough to explain to an aging boomer how ungodly fking
moronic our software industry is,
and certainly not a sheelefried fuckwit who can't tell the difference
between mind numbingly chasing dollars, and actual intelligence
making money =/= being productive, and i'm fucking tired of having to
work against all my best intuitions in order operate at the low
common dominator everyone else is...
I fully agree that making money doesn't equal being "productive".
My ancestral heritage is an unbroken 250+ year lineage of farmers who
supported themselves with their own labor and rejected the wider
society on principle. This included going to jail for refusing the
military draft as they considered war to be murder. They also rejected
any sort of reliance on or financial support from that society,
instead depending on their like-minded neighbors when the need arose.
They freely made those choices and considered them necessary to
maintain their integrity.
that's a nice story. doesn't really have anything to do with today tho
That is a valid path.
Demanding that other people support you just because you're breathing
is not.
i know ur going to go grave with ur ungodly ignorance, and maybe the
lord can spare u some mercy when u do...
but the economic system took over the vast majority of productive land
and resources, that are required for one to survive,
so now it bears the responsibility that nature once had: ensuring people
can survive with in it. lest it's directly interfering with the first unalienable right: a right to life
On 2/27/2026 1:29 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/27/26 10:18 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/27/2026 12:58 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/27/26 9:01 AM, Wilson wrote:
Collectivists making bad decisions and then blaming society for the >>>>> sad state of their personal affairs is a thing as old as time.
the only decision u can recommend is completely forgoing any amount
of critical thot on the matter, like a desire to engage with honest
systems, and simply accepting whatever the stupidity society throws
at me for $$$
it's hard enough to explain to an aging boomer how ungodly fking
moronic our software industry is,
and certainly not a sheelefried fuckwit who can't tell the difference >>>> between mind numbingly chasing dollars, and actual intelligence
making money =/= being productive, and i'm fucking tired of having to >>>> work against all my best intuitions in order operate at the low
common dominator everyone else is...
I fully agree that making money doesn't equal being "productive".
My ancestral heritage is an unbroken 250+ year lineage of farmers who
supported themselves with their own labor and rejected the wider
society on principle. This included going to jail for refusing the
military draft as they considered war to be murder. They also rejected
any sort of reliance on or financial support from that society,
instead depending on their like-minded neighbors when the need arose.
They freely made those choices and considered them necessary to
maintain their integrity.
that's a nice story. doesn't really have anything to do with today tho
They continue to hold those beliefs and are still living that way today, >Nick.
That is a valid path.
Demanding that other people support you just because you're breathing
is not.
i know ur going to go grave with ur ungodly ignorance, and maybe the
lord can spare u some mercy when u do...
but the economic system took over the vast majority of productive land
and resources, that are required for one to survive,
so now it bears the responsibility that nature once had: ensuring people
can survive with in it. lest it's directly interfering with the first
unalienable right: a right to life
Society is constructed of people but it's not an independently existing >thing. All choices are always and only made by the individual.
The social consciousness is just shadows on the wall.
A right to life does not mean that you or anyone else can rightly
require that other people must support you.
That path leads inevitably--
to an erosion of the spirit of cooperation and ultimately to tyranny.
On 2/27/2026 1:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/27/26 8:34 AM, Dude wrote:
On 2/26/2026 8:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 7:12 PM, Dude wrote:Apparently, you have not thought this through.
On 2/26/2026 4:09 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 3:46 PM, Dude wrote:Apparently, you have not thot this thru:
So, just for the record, I am not on Medicaid.
i am tho:
no premiums. no deductible. no co-pay. no co-insurance. no fsa/hsa >>>>>> reimbursement bullshit. no separate dental/vision plans.
just go to doctor and get treated. i can just go the ER without
worrying about costs. i can call an ambulance without having to
worry about costs. if there is a *pressing* issue i get treated
within necessary timeframes, and i have access to some of the best >>>>>> doctors around (wife will give birth at stanford). if not maybe i >>>>>> need to wait longer. tbh i'll take waiting a bit over not have to >>>>>> worry about the astronomically retarded payment systems american
financiers devised for medicine so consumers *cant* figure out what >>>>>> the true costs of service ever are...
like holy fuck anyone advocating for non-socialized care is
engaging with nothing but a fantastically fallacious facade of
critical thot
The solution to free medical care and a balanced US budget is a flat >>>>> tax that everyone pays, no exceptions. No loopholes. Can't you read?
i'm sorry how does a balanced budget magically get us universal
medical care???
A flat federal income tax would fund universal health care. It's not
complicated. Everyone pays equally, everyone get care equitably.
bruh ur a fking retard dude
ur focus on this nonsense form of false equity is total brainrot
Equity is a demand for equal outcomes. That is retarded and ultimately
leads to social decay and eventual destruction.
Equality before the law is a principle based on cooperation and fairness >that ultimately leads to greater social harmony and prosperity.
They are not even remotely the same thing at all.
On 2/27/26 10:24 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/27/2026 1:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/27/26 8:34 AM, Dude wrote:
On 2/26/2026 8:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 7:12 PM, Dude wrote:Apparently, you have not thought this through.
On 2/26/2026 4:09 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 3:46 PM, Dude wrote:Apparently, you have not thot this thru:
So, just for the record, I am not on Medicaid.
i am tho:
no premiums. no deductible. no co-pay. no co-insurance. no fsa/ >>>>>>> hsa reimbursement bullshit. no separate dental/vision plans.
just go to doctor and get treated. i can just go the ER without >>>>>>> worrying about costs. i can call an ambulance without having to >>>>>>> worry about costs. if there is a *pressing* issue i get treated >>>>>>> within necessary timeframes, and i have access to some of the
best doctors around (wife will give birth at stanford). if not
maybe i need to wait longer. tbh i'll take waiting a bit over not >>>>>>> have to worry about the astronomically retarded payment systems >>>>>>> american financiers devised for medicine so consumers *cant*
figure out what the true costs of service ever are...
like holy fuck anyone advocating for non-socialized care is
engaging with nothing but a fantastically fallacious facade of
critical thot
The solution to free medical care and a balanced US budget is a
flat tax that everyone pays, no exceptions. No loopholes. Can't
you read?
i'm sorry how does a balanced budget magically get us universal
medical care???
A flat federal income tax would fund universal health care. It's not
complicated. Everyone pays equally, everyone get care equitably.
bruh ur a fking retard dude
ur focus on this nonsense form of false equity is total brainrot
Equity is a demand for equal outcomes. That is retarded and ultimately
leads to social decay and eventual destruction.
life. liberty. pursuit of happiness. if those outcomes aren't happening
for all peoples then american is failing,
we don't even both to measure whether people think they have those
rights in this country,
measuring that will be a form of transparency that modern politicians
can't even conceive of yet,
Equality before the law is a principle based on cooperation and
fairness that ultimately leads to greater social harmony and prosperity.
They are not even remotely the same thing at all.
and i fking dgaf about ur semantic quibbling wilson. it's merely a tool
for u to separate out and ignore the sin u support.
On 2/27/26 10:18 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/27/2026 12:58 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/27/26 9:01 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/27/2026 11:49 AM, Dude wrote:
On 2/26/2026 8:25 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 6:56 PM, Dude wrote:You may have missed one important point: The Boring Company is hiring. >>>>>
Get in on the ground floor. Tear it up. Go for the long run. Save >>>>>>> up and start my own boring company. YMMV.
Software engineers in Austin, Texas, typically earn between $49 >>>>>>> and $70+ per hour. With an average of roughly $70.30/hr ($146k/ >>>>>>> year) for experienced technicians. And $49/hr for entry-level as >>>>>>> of Feb 2026.
Advanced experienced engineers, such as yourself, at top firms in >>>>>>> Austin, can exceed $100-$200+ per hour!
ok elmo
While the tech industry as a whole is laying off workers in droves.
Think that over for awhile, Nick.
Collectivists making bad decisions and then blaming society for the
sad state of their personal affairs is a thing as old as time.
the only decision u can recommend is completely forgoing any amount
of critical thot on the matter, like a desire to engage with honest
systems, and simply accepting whatever the stupidity society throws
at me for $$$
it's hard enough to explain to an aging boomer how ungodly fking
moronic our software industry is,
and certainly not a sheelefried fuckwit who can't tell the difference
between mind numbingly chasing dollars, and actual intelligence
making money =/= being productive, and i'm fucking tired of having to
work against all my best intuitions in order operate at the low
common dominator everyone else is...
I fully agree that making money doesn't equal being "productive".
My ancestral heritage is an unbroken 250+ year lineage of farmers who
supported themselves with their own labor and rejected the wider
society on principle. This included going to jail for refusing the
military draft as they considered war to be murder. They also rejected
any sort of reliance on or financial support from that society,
instead depending on their like-minded neighbors when the need arose.
They freely made those choices and considered them necessary to
maintain their integrity.
that's a nice story. doesn't really have anything to do with today tho
That is a valid path.
Demanding that other people support you just because you're breathing
is not.
i know ur going to go grave with ur ungodly ignorance, and maybe the
lord can spare u some mercy when u do...
but the economic system took over the vast majority of productive land
and resources, that are required for one to survive,
so now it bears the responsibility that nature once had: ensuring people
can survive with in it. lest it's directly interfering with the first unalienable right: a right to life
to suggest anything else is nothing but shoving fingers in ur eyeballs
about the reality that now exists,
which we all know you will continue doing wilson
On 2/27/2026 1:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/27/26 8:34 AM, Dude wrote:
On 2/26/2026 8:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 7:12 PM, Dude wrote:Apparently, you have not thought this through.
On 2/26/2026 4:09 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 3:46 PM, Dude wrote:Apparently, you have not thot this thru:
So, just for the record, I am not on Medicaid.
i am tho:
no premiums. no deductible. no co-pay. no co-insurance. no fsa/hsa >>>>>> reimbursement bullshit. no separate dental/vision plans.
just go to doctor and get treated. i can just go the ER without
worrying about costs. i can call an ambulance without having to
worry about costs. if there is a *pressing* issue i get treated
within necessary timeframes, and i have access to some of the best >>>>>> doctors around (wife will give birth at stanford). if not maybe i >>>>>> need to wait longer. tbh i'll take waiting a bit over not have to >>>>>> worry about the astronomically retarded payment systems american
financiers devised for medicine so consumers *cant* figure out
what the true costs of service ever are...
like holy fuck anyone advocating for non-socialized care is
engaging with nothing but a fantastically fallacious facade of
critical thot
The solution to free medical care and a balanced US budget is a
flat tax that everyone pays, no exceptions. No loopholes. Can't you >>>>> read?
i'm sorry how does a balanced budget magically get us universal
medical care???
A flat federal income tax would fund universal health care. It's not
complicated. Everyone pays equally, everyone get care equitably.
bruh ur a fking retard dude
ur focus on this nonsense form of false equity is total brainrot
Equity is a demand for equal outcomes. That is retarded and ultimately
leads to social decay and eventual destruction.
Equality before the law is a principle based on cooperation and fairness that ultimately leads to greater social harmony and prosperity.
They are not even remotely the same thing at all.
On 2/27/2026 10:29 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/27/26 10:18 AM, Wilson wrote:You really set Wilson straight, Nick. Good work, but earning a living >doesn't seem to be a problem for Wilson. YMMV.
On 2/27/2026 12:58 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/27/26 9:01 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/27/2026 11:49 AM, Dude wrote:
On 2/26/2026 8:25 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 6:56 PM, Dude wrote:You may have missed one important point: The Boring Company is hiring. >>>>>>
Get in on the ground floor. Tear it up. Go for the long run. Save >>>>>>>> up and start my own boring company. YMMV.
Software engineers in Austin, Texas, typically earn between $49 >>>>>>>> and $70+ per hour. With an average of roughly $70.30/hr ($146k/ >>>>>>>> year) for experienced technicians. And $49/hr for entry-level as >>>>>>>> of Feb 2026.
Advanced experienced engineers, such as yourself, at top firms in >>>>>>>> Austin, can exceed $100-$200+ per hour!
ok elmo
While the tech industry as a whole is laying off workers in droves. >>>>>>
Think that over for awhile, Nick.
Collectivists making bad decisions and then blaming society for the >>>>> sad state of their personal affairs is a thing as old as time.
the only decision u can recommend is completely forgoing any amount
of critical thot on the matter, like a desire to engage with honest
systems, and simply accepting whatever the stupidity society throws
at me for $$$
it's hard enough to explain to an aging boomer how ungodly fking
moronic our software industry is,
and certainly not a sheelefried fuckwit who can't tell the difference >>>> between mind numbingly chasing dollars, and actual intelligence
making money =/= being productive, and i'm fucking tired of having to >>>> work against all my best intuitions in order operate at the low
common dominator everyone else is...
I fully agree that making money doesn't equal being "productive".
My ancestral heritage is an unbroken 250+ year lineage of farmers who
supported themselves with their own labor and rejected the wider
society on principle. This included going to jail for refusing the
military draft as they considered war to be murder. They also rejected
any sort of reliance on or financial support from that society,
instead depending on their like-minded neighbors when the need arose.
They freely made those choices and considered them necessary to
maintain their integrity.
that's a nice story. doesn't really have anything to do with today tho
That is a valid path.
Demanding that other people support you just because you're breathing
is not.
i know ur going to go grave with ur ungodly ignorance, and maybe the
lord can spare u some mercy when u do...
but the economic system took over the vast majority of productive land
and resources, that are required for one to survive,
so now it bears the responsibility that nature once had: ensuring people
can survive with in it. lest it's directly interfering with the first
unalienable right: a right to life
to suggest anything else is nothing but shoving fingers in ur eyeballs
about the reality that now exists,
which we all know you will continue doing wilson
On 2/27/26 10:24 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/27/2026 1:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/27/26 8:34 AM, Dude wrote:
On 2/26/2026 8:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 7:12 PM, Dude wrote:Apparently, you have not thought this through.
On 2/26/2026 4:09 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 3:46 PM, Dude wrote:Apparently, you have not thot this thru:
So, just for the record, I am not on Medicaid.
i am tho:
no premiums. no deductible. no co-pay. no co-insurance. no fsa/ >>>>>>> hsa reimbursement bullshit. no separate dental/vision plans.
just go to doctor and get treated. i can just go the ER without >>>>>>> worrying about costs. i can call an ambulance without having to >>>>>>> worry about costs. if there is a *pressing* issue i get treated >>>>>>> within necessary timeframes, and i have access to some of the
best doctors around (wife will give birth at stanford). if not
maybe i need to wait longer. tbh i'll take waiting a bit over not >>>>>>> have to worry about the astronomically retarded payment systems >>>>>>> american financiers devised for medicine so consumers *cant*
figure out what the true costs of service ever are...
like holy fuck anyone advocating for non-socialized care is
engaging with nothing but a fantastically fallacious facade of
critical thot
The solution to free medical care and a balanced US budget is a
flat tax that everyone pays, no exceptions. No loopholes. Can't
you read?
i'm sorry how does a balanced budget magically get us universal
medical care???
A flat federal income tax would fund universal health care. It's not
complicated. Everyone pays equally, everyone get care equitably.
bruh ur a fking retard dude
ur focus on this nonsense form of false equity is total brainrot
Equity is a demand for equal outcomes. That is retarded and ultimately
leads to social decay and eventual destruction.
life. liberty. pursuit of happiness. if those outcomes aren't happening
for all peoples then american is failing,
we don't even both to measure whether people think they have thoserights in this country,
measuring that will be a form of transparency that modern politicianscan't even conceive of yet,
Equality before the law is a principle based on cooperation and
fairness that ultimately leads to greater social harmony and prosperity.
