Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Smitty_The_One t1_isa8d5n wrote

Reply to comment by AdequateSteakAlister in Dame Kelly Holmes opens up on her mental health issues - and calls for government to do more by zarabarrus

When you say “governmental responsibility” what you’re actually saying is that it should be the responsibility of all working citizens to fund. Your mental health is not an expense that should be forced on me, sorry. Do what you need to do for yourself, but keep your hands out of my pockets in the process unless it’s something universal like roads. Just because I’m passionate about Fraggle Rock doesn’t mean I should be able to EFT money out of your account to pay for it so I can watch it. It’s just the concept… you’re making everyone pay for something that not everyone needs and you’re wondering why they’d be upset about that? When you pay taxes yourself one day I’m sure you’ll understand. Guess this comment makes me a Boomer, even though I’m under 40.

−4

ColgateSensifoam t1_isaoa6d wrote

Are you aware that your government spends more of your taxes on healthcare than most "socialised" healthcare systems do?

2

Smitty_The_One t1_isaq6a2 wrote

Are you aware that I’m not happy with that?

−1

ColgateSensifoam t1_isaqm33 wrote

You're advocating for it

I suppose you'd rather live with zero taxes and zero government?

2

Smitty_The_One t1_isarhea wrote

I’m fine with limited government. Busting monopolies and handling roads and shit like that. I just do not agree that the government is the answer to every problem. The government cannot do ANYTHING efficiently. It’s like making a donation to the Red Cross thru some third party company that keeps 95% of the profit. The government will overspend and mismanage funds for every project it is involved in… if a private company can accomplish something without the government being involved, then absolutely the government doesn’t need to be involved. When their budgets are in the billions they stop caring about how they spend millions, and we end up footing the bill. Y’all wanna pass a bill for every issue that you think needs to be “solved”, and that’s just a naive way of thinking about things if you understand how the government works.

0

ColgateSensifoam t1_isbtn06 wrote

So you don't consider public health something that the government should have a hand in? Despite it being one of the largest contributors to GDP?

We've shown time and time again that privatisation leads to more loss than nationalisation.

I'm in favour of more regulation, including regulatory oversight of government to prevent the corruption that you have such an issue with

2

Smitty_The_One t1_isbz8r1 wrote

The problem is more inefficiency and idiocy than it is corruption. Laws don’t make the government understand business or industry or do things in an efficient manner. They paid $300 million to design a fucking website (healthcare.gov) which was buggy and didn’t do what it was supposed to do for most of the first year it was live. If that contract had gone to someone with actual experience building such a website, that cost would’ve been much lower and the functionality would’ve been much better. It’s still a shitshow that functions on the level of Geocities. Apply that efficiency and expertise to any problem, and that’s what you’re getting with the government handling it.

1

ColgateSensifoam t1_isc15zb wrote

Again, you're targeting corruption and labelling it as inefficiency.

Who built that website?

Who owns that company?

Who selected them as the website builders?

Who got kickbacks?

1

Smitty_The_One t1_isc3uvy wrote

What law is going to stop the decision maker from giving a high dollar contract to his unqualified buddy? He’s the decision maker for a reason. The buddy doesn’t have to pay him directly as a kickback, they can offer benefits or disguise shit thru shell corporations etc. Adding more people to the government payroll isn’t going to stop that… replacing the current ones with competent/honorable people might, but good fucking luck with that. The only option is to make it so the only things the government is involved in are things that they MUST be involved in, leave the other shit to the market to handle. It will. If someone is gouging people for a service then someone else will come along and undercut them to get the business. That model works a lot better than the government stealing a bunch of money from its citizens and then blindly shelling it out to buddies of the decision makers. PPP loans are no different if you want a more recent example. We could form committees to make these kinds of decisions but look at the Supreme Court… the most “honorable” group in the land is a fucking shit show. Government is not the answer here.

Nobody has shown “time and again” that privatization leads to more issues by the way… that statement is false. Show me 3 examples where the government handled something better than a private company could. I literally don’t think you can find one example in the US.

−1

AdequateSteakAlister t1_isetc3a wrote

Do yer own ressrrch... You can't find "the Market works" for the many literally anywhere. Nursing homes, jails, hospitals all killed people more when privatized. There's your three. Got any more brilliance or are you just sporting angry. Probably just a bot really. Russians love to get the world fighting. Look at his history. Def a bot.

1

ColgateSensifoam t1_isc4x1u wrote

Anticorruption and proper procurement laws?

Again, your issues are with the system your country uses, and the corruption that leads to

Democratically elected individuals, rather than parties, are a much better way of handling things. Likewise, having public officials records open to public scrutiny has a huge part in preventing these backroom deals from happening

0

Smitty_The_One t1_isc5crz wrote

Whose gonna pass the anti corruption laws by the way? The corrupt congress we have who are lining their pockets with the current system? We can’t even pass term limits for these idiots… if you think they’re going to vote against their personal best interests then you’re wrong. If you’re not speaking about the USA in this argument then it’s probably apples to oranges.

0

ConflictGuru t1_isaa0tp wrote

You have to have a very high IQ to understand Fraggle Rock...

1

Smitty_The_One t1_isaah7j wrote

👏👏

Edit: listen to the Fraggle Rock theme song you young bastards

−6

AgingChris t1_isabarj wrote

>you’re making everyone pay for something that not everyone needs and you’re wondering why they’d be upset about that?

I feel this is a silly argument, ive personally never needed the fire brigade yet I don't whinge about paying taxes to support it. While I get what your saying to a degree we cannot cherry pick what our taxes go towards.

Also just because you don't need it now does not mean you won't need it later, like me and the fire brigade for example

−1

Smitty_The_One t1_isaketo wrote

I pay for my own health insurance. If I ever need medical services, I’ll go get them, I don’t need other taxpayers to fund that. Fire brigades are funded by property taxes… people that don’t own property in my county aren’t forced to help pay for my possible fire needs.

−3