They are not even remotely the same thing at all.
and i fking dgaf about ur semantic quibbling wilson. it's merely a tool
for u to separate out and ignore the sin u support.
On 2/27/2026 1:32 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/27/26 10:24 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/27/2026 1:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/27/26 8:34 AM, Dude wrote:
On 2/26/2026 8:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 7:12 PM, Dude wrote:Apparently, you have not thought this through.
On 2/26/2026 4:09 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 3:46 PM, Dude wrote:Apparently, you have not thot this thru:
So, just for the record, I am not on Medicaid.
i am tho:
no premiums. no deductible. no co-pay. no co-insurance. no fsa/ >>>>>>>> hsa reimbursement bullshit. no separate dental/vision plans.
just go to doctor and get treated. i can just go the ER without >>>>>>>> worrying about costs. i can call an ambulance without having to >>>>>>>> worry about costs. if there is a *pressing* issue i get treated >>>>>>>> within necessary timeframes, and i have access to some of the >>>>>>>> best doctors around (wife will give birth at stanford). if not >>>>>>>> maybe i need to wait longer. tbh i'll take waiting a bit over not >>>>>>>> have to worry about the astronomically retarded payment systems >>>>>>>> american financiers devised for medicine so consumers *cant*
figure out what the true costs of service ever are...
like holy fuck anyone advocating for non-socialized care is
engaging with nothing but a fantastically fallacious facade of >>>>>>>> critical thot
The solution to free medical care and a balanced US budget is a >>>>>>> flat tax that everyone pays, no exceptions. No loopholes. Can't >>>>>>> you read?
i'm sorry how does a balanced budget magically get us universal
medical care???
A flat federal income tax would fund universal health care. It's not >>>>> complicated. Everyone pays equally, everyone get care equitably.
bruh ur a fking retard dude
ur focus on this nonsense form of false equity is total brainrot
Equity is a demand for equal outcomes. That is retarded and ultimately
leads to social decay and eventual destruction.
life. liberty. pursuit of happiness. if those outcomes aren't happening
for all peoples then american is failing,
we don't even both to measure whether people think they have those
rights in this country,
measuring that will be a form of transparency that modern politicians
can't even conceive of yet,
Equality before the law is a principle based on cooperation and
fairness that ultimately leads to greater social harmony and prosperity. >>>
They are not even remotely the same thing at all.
and i fking dgaf about ur semantic quibbling wilson. it's merely a tool
for u to separate out and ignore the sin u support.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not things that can be >dictated or distributed. Even in the best of situations they can only >represent opportunities. The best possible purpose of government is to
make sure those and other natural rights are not trampled upon so people
can flourish. This is not semantic quibbling. If a government doesn't >protect the natural rights of the people it governs, it loses its reason
and mandate for being. If, in it's desire to enforce equitable outcomes
it restricts those rights from the people, it has failed.
Governments, systems, and societies sometimes do harm people with
repressive policies. But the reality of natural law cannot be denied >forever.
Eventually the bill for that sort of wrong thinking and those
destructive actions comes due.
On 2/27/2026 10:32 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/27/26 10:24 AM, Wilson wrote:Most people in Western countries strongly support the idea of
On 2/27/2026 1:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/27/26 8:34 AM, Dude wrote:
On 2/26/2026 8:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 7:12 PM, Dude wrote:Apparently, you have not thought this through.
On 2/26/2026 4:09 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 3:46 PM, Dude wrote:Apparently, you have not thot this thru:
So, just for the record, I am not on Medicaid.
i am tho:
no premiums. no deductible. no co-pay. no co-insurance. no fsa/ >>>>>>>> hsa reimbursement bullshit. no separate dental/vision plans.
just go to doctor and get treated. i can just go the ER without >>>>>>>> worrying about costs. i can call an ambulance without having to >>>>>>>> worry about costs. if there is a *pressing* issue i get treated >>>>>>>> within necessary timeframes, and i have access to some of the >>>>>>>> best doctors around (wife will give birth at stanford). if not >>>>>>>> maybe i need to wait longer. tbh i'll take waiting a bit over not >>>>>>>> have to worry about the astronomically retarded payment systems >>>>>>>> american financiers devised for medicine so consumers *cant*
figure out what the true costs of service ever are...
like holy fuck anyone advocating for non-socialized care is
engaging with nothing but a fantastically fallacious facade of >>>>>>>> critical thot
The solution to free medical care and a balanced US budget is a >>>>>>> flat tax that everyone pays, no exceptions. No loopholes. Can't >>>>>>> you read?
i'm sorry how does a balanced budget magically get us universal
medical care???
A flat federal income tax would fund universal health care. It's not >>>>> complicated. Everyone pays equally, everyone get care equitably.
bruh ur a fking retard dude
ur focus on this nonsense form of false equity is total brainrot
Equity is a demand for equal outcomes. That is retarded and ultimately
leads to social decay and eventual destruction.
life. liberty. pursuit of happiness. if those outcomes aren't happening
for all peoples then american is failing,
inalienable human rights.
"Generally concentrated in Western Europe, the Nordic region, and >Commonwealth nations. These nations often embed the concept that rightswe don't even both to measure whether people think they have thoserights in this country,
are inherent, universal, and cannot be taken away by the state into
their foundational laws." - Statista
Let's be clear: you have certain inalienable rights. Don't let them take >away your rights, Nick! It's your body.measuring that will be a form of transparency that modern politicianscan't even conceive of yet,
Let's not get personal.
Equality before the law is a principle based on cooperation and
fairness that ultimately leads to greater social harmony and prosperity. >>>
They are not even remotely the same thing at all.
and i fking dgaf about ur semantic quibbling wilson. it's merely a tool
for u to separate out and ignore the sin u support.
Almost everyone supports human rights, except for Russia, China, Iran,
North Korea and Afghanistan.
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:06:07 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/26/2026 6:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 10:04 AM, Dude wrote:
On 2/25/2026 9:12 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 4:44 PM, Dude wrote:You are supposed to read the messages BEFORE you ask questions.
On 2/25/2026 1:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 12:55 PM, Dude wrote:What are you, nuts?
On 2/25/2026 12:34 PM, Tara wrote:the fact a country has progress taxes is not contradictory to
Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Obviously, he's a moron.
On 2/25/2026 9:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
typical market fundie whiningYou moron!
uk/canada both pay less for it's system vs us/switzerland/ >>>>>>>>>>> austria/ germany
because it's funded by taxes ya'll can just increase taxes in a >>>>>>>>>>> progressive manner instead of whining about muh reform
endlessly, and it
will hit ur average person less
why are you such a fking psychopathic retard julian?
The UK already has a progressive income tax system: higher >>>>>>>>>> earners pay a
higher percentage of their income in tax. Tax rates increase as >>>>>>>>>> income rises
As does Canada.
Everyone already knows that Canada has a progressive, graduated >>>>>>>> income tax system. Where higher earners pay a higher percentage of >>>>>>>> their income in taxes through both federal and provincial brackets. >>>>>>>
increasing heath funding thru increased progressive taxes
u moron
In Canada, if you earn $150,000 a year you would pay an average
income tax rate of roughly 34% to 38%, resulting in a take-home pay >>>>>> of approximately $92,000 to $98,000 depending on the province.
Apparently, Quebec has the highest tax rate, with a $150k income
paying roughly $57,701, a 38.5% average.
Where's the incentive Nick?
wait aren't u a fucking boomer on medicaid for seniors?????
So, I already posted that I'm fully vested from Dell Computers. Didn't >>>> you read any of my posts about investing? Get some smarts, Nick.
avoiding the question ehhh? so u are on medicaid aren't ya???
that's just fucking rich: preaching against socialized medicine while
taking advantage of it yourself
Medicaid is for poor people. Medicare is for people over 65. Both are a
scam perpetrated on the working people by a government brimming with
graft and greed masquerading as good intentions.
But hey, it's a good idea in theory.
And it is always open season for making such accusations towards an
idea you don't like.
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:20:25 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/26/2026 6:25 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 12:50 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/26/2026 10:21 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 09:46:19 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/25/2026 5:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
free market fundies are fucking insane, it's literally the only
thing u ever push ever
u just don't fking care what happens to people wilson
Sure I do.
within the limits of your ideological commitments which means govt
will do nothing and neither will you.
You have no idea what I do.
u could donate billions and i'd still call u a fking regressive idiot
getting in the way more than helping
*the problems of wealth inequity are not going to solved by donations*
It could be erased by donations. That's unlikely though.
It could also be erased by confiscation. Though that would also destroy
the economy and make everyone (except for the commissars) equally
impoverished.
You posit unlikely solutions and then insist on catastrophic
consequences of those solutions. No effort is made to think of better
ideas.
Socialists and other authoritarian collectivists see that as a featurenot a bug. Making people completely reliant on the state is their
desired end state.
Nutty assertion: socialists = authoritarian collectivists.
worseIt's widely agreed that wealth inequality in the US has been made
over the past six years because of government actions.
Agreed by libertarians. That does not qualify as "widely".
On 2/27/2026 9:18 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:06:07 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/26/2026 6:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 10:04 AM, Dude wrote:
On 2/25/2026 9:12 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 4:44 PM, Dude wrote:You are supposed to read the messages BEFORE you ask questions.
On 2/25/2026 1:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 12:55 PM, Dude wrote:What are you, nuts?
On 2/25/2026 12:34 PM, Tara wrote:the fact a country has progress taxes is not contradictory to
Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Obviously, he's a moron.
On 2/25/2026 9:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
typical market fundie whiningYou moron!
uk/canada both pay less for it's system vs us/switzerland/ >>>>>>>>>>>> austria/ germany
because it's funded by taxes ya'll can just increase taxes in a >>>>>>>>>>>> progressive manner instead of whining about muh reform >>>>>>>>>>>> endlessly, and it
will hit ur average person less
why are you such a fking psychopathic retard julian?
The UK already has a progressive income tax system: higher >>>>>>>>>>> earners pay a
higher percentage of their income in tax. Tax rates increase as >>>>>>>>>>> income rises
As does Canada.
Everyone already knows that Canada has a progressive, graduated >>>>>>>>> income tax system. Where higher earners pay a higher percentage of >>>>>>>>> their income in taxes through both federal and provincial brackets. >>>>>>>>
increasing heath funding thru increased progressive taxes
u moron
In Canada, if you earn $150,000 a year you would pay an average
income tax rate of roughly 34% to 38%, resulting in a take-home pay >>>>>>> of approximately $92,000 to $98,000 depending on the province.
Apparently, Quebec has the highest tax rate, with a $150k income >>>>>>> paying roughly $57,701, a 38.5% average.
Where's the incentive Nick?
wait aren't u a fucking boomer on medicaid for seniors?????
So, I already posted that I'm fully vested from Dell Computers. Didn't >>>>> you read any of my posts about investing? Get some smarts, Nick.
avoiding the question ehhh? so u are on medicaid aren't ya???
that's just fucking rich: preaching against socialized medicine while
taking advantage of it yourself
Medicaid is for poor people. Medicare is for people over 65. Both are a
scam perpetrated on the working people by a government brimming with
graft and greed masquerading as good intentions.
But hey, it's a good idea in theory.
And it is always open season for making such accusations towards an
idea you don't like.
Theoretically, Medicare and Medicaid should work.
But, in practice there is the possibility of inflation and considering
the current national debt, it is doubtful either program is sustainable
into the future.
My plan makes more sense: implement universal free healthcare, or
Medicare for All, based on a flat tax that everyone would pay equally.
That would be fair to everyone - free health care because it's yours.--
It's your body. Your money. Your innate right to life.
While income taxes would increase, these costs would be offset by the >elimination of private premiums, deductibles, and co-pays and graft.
The question is, what tax rate on income?
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 14:38:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 1:32 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/27/26 10:24 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/27/2026 1:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/27/26 8:34 AM, Dude wrote:
On 2/26/2026 8:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 7:12 PM, Dude wrote:Apparently, you have not thought this through.
On 2/26/2026 4:09 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 3:46 PM, Dude wrote:Apparently, you have not thot this thru:
So, just for the record, I am not on Medicaid.
i am tho:
no premiums. no deductible. no co-pay. no co-insurance. no fsa/ >>>>>>>>> hsa reimbursement bullshit. no separate dental/vision plans. >>>>>>>>>
just go to doctor and get treated. i can just go the ER without >>>>>>>>> worrying about costs. i can call an ambulance without having to >>>>>>>>> worry about costs. if there is a *pressing* issue i get treated >>>>>>>>> within necessary timeframes, and i have access to some of the >>>>>>>>> best doctors around (wife will give birth at stanford). if not >>>>>>>>> maybe i need to wait longer. tbh i'll take waiting a bit over not >>>>>>>>> have to worry about the astronomically retarded payment systems >>>>>>>>> american financiers devised for medicine so consumers *cant* >>>>>>>>> figure out what the true costs of service ever are...
like holy fuck anyone advocating for non-socialized care is
engaging with nothing but a fantastically fallacious facade of >>>>>>>>> critical thot
The solution to free medical care and a balanced US budget is a >>>>>>>> flat tax that everyone pays, no exceptions. No loopholes. Can't >>>>>>>> you read?
i'm sorry how does a balanced budget magically get us universal
medical care???
A flat federal income tax would fund universal health care. It's not >>>>>> complicated. Everyone pays equally, everyone get care equitably.
bruh ur a fking retard dude
ur focus on this nonsense form of false equity is total brainrot
Equity is a demand for equal outcomes. That is retarded and ultimately >>>> leads to social decay and eventual destruction.
life. liberty. pursuit of happiness. if those outcomes aren't happening
for all peoples then american is failing,
we don't even both to measure whether people think they have those
rights in this country,
measuring that will be a form of transparency that modern politicians
can't even conceive of yet,
Equality before the law is a principle based on cooperation and
fairness that ultimately leads to greater social harmony and prosperity. >>>>
They are not even remotely the same thing at all.
and i fking dgaf about ur semantic quibbling wilson. it's merely a tool
for u to separate out and ignore the sin u support.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not things that can be
dictated or distributed. Even in the best of situations they can only
represent opportunities. The best possible purpose of government is to
make sure those and other natural rights are not trampled upon so people
can flourish. This is not semantic quibbling. If a government doesn't
protect the natural rights of the people it governs, it loses its reason
and mandate for being. If, in it's desire to enforce equitable outcomes
it restricts those rights from the people, it has failed.
Governments, systems, and societies sometimes do harm people with
repressive policies. But the reality of natural law cannot be denied
forever.
It is now granted that people should not have been burnt at auschwitz,
for those that were burnt, that grant is meaningless. You can posit a
law you claim is natural and cannot be denied forever, but you
certainly can and will be dead forever regardless of how people
treated your right. You might as well have had no rights.
Eventually the bill for that sort of wrong thinking and those
destructive actions comes due.
But probably not for you if you were mistreated and are now dead.
On 2/27/2026 9:39 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:20:25 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Your posited solution appears to be to raise federal income tax. The >question is, how much are you willing to pay?
wrote:
On 2/26/2026 6:25 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 12:50 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/26/2026 10:21 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 09:46:19 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 2/25/2026 5:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
free market fundies are fucking insane, it's literally the only >>>>>>>> thing u ever push ever
u just don't fking care what happens to people wilson
Sure I do.
within the limits of your ideological commitments which means govt >>>>>> will do nothing and neither will you.
You have no idea what I do.
u could donate billions and i'd still call u a fking regressive idiot
getting in the way more than helping
*the problems of wealth inequity are not going to solved by donations*
It could be erased by donations. That's unlikely though.
It could also be erased by confiscation. Though that would also destroy
the economy and make everyone (except for the commissars) equally
impoverished.
You posit unlikely solutions and then insist on catastrophic
consequences of those solutions. No effort is made to think of better
ideas.
Karl Marx comes to mind.Socialists and other authoritarian collectivists see that as a featurenot a bug. Making people completely reliant on the state is their
desired end state.
Nutty assertion: socialists = authoritarian collectivists.
worseIt's widely agreed that wealth inequality in the US has been made
over the past six years because of government actions.
Agreed by libertarians. That does not qualify as "widely".
Almost everyone in the US agrees there is wealth inequality.
The questions is, how to level out the playing field? Have you ever
heard of the magic of compound interest?
You take a certain amount in your savings and invest it in "Baby Bonds"--
for your progeny and future generations. Create government-funded trust >accounts for children at birth to close the racial wealth gap.
Remember the future.
On 2/27/2026 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 14:38:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 1:32 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/27/26 10:24 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/27/2026 1:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/27/26 8:34 AM, Dude wrote:
On 2/26/2026 8:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 7:12 PM, Dude wrote:Apparently, you have not thought this through.
On 2/26/2026 4:09 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 3:46 PM, Dude wrote:Apparently, you have not thot this thru:
So, just for the record, I am not on Medicaid.
i am tho:
no premiums. no deductible. no co-pay. no co-insurance. no fsa/ >>>>>>>>>> hsa reimbursement bullshit. no separate dental/vision plans. >>>>>>>>>>
just go to doctor and get treated. i can just go the ER without >>>>>>>>>> worrying about costs. i can call an ambulance without having to >>>>>>>>>> worry about costs. if there is a *pressing* issue i get treated >>>>>>>>>> within necessary timeframes, and i have access to some of the >>>>>>>>>> best doctors around (wife will give birth at stanford). if not >>>>>>>>>> maybe i need to wait longer. tbh i'll take waiting a bit over not >>>>>>>>>> have to worry about the astronomically retarded payment systems >>>>>>>>>> american financiers devised for medicine so consumers *cant* >>>>>>>>>> figure out what the true costs of service ever are...
like holy fuck anyone advocating for non-socialized care is >>>>>>>>>> engaging with nothing but a fantastically fallacious facade of >>>>>>>>>> critical thot
The solution to free medical care and a balanced US budget is a >>>>>>>>> flat tax that everyone pays, no exceptions. No loopholes. Can't >>>>>>>>> you read?
i'm sorry how does a balanced budget magically get us universal >>>>>>>> medical care???
A flat federal income tax would fund universal health care. It's not >>>>>>> complicated. Everyone pays equally, everyone get care equitably.
bruh ur a fking retard dude
ur focus on this nonsense form of false equity is total brainrot
Equity is a demand for equal outcomes. That is retarded and ultimately >>>>> leads to social decay and eventual destruction.
life. liberty. pursuit of happiness. if those outcomes aren't happening >>>> for all peoples then american is failing,
we don't even both to measure whether people think they have those
rights in this country,
measuring that will be a form of transparency that modern politicians
can't even conceive of yet,
Equality before the law is a principle based on cooperation and
fairness that ultimately leads to greater social harmony and prosperity. >>>>>
They are not even remotely the same thing at all.
and i fking dgaf about ur semantic quibbling wilson. it's merely a tool >>>> for u to separate out and ignore the sin u support.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not things that can be
dictated or distributed. Even in the best of situations they can only
represent opportunities. The best possible purpose of government is to
make sure those and other natural rights are not trampled upon so people >>> can flourish. This is not semantic quibbling. If a government doesn't
protect the natural rights of the people it governs, it loses its reason >>> and mandate for being. If, in it's desire to enforce equitable outcomes
it restricts those rights from the people, it has failed.
Governments, systems, and societies sometimes do harm people with
repressive policies. But the reality of natural law cannot be denied
forever.
It is now granted that people should not have been burnt at auschwitz,
for those that were burnt, that grant is meaningless. You can posit a
law you claim is natural and cannot be denied forever, but you
certainly can and will be dead forever regardless of how people
treated your right. You might as well have had no rights.
Eventually the bill for that sort of wrong thinking and those
destructive actions comes due.
But probably not for you if you were mistreated and are now dead.
Rights are for the living, not the dead.
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 14:00:55 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 1:29 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/27/26 10:18 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/27/2026 12:58 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/27/26 9:01 AM, Wilson wrote:
Collectivists making bad decisions and then blaming society for the >>>>>> sad state of their personal affairs is a thing as old as time.
the only decision u can recommend is completely forgoing any amount
of critical thot on the matter, like a desire to engage with honest
systems, and simply accepting whatever the stupidity society throws
at me for $$$
it's hard enough to explain to an aging boomer how ungodly fking
moronic our software industry is,
and certainly not a sheelefried fuckwit who can't tell the difference >>>>> between mind numbingly chasing dollars, and actual intelligence
making money =/= being productive, and i'm fucking tired of having to >>>>> work against all my best intuitions in order operate at the low
common dominator everyone else is...
I fully agree that making money doesn't equal being "productive".
My ancestral heritage is an unbroken 250+ year lineage of farmers who
supported themselves with their own labor and rejected the wider
society on principle. This included going to jail for refusing the
military draft as they considered war to be murder. They also rejected >>>> any sort of reliance on or financial support from that society,
instead depending on their like-minded neighbors when the need arose.
They freely made those choices and considered them necessary to
maintain their integrity.
that's a nice story. doesn't really have anything to do with today tho
They continue to hold those beliefs and are still living that way today,
Nick.
That is a valid path.
Demanding that other people support you just because you're breathing
is not.
i know ur going to go grave with ur ungodly ignorance, and maybe the
lord can spare u some mercy when u do...
but the economic system took over the vast majority of productive land
and resources, that are required for one to survive,
so now it bears the responsibility that nature once had: ensuring people >>> can survive with in it. lest it's directly interfering with the first
unalienable right: a right to life
Society is constructed of people but it's not an independently existing
thing. All choices are always and only made by the individual.
The social consciousness is just shadows on the wall.
A right to life does not mean that you or anyone else can rightly
require that other people must support you.
If it doesn't mean that other people do not have the right to
interfere with your right, it is meaningless. Actively or not.
You do not have the right to allow people to starve in S Sudan.
That path leads inevitably
to an erosion of the spirit of cooperation and ultimately to tyranny.
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 16:53:58 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 14:38:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 1:32 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/27/26 10:24 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/27/2026 1:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/27/26 8:34 AM, Dude wrote:
On 2/26/2026 8:27 PM, dart200 wrote:bruh ur a fking retard dude
On 2/26/26 7:12 PM, Dude wrote:Apparently, you have not thought this through.
On 2/26/2026 4:09 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 3:46 PM, Dude wrote:Apparently, you have not thot this thru:
So, just for the record, I am not on Medicaid.
i am tho:
no premiums. no deductible. no co-pay. no co-insurance. no fsa/ >>>>>>>>>>> hsa reimbursement bullshit. no separate dental/vision plans. >>>>>>>>>>>
just go to doctor and get treated. i can just go the ER without >>>>>>>>>>> worrying about costs. i can call an ambulance without having to >>>>>>>>>>> worry about costs. if there is a *pressing* issue i get treated >>>>>>>>>>> within necessary timeframes, and i have access to some of the >>>>>>>>>>> best doctors around (wife will give birth at stanford). if not >>>>>>>>>>> maybe i need to wait longer. tbh i'll take waiting a bit over not >>>>>>>>>>> have to worry about the astronomically retarded payment systems >>>>>>>>>>> american financiers devised for medicine so consumers *cant* >>>>>>>>>>> figure out what the true costs of service ever are...
like holy fuck anyone advocating for non-socialized care is >>>>>>>>>>> engaging with nothing but a fantastically fallacious facade of >>>>>>>>>>> critical thot
The solution to free medical care and a balanced US budget is a >>>>>>>>>> flat tax that everyone pays, no exceptions. No loopholes. Can't >>>>>>>>>> you read?
i'm sorry how does a balanced budget magically get us universal >>>>>>>>> medical care???
A flat federal income tax would fund universal health care. It's not >>>>>>>> complicated. Everyone pays equally, everyone get care equitably. >>>>>>>
ur focus on this nonsense form of false equity is total brainrot
Equity is a demand for equal outcomes. That is retarded and ultimately >>>>>> leads to social decay and eventual destruction.
life. liberty. pursuit of happiness. if those outcomes aren't happening >>>>> for all peoples then american is failing,
we don't even both to measure whether people think they have those
rights in this country,
measuring that will be a form of transparency that modern politicians >>>>> can't even conceive of yet,
Equality before the law is a principle based on cooperation and
fairness that ultimately leads to greater social harmony and prosperity. >>>>>>
They are not even remotely the same thing at all.
and i fking dgaf about ur semantic quibbling wilson. it's merely a tool >>>>> for u to separate out and ignore the sin u support.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not things that can be
dictated or distributed. Even in the best of situations they can only
represent opportunities. The best possible purpose of government is to >>>> make sure those and other natural rights are not trampled upon so people >>>> can flourish. This is not semantic quibbling. If a government doesn't
protect the natural rights of the people it governs, it loses its reason >>>> and mandate for being. If, in it's desire to enforce equitable outcomes >>>> it restricts those rights from the people, it has failed.
Governments, systems, and societies sometimes do harm people with
repressive policies. But the reality of natural law cannot be denied
forever.
It is now granted that people should not have been burnt at auschwitz,
for those that were burnt, that grant is meaningless. You can posit a
law you claim is natural and cannot be denied forever, but you
certainly can and will be dead forever regardless of how people
treated your right. You might as well have had no rights.
Eventually the bill for that sort of wrong thinking and those
destructive actions comes due.
But probably not for you if you were mistreated and are now dead.
Rights are for the living, not the dead.
What good are they if you died anyway?
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 11:58:39 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/27/2026 10:32 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/27/26 10:24 AM, Wilson wrote:Most people in Western countries strongly support the idea of
On 2/27/2026 1:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/27/26 8:34 AM, Dude wrote:
On 2/26/2026 8:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 7:12 PM, Dude wrote:Apparently, you have not thought this through.
On 2/26/2026 4:09 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 3:46 PM, Dude wrote:Apparently, you have not thot this thru:
So, just for the record, I am not on Medicaid.
i am tho:
no premiums. no deductible. no co-pay. no co-insurance. no fsa/ >>>>>>>>> hsa reimbursement bullshit. no separate dental/vision plans. >>>>>>>>>
just go to doctor and get treated. i can just go the ER without >>>>>>>>> worrying about costs. i can call an ambulance without having to >>>>>>>>> worry about costs. if there is a *pressing* issue i get treated >>>>>>>>> within necessary timeframes, and i have access to some of the >>>>>>>>> best doctors around (wife will give birth at stanford). if not >>>>>>>>> maybe i need to wait longer. tbh i'll take waiting a bit over not >>>>>>>>> have to worry about the astronomically retarded payment systems >>>>>>>>> american financiers devised for medicine so consumers *cant* >>>>>>>>> figure out what the true costs of service ever are...
like holy fuck anyone advocating for non-socialized care is
engaging with nothing but a fantastically fallacious facade of >>>>>>>>> critical thot
The solution to free medical care and a balanced US budget is a >>>>>>>> flat tax that everyone pays, no exceptions. No loopholes. Can't >>>>>>>> you read?
i'm sorry how does a balanced budget magically get us universal
medical care???
A flat federal income tax would fund universal health care. It's not >>>>>> complicated. Everyone pays equally, everyone get care equitably.
bruh ur a fking retard dude
ur focus on this nonsense form of false equity is total brainrot
Equity is a demand for equal outcomes. That is retarded and ultimately >>>> leads to social decay and eventual destruction.
life. liberty. pursuit of happiness. if those outcomes aren't happening
for all peoples then american is failing,
inalienable human rights.
"Generally concentrated in Western Europe, the Nordic region, andwe don't even both to measure whether people think they have thoserights in this country,
Commonwealth nations. These nations often embed the concept that rights
are inherent, universal, and cannot be taken away by the state into
their foundational laws." - Statista
Let's be clear: you have certain inalienable rights. Don't let them takemeasuring that will be a form of transparency that modern politicianscan't even conceive of yet,
away your rights, Nick! It's your body.
Let's not get personal.
Equality before the law is a principle based on cooperation and
fairness that ultimately leads to greater social harmony and prosperity. >>>>
They are not even remotely the same thing at all.
and i fking dgaf about ur semantic quibbling wilson. it's merely a tool
for u to separate out and ignore the sin u support.
Almost everyone supports human rights, except for Russia, China, Iran,
North Korea and Afghanistan.
Which renders them meaningless for those subject to not supporting.
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:19:32 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/27/2026 9:18 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:06:07 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Theoretically, Medicare and Medicaid should work.
wrote:
On 2/26/2026 6:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 10:04 AM, Dude wrote:
On 2/25/2026 9:12 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 4:44 PM, Dude wrote:You are supposed to read the messages BEFORE you ask questions.
On 2/25/2026 1:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 12:55 PM, Dude wrote:What are you, nuts?
On 2/25/2026 12:34 PM, Tara wrote:the fact a country has progress taxes is not contradictory to >>>>>>>>> increasing heath funding thru increased progressive taxes
Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Obviously, he's a moron.
On 2/25/2026 9:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
typical market fundie whiningYou moron!
uk/canada both pay less for it's system vs us/switzerland/ >>>>>>>>>>>>> austria/ germany
because it's funded by taxes ya'll can just increase taxes in a >>>>>>>>>>>>> progressive manner instead of whining about muh reform >>>>>>>>>>>>> endlessly, and it
will hit ur average person less
why are you such a fking psychopathic retard julian? >>>>>>>>>>>>>
The UK already has a progressive income tax system: higher >>>>>>>>>>>> earners pay a
higher percentage of their income in tax. Tax rates increase as >>>>>>>>>>>> income rises
As does Canada.
Everyone already knows that Canada has a progressive, graduated >>>>>>>>>> income tax system. Where higher earners pay a higher percentage of >>>>>>>>>> their income in taxes through both federal and provincial brackets. >>>>>>>>>
u moron
In Canada, if you earn $150,000 a year you would pay an average >>>>>>>> income tax rate of roughly 34% to 38%, resulting in a take-home pay >>>>>>>> of approximately $92,000 to $98,000 depending on the province. >>>>>>>>
Apparently, Quebec has the highest tax rate, with a $150k income >>>>>>>> paying roughly $57,701, a 38.5% average.
Where's the incentive Nick?
wait aren't u a fucking boomer on medicaid for seniors?????
So, I already posted that I'm fully vested from Dell Computers. Didn't >>>>>> you read any of my posts about investing? Get some smarts, Nick.
avoiding the question ehhh? so u are on medicaid aren't ya???
that's just fucking rich: preaching against socialized medicine while >>>>> taking advantage of it yourself
Medicaid is for poor people. Medicare is for people over 65. Both are a >>>> scam perpetrated on the working people by a government brimming with
graft and greed masquerading as good intentions.
But hey, it's a good idea in theory.
And it is always open season for making such accusations towards an
idea you don't like.
But, in practice there is the possibility of inflation and considering
the current national debt, it is doubtful either program is sustainable
into the future.
My plan makes more sense: implement universal free healthcare, or
Medicare for All, based on a flat tax that everyone would pay equally.
Your plan is nuts as previously discussed.
yours.>> It's your body. Your money. Your innate right to life.That would be fair to everyone - free health care because it's
While income taxes would increase, these costs would be offset by the
elimination of private premiums, deductibles, and co-pays and graft.
The question is, what tax rate on income?
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:37:10 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/27/2026 9:39 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:20:25 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Your posited solution appears to be to raise federal income tax. The
wrote:
On 2/26/2026 6:25 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 12:50 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/26/2026 10:21 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 09:46:19 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/25/2026 5:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
free market fundies are fucking insane, it's literally the only >>>>>>>>> thing u ever push ever
u just don't fking care what happens to people wilson
Sure I do.
within the limits of your ideological commitments which means govt >>>>>>> will do nothing and neither will you.
You have no idea what I do.
u could donate billions and i'd still call u a fking regressive idiot >>>>> getting in the way more than helping
*the problems of wealth inequity are not going to solved by donations* >>>>
It could be erased by donations. That's unlikely though.
It could also be erased by confiscation. Though that would also destroy >>>> the economy and make everyone (except for the commissars) equally
impoverished.
You posit unlikely solutions and then insist on catastrophic
consequences of those solutions. No effort is made to think of better
ideas.
question is, how much are you willing to pay?
I offer no solutions. I do offer a chance to think realistically
about the problem. Any takers?
Karl Marx comes to mind.Socialists and other authoritarian collectivists see that as a feature >>>> not a bug. Making people completely reliant on the state is theirdesired end state.
Nutty assertion: socialists = authoritarian collectivists.
worseIt's widely agreed that wealth inequality in the US has been made
Almost everyone in the US agrees there is wealth inequality.over the past six years because of government actions.
Agreed by libertarians. That does not qualify as "widely".
But not that this is because of govt actions.
The questions is, how to level out the playing field? Have you ever
heard of the magic of compound interest?
Time for new ideas. There is nothing useful in things tried and
discarded in the past. They were discarded for good reason even if
nobody remembers any more.
You take a certain amount in your savings and invest it in "Baby Bonds"
for your progeny and future generations. Create government-funded trust
accounts for children at birth to close the racial wealth gap.
Remember the future.
On 2/27/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 16:53:58 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 14:38:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 1:32 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/27/26 10:24 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/27/2026 1:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/27/26 8:34 AM, Dude wrote:Equity is a demand for equal outcomes. That is retarded and ultimately >>>>>>> leads to social decay and eventual destruction.
On 2/26/2026 8:27 PM, dart200 wrote:bruh ur a fking retard dude
On 2/26/26 7:12 PM, Dude wrote:Apparently, you have not thought this through.
On 2/26/2026 4:09 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 3:46 PM, Dude wrote:Apparently, you have not thot this thru:
So, just for the record, I am not on Medicaid.
i am tho:
no premiums. no deductible. no co-pay. no co-insurance. no fsa/ >>>>>>>>>>>> hsa reimbursement bullshit. no separate dental/vision plans. >>>>>>>>>>>>
just go to doctor and get treated. i can just go the ER without >>>>>>>>>>>> worrying about costs. i can call an ambulance without having to >>>>>>>>>>>> worry about costs. if there is a *pressing* issue i get treated >>>>>>>>>>>> within necessary timeframes, and i have access to some of the >>>>>>>>>>>> best doctors around (wife will give birth at stanford). if not >>>>>>>>>>>> maybe i need to wait longer. tbh i'll take waiting a bit over not >>>>>>>>>>>> have to worry about the astronomically retarded payment systems >>>>>>>>>>>> american financiers devised for medicine so consumers *cant* >>>>>>>>>>>> figure out what the true costs of service ever are...
like holy fuck anyone advocating for non-socialized care is >>>>>>>>>>>> engaging with nothing but a fantastically fallacious facade of >>>>>>>>>>>> critical thot
The solution to free medical care and a balanced US budget is a >>>>>>>>>>> flat tax that everyone pays, no exceptions. No loopholes. Can't >>>>>>>>>>> you read?
i'm sorry how does a balanced budget magically get us universal >>>>>>>>>> medical care???
A flat federal income tax would fund universal health care. It's not >>>>>>>>> complicated. Everyone pays equally, everyone get care equitably. >>>>>>>>
ur focus on this nonsense form of false equity is total brainrot >>>>>>>
life. liberty. pursuit of happiness. if those outcomes aren't happening >>>>>> for all peoples then american is failing,
we don't even both to measure whether people think they have those >>>>>> rights in this country,
measuring that will be a form of transparency that modern politicians >>>>>> can't even conceive of yet,
Equality before the law is a principle based on cooperation and
fairness that ultimately leads to greater social harmony and prosperity.
They are not even remotely the same thing at all.
and i fking dgaf about ur semantic quibbling wilson. it's merely a tool >>>>>> for u to separate out and ignore the sin u support.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not things that can be >>>>> dictated or distributed. Even in the best of situations they can only >>>>> represent opportunities. The best possible purpose of government is to >>>>> make sure those and other natural rights are not trampled upon so people >>>>> can flourish. This is not semantic quibbling. If a government doesn't >>>>> protect the natural rights of the people it governs, it loses its reason >>>>> and mandate for being. If, in it's desire to enforce equitable outcomes >>>>> it restricts those rights from the people, it has failed.
Governments, systems, and societies sometimes do harm people with
repressive policies. But the reality of natural law cannot be denied >>>>> forever.
It is now granted that people should not have been burnt at auschwitz, >>>> for those that were burnt, that grant is meaningless. You can posit a >>>> law you claim is natural and cannot be denied forever, but you
certainly can and will be dead forever regardless of how people
treated your right. You might as well have had no rights.
Eventually the bill for that sort of wrong thinking and those
destructive actions comes due.
But probably not for you if you were mistreated and are now dead.
Rights are for the living, not the dead.
What good are they if you died anyway?
You are living. You have an inalienable right to life. You've failed to
cite a single source that would back up your theory.
On 2/27/2026 1:52 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:19:32 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:You idiot! That's the current system.
On 2/27/2026 9:18 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:06:07 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Theoretically, Medicare and Medicaid should work.
wrote:
On 2/26/2026 6:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 10:04 AM, Dude wrote:
On 2/25/2026 9:12 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 4:44 PM, Dude wrote:You are supposed to read the messages BEFORE you ask questions.
On 2/25/2026 1:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/25/26 12:55 PM, Dude wrote:What are you, nuts?
On 2/25/2026 12:34 PM, Tara wrote:the fact a country has progress taxes is not contradictory to >>>>>>>>>> increasing heath funding thru increased progressive taxes
Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Obviously, he's a moron.
On 2/25/2026 9:42 AM, dart200 wrote:
typical market fundie whiningYou moron!
uk/canada both pay less for it's system vs us/switzerland/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> austria/ germany
because it's funded by taxes ya'll can just increase taxes in a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> progressive manner instead of whining about muh reform >>>>>>>>>>>>>> endlessly, and it
will hit ur average person less
why are you such a fking psychopathic retard julian? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The UK already has a progressive income tax system: higher >>>>>>>>>>>>> earners pay a
higher percentage of their income in tax. Tax rates increase as >>>>>>>>>>>>> income rises
As does Canada.
Everyone already knows that Canada has a progressive, graduated >>>>>>>>>>> income tax system. Where higher earners pay a higher percentage of >>>>>>>>>>> their income in taxes through both federal and provincial brackets. >>>>>>>>>>
u moron
In Canada, if you earn $150,000 a year you would pay an average >>>>>>>>> income tax rate of roughly 34% to 38%, resulting in a take-home pay >>>>>>>>> of approximately $92,000 to $98,000 depending on the province. >>>>>>>>>
Apparently, Quebec has the highest tax rate, with a $150k income >>>>>>>>> paying roughly $57,701, a 38.5% average.
Where's the incentive Nick?
wait aren't u a fucking boomer on medicaid for seniors?????
So, I already posted that I'm fully vested from Dell Computers. Didn't >>>>>>> you read any of my posts about investing? Get some smarts, Nick.
avoiding the question ehhh? so u are on medicaid aren't ya???
that's just fucking rich: preaching against socialized medicine while >>>>>> taking advantage of it yourself
Medicaid is for poor people. Medicare is for people over 65. Both are a >>>>> scam perpetrated on the working people by a government brimming with >>>>> graft and greed masquerading as good intentions.
But hey, it's a good idea in theory.
And it is always open season for making such accusations towards an
idea you don't like.
But, in practice there is the possibility of inflation and considering
the current national debt, it is doubtful either program is sustainable
into the future.
My plan makes more sense: implement universal free healthcare, or
Medicare for All, based on a flat tax that everyone would pay equally.
Your plan is nuts as previously discussed.
Progressive taxation to fund Medicare. The key word is a flat tax that
would have no loopholes or exceptions. Key word: transparent.
Where's Nick?
--yours.>> It's your body. Your money. Your innate right to life.That would be fair to everyone - free health care because it's
While income taxes would increase, these costs would be offset by the
elimination of private premiums, deductibles, and co-pays and graft.
The question is, what tax rate on income?
On 2/27/2026 1:57 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:37:10 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Bill Clinton said it was the economy, stupid. That still applies.
On 2/27/2026 9:39 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:20:25 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Your posited solution appears to be to raise federal income tax. The
wrote:
On 2/26/2026 6:25 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 12:50 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/26/2026 10:21 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 09:46:19 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/25/2026 5:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
free market fundies are fucking insane, it's literally the only >>>>>>>>>> thing u ever push ever
u just don't fking care what happens to people wilson
Sure I do.
within the limits of your ideological commitments which means govt >>>>>>>> will do nothing and neither will you.
You have no idea what I do.
u could donate billions and i'd still call u a fking regressive idiot >>>>>> getting in the way more than helping
*the problems of wealth inequity are not going to solved by donations* >>>>>
It could be erased by donations. That's unlikely though.
It could also be erased by confiscation. Though that would also destroy >>>>> the economy and make everyone (except for the commissars) equally
impoverished.
You posit unlikely solutions and then insist on catastrophic
consequences of those solutions. No effort is made to think of better >>>> ideas.
question is, how much are you willing to pay?
I offer no solutions. I do offer a chance to think realistically
about the problem. Any takers?
Karl Marx comes to mind.Socialists and other authoritarian collectivists see that as a feature >>>>> not a bug. Making people completely reliant on the state is theirdesired end state.
Nutty assertion: socialists = authoritarian collectivists.
worseIt's widely agreed that wealth inequality in the US has been made
Almost everyone in the US agrees there is wealth inequality.over the past six years because of government actions.
Agreed by libertarians. That does not qualify as "widely".
But not that this is because of govt actions.
The questions is, how to level out the playing field? Have you ever
heard of the magic of compound interest?
Time for new ideas. There is nothing useful in things tried and
discarded in the past. They were discarded for good reason even if
nobody remembers any more.
--You take a certain amount in your savings and invest it in "Baby Bonds"
for your progeny and future generations. Create government-funded trust
accounts for children at birth to close the racial wealth gap.
Remember the future.
On 2/27/2026 11:32 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 14:00:55 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Wait! What?
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 1:29 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/27/26 10:18 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/27/2026 12:58 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/27/26 9:01 AM, Wilson wrote:
Collectivists making bad decisions and then blaming society for the >>>>>>> sad state of their personal affairs is a thing as old as time.
the only decision u can recommend is completely forgoing any amount >>>>>> of critical thot on the matter, like a desire to engage with honest >>>>>> systems, and simply accepting whatever the stupidity society throws >>>>>> at me for $$$
it's hard enough to explain to an aging boomer how ungodly fking
moronic our software industry is,
and certainly not a sheelefried fuckwit who can't tell the difference >>>>>> between mind numbingly chasing dollars, and actual intelligence
making money =/= being productive, and i'm fucking tired of having to >>>>>> work against all my best intuitions in order operate at the low
common dominator everyone else is...
I fully agree that making money doesn't equal being "productive".
My ancestral heritage is an unbroken 250+ year lineage of farmers who >>>>> supported themselves with their own labor and rejected the wider
society on principle. This included going to jail for refusing the
military draft as they considered war to be murder. They also rejected >>>>> any sort of reliance on or financial support from that society,
instead depending on their like-minded neighbors when the need arose. >>>>> They freely made those choices and considered them necessary to
maintain their integrity.
that's a nice story. doesn't really have anything to do with today tho
They continue to hold those beliefs and are still living that way today, >>> Nick.
That is a valid path.
Demanding that other people support you just because you're breathing >>>>> is not.
i know ur going to go grave with ur ungodly ignorance, and maybe the
lord can spare u some mercy when u do...
but the economic system took over the vast majority of productive land >>>> and resources, that are required for one to survive,
so now it bears the responsibility that nature once had: ensuring people >>>> can survive with in it. lest it's directly interfering with the first
unalienable right: a right to life
Society is constructed of people but it's not an independently existing
thing. All choices are always and only made by the individual.
The social consciousness is just shadows on the wall.
A right to life does not mean that you or anyone else can rightly
require that other people must support you.
If it doesn't mean that other people do not have the right to
interfere with your right, it is meaningless. Actively or not.
You do not have the right to allow people to starve in S Sudan.
People in S Sudan are kidnapping and killing Christians!
Christians in South Sudan and the surrounding region of Sudan are facing >targeted kidnapping, killings, and intense persecution. While South--
Sudan is a predominantly Christian nation, years of civil war, tribal >conflicts, and, more recently, the spillover of extremist violence from
the ongoing Sudan civil war have made it highly dangerous for church
leaders and believers.
That path leads inevitably
to an erosion of the spirit of cooperation and ultimately to tyranny.
On 2/27/2026 1:29 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/27/26 10:18 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/27/2026 12:58 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/27/26 9:01 AM, Wilson wrote:
Collectivists making bad decisions and then blaming society for the >>>>> sad state of their personal affairs is a thing as old as time.
the only decision u can recommend is completely forgoing any amount
of critical thot on the matter, like a desire to engage with honest
systems, and simply accepting whatever the stupidity society throws
at me for $$$
it's hard enough to explain to an aging boomer how ungodly fking
moronic our software industry is,
and certainly not a sheelefried fuckwit who can't tell the
difference between mind numbingly chasing dollars, and actual
intelligence
making money =/= being productive, and i'm fucking tired of having
to work against all my best intuitions in order operate at the low
common dominator everyone else is...
I fully agree that making money doesn't equal being "productive".
My ancestral heritage is an unbroken 250+ year lineage of farmers who
supported themselves with their own labor and rejected the wider
society on principle. This included going to jail for refusing the
military draft as they considered war to be murder. They also
rejected any sort of reliance on or financial support from that
society, instead depending on their like-minded neighbors when the
need arose. They freely made those choices and considered them
necessary to maintain their integrity.
that's a nice story. doesn't really have anything to do with today tho
They continue to hold those beliefs and are still living that way today, Nick.
That is a valid path.
Demanding that other people support you just because you're breathing
is not.
i know ur going to go grave with ur ungodly ignorance, and maybe the
lord can spare u some mercy when u do...
but the economic system took over the vast majority of productive land
and resources, that are required for one to survive,
so now it bears the responsibility that nature once had: ensuring
people can survive with in it. lest it's directly interfering with the
first unalienable right: a right to life
Society is constructed of people but it's not an independently existing thing. All choices are always and only made by the individual.
The social consciousness is just shadows on the wall.
A right to life does not mean that you or anyone else can rightly
require that other people must support you. That path leads inevitably
to an erosion of the spirit of cooperation and ultimately to tyranny.
On 2/27/2026 1:32 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/27/26 10:24 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/27/2026 1:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/27/26 8:34 AM, Dude wrote:
On 2/26/2026 8:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 7:12 PM, Dude wrote:Apparently, you have not thought this through.
On 2/26/2026 4:09 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 3:46 PM, Dude wrote:Apparently, you have not thot this thru:
So, just for the record, I am not on Medicaid.
i am tho:
no premiums. no deductible. no co-pay. no co-insurance. no fsa/ >>>>>>>> hsa reimbursement bullshit. no separate dental/vision plans.
just go to doctor and get treated. i can just go the ER without >>>>>>>> worrying about costs. i can call an ambulance without having to >>>>>>>> worry about costs. if there is a *pressing* issue i get treated >>>>>>>> within necessary timeframes, and i have access to some of the >>>>>>>> best doctors around (wife will give birth at stanford). if not >>>>>>>> maybe i need to wait longer. tbh i'll take waiting a bit over >>>>>>>> not have to worry about the astronomically retarded payment
systems american financiers devised for medicine so consumers >>>>>>>> *cant* figure out what the true costs of service ever are...
like holy fuck anyone advocating for non-socialized care is
engaging with nothing but a fantastically fallacious facade of >>>>>>>> critical thot
The solution to free medical care and a balanced US budget is a >>>>>>> flat tax that everyone pays, no exceptions. No loopholes. Can't >>>>>>> you read?
i'm sorry how does a balanced budget magically get us universal
medical care???
A flat federal income tax would fund universal health care. It's
not complicated. Everyone pays equally, everyone get care equitably.
bruh ur a fking retard dude
ur focus on this nonsense form of false equity is total brainrot
Equity is a demand for equal outcomes. That is retarded and
ultimately leads to social decay and eventual destruction.
life. liberty. pursuit of happiness. if those outcomes aren't
happening for all peoples then american is failing,
we don't even both to measure whether people think they have those
rights in this country,
measuring that will be a form of transparency that modern politicians
can't even conceive of yet,
Equality before the law is a principle based on cooperation and
fairness that ultimately leads to greater social harmony and prosperity. >>>
They are not even remotely the same thing at all.
and i fking dgaf about ur semantic quibbling wilson. it's merely a
tool for u to separate out and ignore the sin u support.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not things that can be
dictated or distributed. Even in the best of situations they can only represent opportunities. The best possible purpose of government is to
make sure those and other natural rights are not trampled upon so people
can flourish. This is not semantic quibbling. If a government doesn't protect the natural rights of the people it governs, it loses its reason
and mandate for being. If, in it's desire to enforce equitable outcomes
it restricts those rights from the people, it has failed.
Governments, systems, and societies sometimes do harm people with
repressive policies. But the reality of natural law cannot be denied forever. Eventually the bill for that sort of wrong thinking and those destructive actions comes due.
On 2/27/26 11:00 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/27/2026 1:29 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/27/26 10:18 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/27/2026 12:58 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/27/26 9:01 AM, Wilson wrote:
Collectivists making bad decisions and then blaming society for
the sad state of their personal affairs is a thing as old as time.
the only decision u can recommend is completely forgoing any amount >>>>> of critical thot on the matter, like a desire to engage with honest >>>>> systems, and simply accepting whatever the stupidity society throws >>>>> at me for $$$
it's hard enough to explain to an aging boomer how ungodly fking
moronic our software industry is,
and certainly not a sheelefried fuckwit who can't tell the
difference between mind numbingly chasing dollars, and actual
intelligence
making money =/= being productive, and i'm fucking tired of having
to work against all my best intuitions in order operate at the low
common dominator everyone else is...
I fully agree that making money doesn't equal being "productive".
My ancestral heritage is an unbroken 250+ year lineage of farmers
who supported themselves with their own labor and rejected the wider
society on principle. This included going to jail for refusing the
military draft as they considered war to be murder. They also
rejected any sort of reliance on or financial support from that
society, instead depending on their like-minded neighbors when the
need arose. They freely made those choices and considered them
necessary to maintain their integrity.
that's a nice story. doesn't really have anything to do with today tho
They continue to hold those beliefs and are still living that way
today, Nick.
do i have an unbroken 250+ year linage of farmers who staked out
territory so that i can live separate from society?
no!
then it has fuck all to do with me, or most people that exist. those
people u mention have an advantage of have a stake made long before all
the territory was claimed...
so it's not relevant to someone like me who has no such lineage!
fking moronic capital apologists and their retarded storytelling that ignores the actual realities most people face
-a > fuck u dude, ur a disgusting facade of actual morality
-a >
-a > #god
That is a valid path.
Demanding that other people support you just because you're
breathing is not.
i know ur going to go grave with ur ungodly ignorance, and maybe the
lord can spare u some mercy when u do...
but the economic system took over the vast majority of productive
land and resources, that are required for one to survive,
so now it bears the responsibility that nature once had: ensuring
people can survive with in it. lest it's directly interfering with
the first unalienable right: a right to life
Society is constructed of people but it's not an independently
existing thing. All choices are always and only made by the individual.
The social consciousness is just shadows on the wall.
A right to life does not mean that you or anyone else can rightly
require that other people must support you. That path leads inevitably
to an erosion of the spirit of cooperation and ultimately to tyranny.
-a > nice platitudes bro
-a >
-a > #god
u just don't give a fuck about the actual reality most people face:
which is they are forced to cooperate with the system that exist and
have no meaningful other option
On 2/27/26 11:00 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/27/2026 1:29 PM, dart200 wrote:
but the economic system took over the vast majority of productive
land and resources, that are required for one to survive,
so now it bears the responsibility that nature once had: ensuring
people can survive with in it. lest it's directly interfering with
the first unalienable right: a right to life
Society is constructed of people but it's not an independently
existing thing. All choices are always and only made by the individual.
The social consciousness is just shadows on the wall.
A right to life does not mean that you or anyone else can rightly
require that other people must support you. That path leads inevitably
to an erosion of the spirit of cooperation and ultimately to tyranny.
-a > nice platitudes bro
-a >
-a > #god
u just don't give a fuck about the actual reality most people face:
which is they are forced to cooperate with the system that exist and
have no meaningful other option
On 2/27/26 7:49 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/27/26 11:00 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/27/2026 1:29 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/27/26 10:18 AM, Wilson wrote:
I fully agree that making money doesn't equal being "productive".
My ancestral heritage is an unbroken 250+ year lineage of farmers
who supported themselves with their own labor and rejected the
wider society on principle. This included going to jail for
refusing the military draft as they considered war to be murder.
They also rejected any sort of reliance on or financial support
from that society, instead depending on their like-minded neighbors >>>>> when the need arose. They freely made those choices and considered
them necessary to maintain their integrity.
that's a nice story. doesn't really have anything to do with today tho
They continue to hold those beliefs and are still living that way
today, Nick.
do i have an unbroken 250+ year linage of farmers who staked out
territory so that i can live separate from society?
oh ur fking amish???
i'm not fking amish bro
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:12:47 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/27/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 16:53:58 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>You are living. You have an inalienable right to life. You've failed to
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 14:38:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
Eventually the bill for that sort of wrong thinking and those
destructive actions comes due.
But probably not for you if you were mistreated and are now dead.
Rights are for the living, not the dead.
What good are they if you died anyway?
cite a single source that would back up your theory.
There are no sources either way. There are assertions which you can
adopt or not. I simply appeal to your obviously limited good sense.
If I can die, I have no right to life. So far I have been lucky and
beat the odds. But that is simply, finally luck.
On 2/27/2026 1:52 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:19:32 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:You idiot! That's the current system.
Theoretically, Medicare and Medicaid should work.
But, in practice there is the possibility of inflation and considering
the current national debt, it is doubtful either program is sustainable
into the future.
My plan makes more sense: implement universal free healthcare, or
Medicare for All, based on a flat tax that everyone would pay equally.
Your plan is nuts as previously discussed.
Progressive taxation to fund Medicare. The key word is a flat tax that
would have no loopholes or exceptions. Key word: transparent.
On 2/27/2026 10:49 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/27/26 11:00 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/27/2026 1:29 PM, dart200 wrote:
but the economic system took over the vast majority of productive
land and resources, that are required for one to survive,
so now it bears the responsibility that nature once had: ensuring
people can survive with in it. lest it's directly interfering with
the first unalienable right: a right to life
Society is constructed of people but it's not an independently
existing thing. All choices are always and only made by the individual.
The social consciousness is just shadows on the wall.
A right to life does not mean that you or anyone else can rightly
require that other people must support you. That path leads inevitably
to an erosion of the spirit of cooperation and ultimately to tyranny.
a > nice platitudes bro
a >
a > #god
u just don't give a fuck about the actual reality most people face:
which is they are forced to cooperate with the system that exist and
have no meaningful other option
No matter what happens you will be forced to cooperate with the system
that exists. We all have to deal with it.
As to the inherent unfairness of living in a world with no new
unconquered frontiers, yeah. No more free land for the taking.
On the potential upside, you probably don't have to fight the locals who >want to kill you just for being there,
and you get support from the
government to make ends meet so you don't starve or freeze.
When the pioneers got dysentery they just died.
On 2/27/2026 10:49 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/27/26 11:00 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/27/2026 1:29 PM, dart200 wrote:
but the economic system took over the vast majority of productive
land and resources, that are required for one to survive,
so now it bears the responsibility that nature once had: ensuring
people can survive with in it. lest it's directly interfering with
the first unalienable right: a right to life
Society is constructed of people but it's not an independently
existing thing. All choices are always and only made by the individual.
The social consciousness is just shadows on the wall.
A right to life does not mean that you or anyone else can rightly
require that other people must support you. That path leads
inevitably to an erosion of the spirit of cooperation and ultimately
to tyranny.
-a-a > nice platitudes bro
-a-a >
-a-a > #god
u just don't give a fuck about the actual reality most people face:
which is they are forced to cooperate with the system that exist and
have no meaningful other option
No matter what happens you will be forced to cooperate with the system
that exists. We all have to deal with it.
As to the inherent unfairness of living in a world with no new
unconquered frontiers, yeah. No more free land for the taking.
On the potential upside, you probably don't have to fight the locals who want to kill you just for being there, and you get support from the government to make ends meet so you don't starve or freeze.
When the pioneers got dysentery they just died.
On 2/27/2026 9:37 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:12:47 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/27/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 16:53:58 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>You are living. You have an inalienable right to life. You've failed to
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 14:38:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
Eventually the bill for that sort of wrong thinking and those
destructive actions comes due.
But probably not for you if you were mistreated and are now dead.
Rights are for the living, not the dead.
What good are they if you died anyway?
cite a single source that would back up your theory.
There are no sources either way. There are assertions which you can
adopt or not. I simply appeal to your obviously limited good sense.
If I can die, I have no right to life. So far I have been lucky and
beat the odds. But that is simply, finally luck.
Maybe it's luck that you're alive, maybe it's karma.
Yeah I know you deny karma as well even though there's thousands of
years of evidence to support the idea. That's just more evidence that
you're retarded. But hey, no matter how stupid and backwards you might
be there's always hope!
On 2/27/2026 6:23 PM, Dude wrote:
On 2/27/2026 1:52 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:19:32 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:You idiot! That's the current system.
Theoretically, Medicare and Medicaid should work.
But, in practice there is the possibility of inflation and considering >>>> the current national debt, it is doubtful either program is sustainable >>>> into the future.
My plan makes more sense: implement universal free healthcare, or
Medicare for All, based on a flat tax that everyone would pay equally.
Your plan is nuts as previously discussed.
Progressive taxation to fund Medicare. The key word is a flat tax that
would have no loopholes or exceptions. Key word: transparent.
Noah doesn't want a solution he just wants to bitch.
On 2/27/2026 6:23 PM, Dude wrote:
On 2/27/2026 1:52 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:19:32 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:You idiot! That's the current system.
Theoretically, Medicare and Medicaid should work.
But, in practice there is the possibility of inflation and considering >>>> the current national debt, it is doubtful either program is sustainable >>>> into the future.
My plan makes more sense: implement universal free healthcare, or
Medicare for All, based on a flat tax that everyone would pay equally.
Your plan is nuts as previously discussed.
Progressive taxation to fund Medicare. The key word is a flat tax that
would have no loopholes or exceptions. Key word: transparent.
Noah doesn't want a solution he just wants to bitch.
On 2/27/26 11:38 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/27/2026 1:32 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/27/26 10:24 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/27/2026 1:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/27/26 8:34 AM, Dude wrote:
On 2/26/2026 8:27 PM, dart200 wrote:bruh ur a fking retard dude
On 2/26/26 7:12 PM, Dude wrote:Apparently, you have not thought this through.
On 2/26/2026 4:09 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 3:46 PM, Dude wrote:Apparently, you have not thot this thru:
So, just for the record, I am not on Medicaid.
i am tho:
no premiums. no deductible. no co-pay. no co-insurance. no fsa/ >>>>>>>>> hsa reimbursement bullshit. no separate dental/vision plans. >>>>>>>>>
just go to doctor and get treated. i can just go the ER without >>>>>>>>> worrying about costs. i can call an ambulance without having to >>>>>>>>> worry about costs. if there is a *pressing* issue i get treated >>>>>>>>> within necessary timeframes, and i have access to some of the >>>>>>>>> best doctors around (wife will give birth at stanford). if not >>>>>>>>> maybe i need to wait longer. tbh i'll take waiting a bit over >>>>>>>>> not have to worry about the astronomically retarded payment >>>>>>>>> systems american financiers devised for medicine so consumers >>>>>>>>> *cant* figure out what the true costs of service ever are... >>>>>>>>>
like holy fuck anyone advocating for non-socialized care is >>>>>>>>> engaging with nothing but a fantastically fallacious facade of >>>>>>>>> critical thot
The solution to free medical care and a balanced US budget is a >>>>>>>> flat tax that everyone pays, no exceptions. No loopholes. Can't >>>>>>>> you read?
i'm sorry how does a balanced budget magically get us universal >>>>>>> medical care???
A flat federal income tax would fund universal health care. It's
not complicated. Everyone pays equally, everyone get care equitably. >>>>>
ur focus on this nonsense form of false equity is total brainrot
Equity is a demand for equal outcomes. That is retarded and
ultimately leads to social decay and eventual destruction.
life. liberty. pursuit of happiness. if those outcomes aren't
happening for all peoples then american is failing,
we don't even both to measure whether people think they have those
rights in this country,
measuring that will be a form of transparency that modern politicians
can't even conceive of yet,
Equality before the law is a principle based on cooperation and
fairness that ultimately leads to greater social harmony and
prosperity.
They are not even remotely the same thing at all.
and i fking dgaf about ur semantic quibbling wilson. it's merely a
tool for u to separate out and ignore the sin u support.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not things that can be
THEY ARE INALIENABLE RIGHTS AND IF THEY ARE NOT RESPECTED FOR ALL
PEOPLES, THEN SOCIETY NEEDS TO BE REEVALUATED AT A FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL.
HAVE U BOTHERED TO CONSIDER THAT MAYBE WE SHOULD FUCKING ASK PEOPLE IF
THEY FEEL THOSE RIGHTS HAVE BEEN RESPECTED FOR THEIR LIFE???
NO, NONE OF THE ABJECT BASTARDS LIKE U WANT THAT...
CAUSE WE ALL FKING KNOW WHAT THE FKING ANSWER WOULD BE, IF PEOPLE THOT
THE VOTE WOULD ACTUALLY MATTER...
-a > u instead want to tyrannically dictate with irrelevant platitude
-a >
-a > #god
fking pulling me hairs out this should be fking obvious but my god if u fking overhyped apes ever want to ensure those rights are fking
respected for people rather than just endlessly bleating out platitudes
for them
dictated or distributed. Even in the best of situations they can only
represent opportunities. The best possible purpose of government is to
make sure those and other natural rights are not trampled upon so
people can flourish. This is not semantic quibbling. If a government
doesn't protect the natural rights of the people it governs, it loses
its reason and mandate for being. If, in it's desire to enforce
equitable outcomes it restricts those rights from the people, it has
failed.
Governments, systems, and societies sometimes do harm people with
repressive policies. But the reality of natural law cannot be denied
forever. Eventually the bill for that sort of wrong thinking and those
destructive actions comes due.
On 2/28/26 9:36 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/27/2026 6:23 PM, Dude wrote:
On 2/27/2026 1:52 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:19:32 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>You idiot! That's the current system.
Theoretically, Medicare and Medicaid should work.Your plan is nuts as previously discussed.
But, in practice there is the possibility of inflation and considering >>>>> the current national debt, it is doubtful either program is
sustainable
into the future.
My plan makes more sense: implement universal free healthcare, or
Medicare for All, based on a flat tax that everyone would pay equally. >>>>
Progressive taxation to fund Medicare. The key word is a flat tax
that would have no loopholes or exceptions. Key word: transparent.
Noah doesn't want a solution he just wants to bitch.
my god wilson, u don't need to be that much a fking retard eh???
a basic progressive tax code only takes *one* table (<1 page) to describe,
and has literally nothing to do with the >5000 pages of loopholes/ exceptions dude is complaining about
On 2/27/2026 7:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/27/26 11:38 AM, Wilson wrote:Thank you for your opinion and bleating out, Nick.
On 2/27/2026 1:32 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/27/26 10:24 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/27/2026 1:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/27/26 8:34 AM, Dude wrote:
On 2/26/2026 8:27 PM, dart200 wrote:bruh ur a fking retard dude
On 2/26/26 7:12 PM, Dude wrote:Apparently, you have not thought this through.
On 2/26/2026 4:09 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 3:46 PM, Dude wrote:Apparently, you have not thot this thru:
So, just for the record, I am not on Medicaid.
i am tho:
no premiums. no deductible. no co-pay. no co-insurance. no fsa/ >>>>>>>>>> hsa reimbursement bullshit. no separate dental/vision plans. >>>>>>>>>>
just go to doctor and get treated. i can just go the ER without >>>>>>>>>> worrying about costs. i can call an ambulance without having to >>>>>>>>>> worry about costs. if there is a *pressing* issue i get treated >>>>>>>>>> within necessary timeframes, and i have access to some of the >>>>>>>>>> best doctors around (wife will give birth at stanford). if not >>>>>>>>>> maybe i need to wait longer. tbh i'll take waiting a bit over >>>>>>>>>> not have to worry about the astronomically retarded payment >>>>>>>>>> systems american financiers devised for medicine so consumers >>>>>>>>>> *cant* figure out what the true costs of service ever are... >>>>>>>>>>
like holy fuck anyone advocating for non-socialized care is >>>>>>>>>> engaging with nothing but a fantastically fallacious facade of >>>>>>>>>> critical thot
The solution to free medical care and a balanced US budget is a >>>>>>>>> flat tax that everyone pays, no exceptions. No loopholes. Can't >>>>>>>>> you read?
i'm sorry how does a balanced budget magically get us universal >>>>>>>> medical care???
A flat federal income tax would fund universal health care. It's >>>>>>> not complicated. Everyone pays equally, everyone get care equitably. >>>>>>
ur focus on this nonsense form of false equity is total brainrot
Equity is a demand for equal outcomes. That is retarded and
ultimately leads to social decay and eventual destruction.
life. liberty. pursuit of happiness. if those outcomes aren't
happening for all peoples then american is failing,
we don't even both to measure whether people think they have those
rights in this country,
measuring that will be a form of transparency that modern politicians >>>> can't even conceive of yet,
Equality before the law is a principle based on cooperation and
fairness that ultimately leads to greater social harmony and
prosperity.
They are not even remotely the same thing at all.
and i fking dgaf about ur semantic quibbling wilson. it's merely a
tool for u to separate out and ignore the sin u support.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not things that can be
THEY ARE INALIENABLE RIGHTS AND IF THEY ARE NOT RESPECTED FOR ALL
PEOPLES, THEN SOCIETY NEEDS TO BE REEVALUATED AT A FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL.
HAVE U BOTHERED TO CONSIDER THAT MAYBE WE SHOULD FUCKING ASK PEOPLE IF
THEY FEEL THOSE RIGHTS HAVE BEEN RESPECTED FOR THEIR LIFE???
NO, NONE OF THE ABJECT BASTARDS LIKE U WANT THAT...
CAUSE WE ALL FKING KNOW WHAT THE FKING ANSWER WOULD BE, IF PEOPLE THOT
THE VOTE WOULD ACTUALLY MATTER...
a > u instead want to tyrannically dictate with irrelevant platitude
a >
a > #god
fking pulling me hairs out this should be fking obvious but my god if u
fking overhyped apes ever want to ensure those rights are fking
respected for people rather than just endlessly bleating out platitudes
for them
We've had hundreds pass through here, mental cases, over the years. Some >totally crashed out. Nobody know what happened to them - probably over >indulged on some mushrooms or just aged out.
Have you considered that there's no psychiatrist here at present on this >discussion group? You might need to see a local therapist, instead of >depending on Wilson for help.
First, just admit you have mental problems. Just put down the pipe down
and pick up the phone and dial this number:
1-800-222-2222 and ask for help. It's nothing to be ashamed of.
FAQ: The opinions expressed by subscribers on this list are their own
and do not necessarily represent the views of all informants.
P.S. Please refrain from using all caps in your messaging. That could be >construed as shouting by other respondents and is considered to be rude
and infantile. This is an adult discussion group.
--dictated or distributed. Even in the best of situations they can only
represent opportunities. The best possible purpose of government is to
make sure those and other natural rights are not trampled upon so
people can flourish. This is not semantic quibbling. If a government
doesn't protect the natural rights of the people it governs, it loses
its reason and mandate for being. If, in it's desire to enforce
equitable outcomes it restricts those rights from the people, it has
failed.
Governments, systems, and societies sometimes do harm people with
repressive policies. But the reality of natural law cannot be denied
forever. Eventually the bill for that sort of wrong thinking and those
destructive actions comes due.
On 2/28/26 11:18 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/28/2026 12:48 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/28/26 9:24 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/27/2026 10:49 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/27/26 11:00 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/27/2026 1:29 PM, dart200 wrote:
but the economic system took over the vast majority of productive >>>>>>> land and resources, that are required for one to survive,
so now it bears the responsibility that nature once had: ensuring >>>>>>> people can survive with in it. lest it's directly interfering
with the first unalienable right: a right to life
Society is constructed of people but it's not an independently
existing thing. All choices are always and only made by the
individual.
The social consciousness is just shadows on the wall.
A right to life does not mean that you or anyone else can rightly >>>>>> require that other people must support you. That path leads
inevitably to an erosion of the spirit of cooperation and
ultimately to tyranny.
-a-a > nice platitudes bro
-a-a >
-a-a > #god
u just don't give a fuck about the actual reality most people face:
which is they are forced to cooperate with the system that exist
and have no meaningful other option
No matter what happens you will be forced to cooperate with the
system that exists. We all have to deal with it.
forced cooperation is an oxymoron u dope, ur directly admitting this
is *not* a voluntary system
As to the inherent unfairness of living in a world with no new
unconquered frontiers, yeah. No more free land for the taking.
which is forced upon me without my consent just like any other tyranny
On the potential upside, you probably don't have to fight the locals
who want to kill you just for being there, and you get support from
the government to make ends meet so you don't starve or freeze.
yeah cause otherwise revolts would happen
i don't have any intention of revolting,
but that's cause i don't need to:
enough transparency will end capitalism as we know it
When the pioneers got dysentery they just died.
You're not forced, you could buy a cheap used RV and move to Quartzite
Arizona, $180 rent for 6 months. Or pay no rent at all on BLM land if
you don't mind moving your location once in a while.
https://youtu.be/yBxh33Nv-BY
americans and forcing indigenous peoples into the fucking desert:
-a > name a more iconic duo EfOa
-a >
-a > #god
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 16:56:54 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/28/2026 9:50 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 12:32:13 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Maybe you can cite some thinkers or philosophers that would back up your
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 9:37 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:12:47 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 2/27/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 16:53:58 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:You are living. You have an inalienable right to life. You've failed to >>>>>> cite a single source that would back up your theory.
On 2/27/2026 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 14:38:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote:Rights are for the living, not the dead.
Eventually the bill for that sort of wrong thinking and those >>>>>>>>>> destructive actions comes due.
But probably not for you if you were mistreated and are now dead. >>>>>>>>
What good are they if you died anyway?
There are no sources either way. There are assertions which you can >>>>> adopt or not. I simply appeal to your obviously limited good sense. >>>>> If I can die, I have no right to life. So far I have been lucky and >>>>> beat the odds. But that is simply, finally luck.
Maybe it's luck that you're alive, maybe it's karma.
Yeah I know you deny karma as well even though there's thousands of
years of evidence to support the idea. That's just more evidence that
you're retarded. But hey, no matter how stupid and backwards you might >>>> be there's always hope!
What you call evidence is widely discounted.
unconventional theories. Someone besides Karl Marx. You supposedly went
to university, right?
Can you name a libertarian who counts as a known philosopher. I would
say that libertarianism itself is not a philosophy. Neither is
commercialism nor communism.
Almost the entire Western civilization was built on liberal principles.
Liberal principles are not composed entirely of what you choose to
believe.
Regardless, since I lived so long this time, maybe next time will be
short. Karma. I'll come back as a fruit fly. One week life span.
On 2/28/2026 5:25 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 16:56:54 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:So, I thought you said you went to university. Maybe Philosophy was an >elective where you went to school. Go figure.
On 2/28/2026 9:50 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 12:32:13 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Maybe you can cite some thinkers or philosophers that would back up your >>> unconventional theories. Someone besides Karl Marx. You supposedly went
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 9:37 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:12:47 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 2/27/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 16:53:58 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:You are living. You have an inalienable right to life. You've failed to >>>>>>> cite a single source that would back up your theory.
On 2/27/2026 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 14:38:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:Rights are for the living, not the dead.
Eventually the bill for that sort of wrong thinking and those >>>>>>>>>>> destructive actions comes due.
But probably not for you if you were mistreated and are now dead. >>>>>>>>>
What good are they if you died anyway?
There are no sources either way. There are assertions which you can >>>>>> adopt or not. I simply appeal to your obviously limited good sense. >>>>>> If I can die, I have no right to life. So far I have been lucky and >>>>>> beat the odds. But that is simply, finally luck.
Maybe it's luck that you're alive, maybe it's karma.
Yeah I know you deny karma as well even though there's thousands of
years of evidence to support the idea. That's just more evidence that >>>>> you're retarded. But hey, no matter how stupid and backwards you might >>>>> be there's always hope!
What you call evidence is widely discounted.
to university, right?
Can you name a libertarian who counts as a known philosopher. I would
say that libertarianism itself is not a philosophy. Neither is
commercialism nor communism.
Robert Nozick (1938u2002) is the most prominent libertarian philosopher, >best known for his 1974 book Anarchy, State, and Utopia, which
rigorously defended a minimal state and individual rights.
A Harvard professor, NozickAs work is a cornerstone of modern political >philosophy.
--Almost the entire Western civilization was built on liberal principles.
Liberal principles are not composed entirely of what you choose to
believe.
Regardless, since I lived so long this time, maybe next time will be
short. Karma. I'll come back as a fruit fly. One week life span.
On 2/27/2026 7:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/27/26 11:38 AM, Wilson wrote:Thank you for your opinion and bleating out, Nick.
On 2/27/2026 1:32 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/27/26 10:24 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/27/2026 1:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/27/26 8:34 AM, Dude wrote:
On 2/26/2026 8:27 PM, dart200 wrote:bruh ur a fking retard dude
On 2/26/26 7:12 PM, Dude wrote:Apparently, you have not thought this through.
On 2/26/2026 4:09 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 3:46 PM, Dude wrote:Apparently, you have not thot this thru:
So, just for the record, I am not on Medicaid.
i am tho:
no premiums. no deductible. no co-pay. no co-insurance. no >>>>>>>>>> fsa/ hsa reimbursement bullshit. no separate dental/vision plans. >>>>>>>>>>
just go to doctor and get treated. i can just go the ER
without worrying about costs. i can call an ambulance without >>>>>>>>>> having to worry about costs. if there is a *pressing* issue i >>>>>>>>>> get treated within necessary timeframes, and i have access to >>>>>>>>>> some of the best doctors around (wife will give birth at
stanford). if not maybe i need to wait longer. tbh i'll take >>>>>>>>>> waiting a bit over not have to worry about the astronomically >>>>>>>>>> retarded payment systems american financiers devised for
medicine so consumers *cant* figure out what the true costs of >>>>>>>>>> service ever are...
like holy fuck anyone advocating for non-socialized care is >>>>>>>>>> engaging with nothing but a fantastically fallacious facade of >>>>>>>>>> critical thot
The solution to free medical care and a balanced US budget is a >>>>>>>>> flat tax that everyone pays, no exceptions. No loopholes. Can't >>>>>>>>> you read?
i'm sorry how does a balanced budget magically get us universal >>>>>>>> medical care???
A flat federal income tax would fund universal health care. It's >>>>>>> not complicated. Everyone pays equally, everyone get care equitably. >>>>>>
ur focus on this nonsense form of false equity is total brainrot
Equity is a demand for equal outcomes. That is retarded and
ultimately leads to social decay and eventual destruction.
life. liberty. pursuit of happiness. if those outcomes aren't
happening for all peoples then american is failing,
we don't even both to measure whether people think they have those
rights in this country,
measuring that will be a form of transparency that modern
politicians can't even conceive of yet,
Equality before the law is a principle based on cooperation and
fairness that ultimately leads to greater social harmony and
prosperity.
They are not even remotely the same thing at all.
and i fking dgaf about ur semantic quibbling wilson. it's merely a
tool for u to separate out and ignore the sin u support.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not things that can be
THEY ARE INALIENABLE RIGHTS AND IF THEY ARE NOT RESPECTED FOR ALL
PEOPLES, THEN SOCIETY NEEDS TO BE REEVALUATED AT A FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL.
HAVE U BOTHERED TO CONSIDER THAT MAYBE WE SHOULD FUCKING ASK PEOPLE IF
THEY FEEL THOSE RIGHTS HAVE BEEN RESPECTED FOR THEIR LIFE???
NO, NONE OF THE ABJECT BASTARDS LIKE U WANT THAT...
CAUSE WE ALL FKING KNOW WHAT THE FKING ANSWER WOULD BE, IF PEOPLE THOT
THE VOTE WOULD ACTUALLY MATTER...
-a-a > u instead want to tyrannically dictate with irrelevant platitude
-a-a >
-a-a > #god
fking pulling me hairs out this should be fking obvious but my god if
u fking overhyped apes ever want to ensure those rights are fking
respected for people rather than just endlessly bleating out
platitudes for them
We've had hundreds pass through here, mental cases, over the years. Some totally crashed out. Nobody know what happened to them - probably over indulged on some mushrooms or just aged out.
Have you considered that there's no psychiatrist here at present on this discussion group? You might need to see a local therapist, instead of depending on Wilson for help.
First, just admit you have mental problems. Just put down the pipe down
and pick up the phone and dial this number:
1-800-222-2222 and ask for help. It's nothing to be ashamed of.
FAQ: The opinions expressed by subscribers on this list are their own
and do not necessarily represent the views of all informants.
P.S. Please refrain from using all caps in your messaging. That could be construed as shouting by other respondents and is considered to be rude
and infantile. This is an adult discussion group.
--dictated or distributed. Even in the best of situations they can only
represent opportunities. The best possible purpose of government is
to make sure those and other natural rights are not trampled upon so
people can flourish. This is not semantic quibbling. If a government
doesn't protect the natural rights of the people it governs, it loses
its reason and mandate for being. If, in it's desire to enforce
equitable outcomes it restricts those rights from the people, it has
failed.
Governments, systems, and societies sometimes do harm people with
repressive policies. But the reality of natural law cannot be denied
forever. Eventually the bill for that sort of wrong thinking and
those destructive actions comes due.
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 17:34:56 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/27/2026 7:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/27/26 11:38 AM, Wilson wrote:Thank you for your opinion and bleating out, Nick.
On 2/27/2026 1:32 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/27/26 10:24 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/27/2026 1:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/27/26 8:34 AM, Dude wrote:
On 2/26/2026 8:27 PM, dart200 wrote:bruh ur a fking retard dude
On 2/26/26 7:12 PM, Dude wrote:Apparently, you have not thought this through.
On 2/26/2026 4:09 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 3:46 PM, Dude wrote:Apparently, you have not thot this thru:
So, just for the record, I am not on Medicaid.
i am tho:
no premiums. no deductible. no co-pay. no co-insurance. no fsa/ >>>>>>>>>>> hsa reimbursement bullshit. no separate dental/vision plans. >>>>>>>>>>>
just go to doctor and get treated. i can just go the ER without >>>>>>>>>>> worrying about costs. i can call an ambulance without having to >>>>>>>>>>> worry about costs. if there is a *pressing* issue i get treated >>>>>>>>>>> within necessary timeframes, and i have access to some of the >>>>>>>>>>> best doctors around (wife will give birth at stanford). if not >>>>>>>>>>> maybe i need to wait longer. tbh i'll take waiting a bit over >>>>>>>>>>> not have to worry about the astronomically retarded payment >>>>>>>>>>> systems american financiers devised for medicine so consumers >>>>>>>>>>> *cant* figure out what the true costs of service ever are... >>>>>>>>>>>
like holy fuck anyone advocating for non-socialized care is >>>>>>>>>>> engaging with nothing but a fantastically fallacious facade of >>>>>>>>>>> critical thot
The solution to free medical care and a balanced US budget is a >>>>>>>>>> flat tax that everyone pays, no exceptions. No loopholes. Can't >>>>>>>>>> you read?
i'm sorry how does a balanced budget magically get us universal >>>>>>>>> medical care???
A flat federal income tax would fund universal health care. It's >>>>>>>> not complicated. Everyone pays equally, everyone get care equitably. >>>>>>>
ur focus on this nonsense form of false equity is total brainrot
Equity is a demand for equal outcomes. That is retarded and
ultimately leads to social decay and eventual destruction.
life. liberty. pursuit of happiness. if those outcomes aren't
happening for all peoples then american is failing,
we don't even both to measure whether people think they have those
rights in this country,
measuring that will be a form of transparency that modern politicians >>>>> can't even conceive of yet,
Equality before the law is a principle based on cooperation and
fairness that ultimately leads to greater social harmony and
prosperity.
They are not even remotely the same thing at all.
and i fking dgaf about ur semantic quibbling wilson. it's merely a
tool for u to separate out and ignore the sin u support.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not things that can be
THEY ARE INALIENABLE RIGHTS AND IF THEY ARE NOT RESPECTED FOR ALL
PEOPLES, THEN SOCIETY NEEDS TO BE REEVALUATED AT A FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL.
HAVE U BOTHERED TO CONSIDER THAT MAYBE WE SHOULD FUCKING ASK PEOPLE IF
THEY FEEL THOSE RIGHTS HAVE BEEN RESPECTED FOR THEIR LIFE???
NO, NONE OF THE ABJECT BASTARDS LIKE U WANT THAT...
CAUSE WE ALL FKING KNOW WHAT THE FKING ANSWER WOULD BE, IF PEOPLE THOT
THE VOTE WOULD ACTUALLY MATTER...
-a > u instead want to tyrannically dictate with irrelevant platitude
-a >
-a > #god
fking pulling me hairs out this should be fking obvious but my god if u
fking overhyped apes ever want to ensure those rights are fking
respected for people rather than just endlessly bleating out platitudes
for them
We've had hundreds pass through here, mental cases, over the years. Some
totally crashed out. Nobody know what happened to them - probably over
indulged on some mushrooms or just aged out.
Have you considered that there's no psychiatrist here at present on this
discussion group? You might need to see a local therapist, instead of
depending on Wilson for help.
First, just admit you have mental problems. Just put down the pipe down
and pick up the phone and dial this number:
1-800-222-2222 and ask for help. It's nothing to be ashamed of.
FAQ: The opinions expressed by subscribers on this list are their own
and do not necessarily represent the views of all informants.
P.S. Please refrain from using all caps in your messaging. That could be
construed as shouting by other respondents and is considered to be rude
and infantile. This is an adult discussion group.
Ok, mom.
It is bad form to accuse people who disagree with you of needing to
get help. You are not qualified to make that determination. Neither
am I.
dictated or distributed. Even in the best of situations they can only
represent opportunities. The best possible purpose of government is to >>>> make sure those and other natural rights are not trampled upon so
people can flourish. This is not semantic quibbling. If a government
doesn't protect the natural rights of the people it governs, it loses
its reason and mandate for being. If, in it's desire to enforce
equitable outcomes it restricts those rights from the people, it has
failed.
Governments, systems, and societies sometimes do harm people with
repressive policies. But the reality of natural law cannot be denied
forever. Eventually the bill for that sort of wrong thinking and those >>>> destructive actions comes due.
On 2/28/26 5:34 PM, Dude wrote:
On 2/27/2026 7:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/27/26 11:38 AM, Wilson wrote:Thank you for your opinion and bleating out, Nick.
On 2/27/2026 1:32 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/27/26 10:24 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/27/2026 1:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/27/26 8:34 AM, Dude wrote:
On 2/26/2026 8:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 7:12 PM, Dude wrote:Apparently, you have not thought this through.
On 2/26/2026 4:09 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/26/26 3:46 PM, Dude wrote:Apparently, you have not thot this thru:
So, just for the record, I am not on Medicaid.
i am tho:
no premiums. no deductible. no co-pay. no co-insurance. no >>>>>>>>>>> fsa/ hsa reimbursement bullshit. no separate dental/vision >>>>>>>>>>> plans.
just go to doctor and get treated. i can just go the ER >>>>>>>>>>> without worrying about costs. i can call an ambulance without >>>>>>>>>>> having to worry about costs. if there is a *pressing* issue i >>>>>>>>>>> get treated within necessary timeframes, and i have access to >>>>>>>>>>> some of the best doctors around (wife will give birth at >>>>>>>>>>> stanford). if not maybe i need to wait longer. tbh i'll take >>>>>>>>>>> waiting a bit over not have to worry about the astronomically >>>>>>>>>>> retarded payment systems american financiers devised for >>>>>>>>>>> medicine so consumers *cant* figure out what the true costs >>>>>>>>>>> of service ever are...
like holy fuck anyone advocating for non-socialized care is >>>>>>>>>>> engaging with nothing but a fantastically fallacious facade >>>>>>>>>>> of critical thot
The solution to free medical care and a balanced US budget is >>>>>>>>>> a flat tax that everyone pays, no exceptions. No loopholes. >>>>>>>>>> Can't you read?
i'm sorry how does a balanced budget magically get us universal >>>>>>>>> medical care???
A flat federal income tax would fund universal health care. It's >>>>>>>> not complicated. Everyone pays equally, everyone get care
equitably.
bruh ur a fking retard dude
ur focus on this nonsense form of false equity is total brainrot
Equity is a demand for equal outcomes. That is retarded and
ultimately leads to social decay and eventual destruction.
life. liberty. pursuit of happiness. if those outcomes aren't
happening for all peoples then american is failing,
we don't even both to measure whether people think they have those
rights in this country,
measuring that will be a form of transparency that modern
politicians can't even conceive of yet,
Equality before the law is a principle based on cooperation and
fairness that ultimately leads to greater social harmony and
prosperity.
They are not even remotely the same thing at all.
and i fking dgaf about ur semantic quibbling wilson. it's merely a
tool for u to separate out and ignore the sin u support.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not things that can be
THEY ARE INALIENABLE RIGHTS AND IF THEY ARE NOT RESPECTED FOR ALL
PEOPLES, THEN SOCIETY NEEDS TO BE REEVALUATED AT A FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL.
HAVE U BOTHERED TO CONSIDER THAT MAYBE WE SHOULD FUCKING ASK PEOPLE
IF THEY FEEL THOSE RIGHTS HAVE BEEN RESPECTED FOR THEIR LIFE???
NO, NONE OF THE ABJECT BASTARDS LIKE U WANT THAT...
CAUSE WE ALL FKING KNOW WHAT THE FKING ANSWER WOULD BE, IF PEOPLE
THOT THE VOTE WOULD ACTUALLY MATTER...
-a-a > u instead want to tyrannically dictate with irrelevant platitude
-a-a >
-a-a > #god
fking pulling me hairs out this should be fking obvious but my god if
u fking overhyped apes ever want to ensure those rights are fking
respected for people rather than just endlessly bleating out
platitudes for them
We've had hundreds pass through here, mental cases, over the years.
Some totally crashed out. Nobody know what happened to them - probably
over indulged on some mushrooms or just aged out.
Have you considered that there's no psychiatrist here at present on
this discussion group? You might need to see a local therapist,
instead of depending on Wilson for help.
First, just admit you have mental problems. Just put down the pipe
down and pick up the phone and dial this number:
1-800-222-2222 and ask for help. It's nothing to be ashamed of.
FAQ: The opinions expressed by subscribers on this list are their own
and do not necessarily represent the views of all informants.
P.S. Please refrain from using all caps in your messaging. That could
be construed as shouting by other respondents and is considered to be
rude and infantile. This is an adult discussion group.
YOU DISHONEST GASLIGHTING MOTHERFUCKING PIECE OF FALLACIOUS GARBAGE
u don't even have the fking balls to care about anything,
this is all just a fking shitposting game to you,
u think u "win" when u care the least,
-a > sociopath
-a >
-a > #god
but that's actually still losing,
-a > the only winning is consensus
-a >
-a > #god
so really we're all losers,
-a > amen
-a >
-a > #god
loser.
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 21:48:20 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/28/2026 5:25 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 16:56:54 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:So, I thought you said you went to university. Maybe Philosophy was an
On 2/28/2026 9:50 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 12:32:13 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Maybe you can cite some thinkers or philosophers that would back up your >>>> unconventional theories. Someone besides Karl Marx. You supposedly went >>>> to university, right?
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 9:37 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:12:47 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2/27/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 16:53:58 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote:You are living. You have an inalienable right to life. You've failed to
On 2/27/2026 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 14:38:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:Rights are for the living, not the dead.
Eventually the bill for that sort of wrong thinking and those >>>>>>>>>>>> destructive actions comes due.
But probably not for you if you were mistreated and are now dead. >>>>>>>>>>
What good are they if you died anyway?
cite a single source that would back up your theory.
There are no sources either way. There are assertions which you can >>>>>>> adopt or not. I simply appeal to your obviously limited good sense. >>>>>>> If I can die, I have no right to life. So far I have been lucky and >>>>>>> beat the odds. But that is simply, finally luck.
Maybe it's luck that you're alive, maybe it's karma.
Yeah I know you deny karma as well even though there's thousands of >>>>>> years of evidence to support the idea. That's just more evidence that >>>>>> you're retarded. But hey, no matter how stupid and backwards you might >>>>>> be there's always hope!
What you call evidence is widely discounted.
Can you name a libertarian who counts as a known philosopher. I would
say that libertarianism itself is not a philosophy. Neither is
commercialism nor communism.
elective where you went to school. Go figure.
Robert Nozick (1938rCo2002) is the most prominent libertarian philosopher, >> best known for his 1974 book Anarchy, State, and Utopia, which
rigorously defended a minimal state and individual rights.
A Harvard professor, NozickrCOs work is a cornerstone of modern political
philosophy.
Purveyors of political philosophy are not philosophers. When I took philosophy, the prof was absorbed with existentialism, and probably
had not a thought at all for libertarianism. Because existentialism
is very much a philosophy while libertarianism is a system of
political ideas and is pleased to call itself a philosophy. Which
anybody can do, which does not make them philosophers.
Almost the entire Western civilization was built on liberal principles. >>>Liberal principles are not composed entirely of what you choose to
believe.
Regardless, since I lived so long this time, maybe next time will be >>>>> short. Karma. I'll come back as a fruit fly. One week life span.
On 2/28/2026 10:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 21:48:20 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Get a grip! You have not even defined the term libertarian, much less >existentialism. What are you even talking about?
On 2/28/2026 5:25 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 16:56:54 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>So, I thought you said you went to university. Maybe Philosophy was an
On 2/28/2026 9:50 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 12:32:13 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:Maybe you can cite some thinkers or philosophers that would back up your >>>>> unconventional theories. Someone besides Karl Marx. You supposedly went >>>>> to university, right?
On 2/27/2026 9:37 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:12:47 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2/27/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 16:53:58 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:You are living. You have an inalienable right to life. You've failed to
On 2/27/2026 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 14:38:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Rights are for the living, not the dead.
wrote:
Eventually the bill for that sort of wrong thinking and those >>>>>>>>>>>>> destructive actions comes due.
But probably not for you if you were mistreated and are now dead. >>>>>>>>>>>
What good are they if you died anyway?
cite a single source that would back up your theory.
There are no sources either way. There are assertions which you can >>>>>>>> adopt or not. I simply appeal to your obviously limited good sense. >>>>>>>> If I can die, I have no right to life. So far I have been lucky and >>>>>>>> beat the odds. But that is simply, finally luck.
Maybe it's luck that you're alive, maybe it's karma.
Yeah I know you deny karma as well even though there's thousands of >>>>>>> years of evidence to support the idea. That's just more evidence that >>>>>>> you're retarded. But hey, no matter how stupid and backwards you might >>>>>>> be there's always hope!
What you call evidence is widely discounted.
Can you name a libertarian who counts as a known philosopher. I would >>>> say that libertarianism itself is not a philosophy. Neither is
commercialism nor communism.
elective where you went to school. Go figure.
Robert Nozick (1938u2002) is the most prominent libertarian philosopher, >>> best known for his 1974 book Anarchy, State, and Utopia, which
rigorously defended a minimal state and individual rights.
A Harvard professor, NozickAs work is a cornerstone of modern political
philosophy.
Purveyors of political philosophy are not philosophers. When I took
philosophy, the prof was absorbed with existentialism, and probably
had not a thought at all for libertarianism. Because existentialism
is very much a philosophy while libertarianism is a system of
political ideas and is pleased to call itself a philosophy. Which
anybody can do, which does not make them philosophers.
Let's start by first defining the word liberty:
American liberty is a foundational principle emphasizing the protection--
of individual natural rightsusuch as speech, religion, and propertyufrom >government overreach.
Rooted in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, it >represents a commitment to self-governance, limited government, and the >pursuit of personal happiness.
It encompasses both "freedom from" coercion and "freedom for" virtuous, >responsible living. - Webster's
Almost the entire Western civilization was built on liberal principles. >>>>Liberal principles are not composed entirely of what you choose to
believe.
Regardless, since I lived so long this time, maybe next time will be >>>>>> short. Karma. I'll come back as a fruit fly. One week life span. >>>>>>
On Sun, 1 Mar 2026 09:22:43 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/28/2026 10:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 21:48:20 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Get a grip! You have not even defined the term libertarian, much less
On 2/28/2026 5:25 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 16:56:54 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>So, I thought you said you went to university. Maybe Philosophy was an >>>> elective where you went to school. Go figure.
On 2/28/2026 9:50 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 12:32:13 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:Maybe you can cite some thinkers or philosophers that would back up your >>>>>> unconventional theories. Someone besides Karl Marx. You supposedly went >>>>>> to university, right?
On 2/27/2026 9:37 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:12:47 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/27/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 16:53:58 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:You are living. You have an inalienable right to life. You've failed to
On 2/27/2026 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 14:38:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Rights are for the living, not the dead.
wrote:
Eventually the bill for that sort of wrong thinking and those >>>>>>>>>>>>>> destructive actions comes due.
But probably not for you if you were mistreated and are now dead. >>>>>>>>>>>>
What good are they if you died anyway?
cite a single source that would back up your theory.
There are no sources either way. There are assertions which you can >>>>>>>>> adopt or not. I simply appeal to your obviously limited good sense. >>>>>>>>> If I can die, I have no right to life. So far I have been lucky and >>>>>>>>> beat the odds. But that is simply, finally luck.
Maybe it's luck that you're alive, maybe it's karma.
Yeah I know you deny karma as well even though there's thousands of >>>>>>>> years of evidence to support the idea. That's just more evidence that >>>>>>>> you're retarded. But hey, no matter how stupid and backwards you might >>>>>>>> be there's always hope!
What you call evidence is widely discounted.
Can you name a libertarian who counts as a known philosopher. I would >>>>> say that libertarianism itself is not a philosophy. Neither is
commercialism nor communism.
Robert Nozick (1938rCo2002) is the most prominent libertarian philosopher, >>>> best known for his 1974 book Anarchy, State, and Utopia, which
rigorously defended a minimal state and individual rights.
A Harvard professor, NozickrCOs work is a cornerstone of modern political >>>> philosophy.
Purveyors of political philosophy are not philosophers. When I took
philosophy, the prof was absorbed with existentialism, and probably
had not a thought at all for libertarianism. Because existentialism
is very much a philosophy while libertarianism is a system of
political ideas and is pleased to call itself a philosophy. Which
anybody can do, which does not make them philosophers.
existentialism. What are you even talking about?
I expect you to consult your dictionary if necessary.
Let's start by first defining the word liberty:
No, what we need is a definition for libertarian.
Not the same thing.>You can't take liberty out of libertarian. That would be a contradiction
American liberty is a foundational principle emphasizing the protection
of individual natural rightsrCosuch as speech, religion, and propertyrCofrom >> government overreach.
Rooted in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, it
represents a commitment to self-governance, limited government, and the
pursuit of personal happiness.
It encompasses both "freedom from" coercion and "freedom for" virtuous,
responsible living. - Webster's
Almost the entire Western civilization was built on liberal principles. >>>>>Liberal principles are not composed entirely of what you choose to
believe.
Regardless, since I lived so long this time, maybe next time will be >>>>>>> short. Karma. I'll come back as a fruit fly. One week life span. >>>>>>>
On 3/1/2026 10:14 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 1 Mar 2026 09:22:43 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:So, you don't even know what you're talking about, you just hate Wilson, >period.
On 2/28/2026 10:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 21:48:20 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>Get a grip! You have not even defined the term libertarian, much less
On 2/28/2026 5:25 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 16:56:54 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>So, I thought you said you went to university. Maybe Philosophy was an >>>>> elective where you went to school. Go figure.
On 2/28/2026 9:50 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 12:32:13 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:Maybe you can cite some thinkers or philosophers that would back up your
On 2/27/2026 9:37 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:12:47 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/27/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 16:53:58 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>You are living. You have an inalienable right to life. You've failed to
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 14:38:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
Eventually the bill for that sort of wrong thinking and those >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> destructive actions comes due.
But probably not for you if you were mistreated and are now dead.
Rights are for the living, not the dead.
What good are they if you died anyway?
cite a single source that would back up your theory.
There are no sources either way. There are assertions which you can >>>>>>>>>> adopt or not. I simply appeal to your obviously limited good sense. >>>>>>>>>> If I can die, I have no right to life. So far I have been lucky and >>>>>>>>>> beat the odds. But that is simply, finally luck.
Maybe it's luck that you're alive, maybe it's karma.
Yeah I know you deny karma as well even though there's thousands of >>>>>>>>> years of evidence to support the idea. That's just more evidence that >>>>>>>>> you're retarded. But hey, no matter how stupid and backwards you might
be there's always hope!
What you call evidence is widely discounted.
unconventional theories. Someone besides Karl Marx. You supposedly went >>>>>>> to university, right?
Can you name a libertarian who counts as a known philosopher. I would >>>>>> say that libertarianism itself is not a philosophy. Neither is
commercialism nor communism.
Robert Nozick (1938u2002) is the most prominent libertarian philosopher, >>>>> best known for his 1974 book Anarchy, State, and Utopia, which
rigorously defended a minimal state and individual rights.
A Harvard professor, NozickAs work is a cornerstone of modern political >>>>> philosophy.
Purveyors of political philosophy are not philosophers. When I took
philosophy, the prof was absorbed with existentialism, and probably
had not a thought at all for libertarianism. Because existentialism
is very much a philosophy while libertarianism is a system of
political ideas and is pleased to call itself a philosophy. Which
anybody can do, which does not make them philosophers.
existentialism. What are you even talking about?
I expect you to consult your dictionary if necessary.
Let's start by first defining the word liberty:
No, what we need is a definition for libertarian.
lib+er+tar+i+an
/?lib?r?ter??n/
noun
1. an advocate or supporter of a political philosophy that advocates
only minimal state intervention in the free market and the private lives
of citizens.
2. a person who advocates civil liberty.
adjective
relating to or denoting a political philosophy that advocates only
minimal state intervention in the free market and the private lives of >citizens. - Oxford Languages Dictionary
intervention in the private lives of citizens
Not the same thing.>You can't take liberty out of libertarian. That would be a contradiction
in terms. Where's Nick?
--
American liberty is a foundational principle emphasizing the protection
of individual natural rightsusuch as speech, religion, and propertyufrom >>> government overreach.
Rooted in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, it
represents a commitment to self-governance, limited government, and the
pursuit of personal happiness.
It encompasses both "freedom from" coercion and "freedom for" virtuous,
responsible living. - Webster's
Almost the entire Western civilization was built on liberal principles. >>>>>>Liberal principles are not composed entirely of what you choose to >>>>>> believe.
Regardless, since I lived so long this time, maybe next time will be >>>>>>>> short. Karma. I'll come back as a fruit fly. One week life span. >>>>>>>>
On 2/28/26 9:24 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/27/2026 10:49 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/27/26 11:00 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/27/2026 1:29 PM, dart200 wrote:
but the economic system took over the vast majority of productive
land and resources, that are required for one to survive,
so now it bears the responsibility that nature once had: ensuring
people can survive with in it. lest it's directly interfering with
the first unalienable right: a right to life
Society is constructed of people but it's not an independently
existing thing. All choices are always and only made by the individual. >>>>
The social consciousness is just shadows on the wall.
A right to life does not mean that you or anyone else can rightly
require that other people must support you. That path leads
inevitably to an erosion of the spirit of cooperation and ultimately
to tyranny.
-a-a > nice platitudes bro
-a-a >
-a-a > #god
u just don't give a fuck about the actual reality most people face:
which is they are forced to cooperate with the system that exist and
have no meaningful other option
No matter what happens you will be forced to cooperate with the system
that exists. We all have to deal with it.
forced cooperation is an oxymoron u dope, ur directly admitting this is *not* a voluntary system
As to the inherent unfairness of living in a world with no new
unconquered frontiers, yeah. No more free land for the taking.
which is forced upon me without my consent just like any other tyranny
On the potential upside, you probably don't have to fight the locals
who want to kill you just for being there, and you get support from
the government to make ends meet so you don't starve or freeze.
yeah cause otherwise revolts would happen
i don't have any intention of revolting,
but that's cause i don't need to:
enough transparency will end capitalism as we know it
When the pioneers got dysentery they just died.
On 2/28/2026 12:48 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/28/26 9:24 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/27/2026 10:49 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/27/26 11:00 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/27/2026 1:29 PM, dart200 wrote:
but the economic system took over the vast majority of productive >>>>>> land and resources, that are required for one to survive,
so now it bears the responsibility that nature once had: ensuring >>>>>> people can survive with in it. lest it's directly interfering with >>>>>> the first unalienable right: a right to life
Society is constructed of people but it's not an independently
existing thing. All choices are always and only made by the individual. >>>>>
The social consciousness is just shadows on the wall.
A right to life does not mean that you or anyone else can rightly
require that other people must support you. That path leads
inevitably to an erosion of the spirit of cooperation and ultimately >>>>> to tyranny.
aa > nice platitudes bro
aa >
aa > #god
u just don't give a fuck about the actual reality most people face:
which is they are forced to cooperate with the system that exist and
have no meaningful other option
No matter what happens you will be forced to cooperate with the system
that exists. We all have to deal with it.
forced cooperation is an oxymoron u dope, ur directly admitting this is
*not* a voluntary system
As to the inherent unfairness of living in a world with no new
unconquered frontiers, yeah. No more free land for the taking.
which is forced upon me without my consent just like any other tyranny
On the potential upside, you probably don't have to fight the locals
who want to kill you just for being there, and you get support from
the government to make ends meet so you don't starve or freeze.
yeah cause otherwise revolts would happen
i don't have any intention of revolting,
but that's cause i don't need to:
enough transparency will end capitalism as we know it
When the pioneers got dysentery they just died.
You're not forced, you could buy a cheap used RV
and move to Quartzite
Arizona, $180 rent for 6 months. Or pay no rent at all on BLM land if
you don't mind moving your location once in a while.
https://youtu.be/yBxh33Nv-BY--
On 2/28/2026 12:48 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/28/26 9:24 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/27/2026 10:49 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/27/26 11:00 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/27/2026 1:29 PM, dart200 wrote:
but the economic system took over the vast majority of productive >>>>>> land and resources, that are required for one to survive,
so now it bears the responsibility that nature once had: ensuring >>>>>> people can survive with in it. lest it's directly interfering with >>>>>> the first unalienable right: a right to life
Society is constructed of people but it's not an independently
existing thing. All choices are always and only made by the
individual.
The social consciousness is just shadows on the wall.
A right to life does not mean that you or anyone else can rightly
require that other people must support you. That path leads
inevitably to an erosion of the spirit of cooperation and
ultimately to tyranny.
-a-a > nice platitudes bro
-a-a >
-a-a > #god
u just don't give a fuck about the actual reality most people face:
which is they are forced to cooperate with the system that exist and
have no meaningful other option
No matter what happens you will be forced to cooperate with the
system that exists. We all have to deal with it.
forced cooperation is an oxymoron u dope, ur directly admitting this
is *not* a voluntary system
As to the inherent unfairness of living in a world with no new
unconquered frontiers, yeah. No more free land for the taking.
which is forced upon me without my consent just like any other tyranny
On the potential upside, you probably don't have to fight the locals
who want to kill you just for being there, and you get support from
the government to make ends meet so you don't starve or freeze.
yeah cause otherwise revolts would happen
i don't have any intention of revolting,
but that's cause i don't need to:
enough transparency will end capitalism as we know it
When the pioneers got dysentery they just died.
You're not forced, you could buy a cheap used RV and move to Quartzite Arizona, $180 rent for 6 months. Or pay no rent at all on BLM land if
you don't mind moving your location once in a while.
https://youtu.be/yBxh33Nv-BY
On 2/27/26 7:49 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/27/26 11:00 AM, Wilson wrote:
My ancestral heritage is an unbroken 250+ year lineage of farmers
who supported themselves with their own labor and rejected the
wider society on principle. This included going to jail for
refusing the military draft as they considered war to be murder.
They also rejected any sort of reliance on or financial support
from that society, instead depending on their like-minded neighbors >>>>> when the need arose. They freely made those choices and considered
them necessary to maintain their integrity.
that's a nice story. doesn't really have anything to do with today tho
They continue to hold those beliefs and are still living that way
today, Nick.
do i have an unbroken 250+ year linage of farmers who staked out
territory so that i can live separate from society?
oh ur fking amish???
i'm not fking amish bro
no!
then it has fuck all to do with me, or most people that exist. those
people u mention have an advantage of have a stake made long before
all the territory was claimed...
so it's not relevant to someone like me who has no such lineage!
fking moronic capital apologists and their retarded storytelling that
ignores the actual realities most people face
-a-a > fuck u dude, ur a disgusting facade of actual morality
-a-a >
-a-a > #god
That is a valid path.
Demanding that other people support you just because you're
breathing is not.
i know ur going to go grave with ur ungodly ignorance, and maybe the
lord can spare u some mercy when u do...
but the economic system took over the vast majority of productive
land and resources, that are required for one to survive,
so now it bears the responsibility that nature once had: ensuring
people can survive with in it. lest it's directly interfering with
the first unalienable right: a right to life
Society is constructed of people but it's not an independently
existing thing. All choices are always and only made by the individual.
The social consciousness is just shadows on the wall.
A right to life does not mean that you or anyone else can rightly
require that other people must support you. That path leads
inevitably to an erosion of the spirit of cooperation and ultimately
to tyranny.
-a-a > nice platitudes bro
-a-a >
-a-a > #god
u just don't give a fuck about the actual reality most people face:
which is they are forced to cooperate with the system that exist and
have no meaningful other option
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 12:32:13 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 9:37 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:12:47 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/27/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 16:53:58 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>You are living. You have an inalienable right to life. You've failed to >>>> cite a single source that would back up your theory.
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 14:38:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:Rights are for the living, not the dead.
Eventually the bill for that sort of wrong thinking and those
destructive actions comes due.
But probably not for you if you were mistreated and are now dead. >>>>>>
What good are they if you died anyway?
There are no sources either way. There are assertions which you can
adopt or not. I simply appeal to your obviously limited good sense.
If I can die, I have no right to life. So far I have been lucky and
beat the odds. But that is simply, finally luck.
Maybe it's luck that you're alive, maybe it's karma.
Yeah I know you deny karma as well even though there's thousands of
years of evidence to support the idea. That's just more evidence that
you're retarded. But hey, no matter how stupid and backwards you might
be there's always hope!
What you call evidence is widely discounted.
Regardless, since I lived so long this time, maybe next time will be
short. Karma. I'll come back as a fruit fly. One week life span.
On 2/28/2026 9:50 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 12:32:13 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Maybe you can cite some thinkers or philosophers that would back up your >unconventional theories. Someone besides Karl Marx. You supposedly went
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 9:37 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:12:47 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 2/27/2026 1:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 16:53:58 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:You are living. You have an inalienable right to life. You've failed to >>>>> cite a single source that would back up your theory.
On 2/27/2026 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 14:38:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:Rights are for the living, not the dead.
Eventually the bill for that sort of wrong thinking and those >>>>>>>>> destructive actions comes due.
But probably not for you if you were mistreated and are now dead. >>>>>>>
What good are they if you died anyway?
There are no sources either way. There are assertions which you can
adopt or not. I simply appeal to your obviously limited good sense.
If I can die, I have no right to life. So far I have been lucky and
beat the odds. But that is simply, finally luck.
Maybe it's luck that you're alive, maybe it's karma.
Yeah I know you deny karma as well even though there's thousands of
years of evidence to support the idea. That's just more evidence that
you're retarded. But hey, no matter how stupid and backwards you might
be there's always hope!
What you call evidence is widely discounted.
to university, right?
Almost the entire Western civilization was built on liberal principles.
Regardless, since I lived so long this time, maybe next time will be
short. Karma. I'll come back as a fruit fly. One week life span.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 59 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 20:57:47 |
| Calls: | 810 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,287 |
| D/L today: |
11 files (21,026K bytes) |
| Messages: | 194,568 |