World, Writing, Wealth discussion
World & Current Events
>
Mentality differences
Ian wrote: "The whole point of life, in my opinion, is to maximise your personal enjoyment so if you are thinking of retirement, which would you enjoy more: working or retirement, bearing in mind enjoyment req..."If I had an option and plan to retire at age 54, I may have liked it. Doing so due to disability was miserable. My personal opinion though is we should all retire at 55 so we can enjoy 10 years of fun and then go back to work because we are bored but are no longer worn out from the grind.
Lizzie,I happen to concur with your statements in message 156.
The rules and regulations pertaining to the qualifications for government or priviate provider health insurance and coverage are often mind boggling and lack any semblance of logic or common sense.
Regarding your reference to the world revolving around you; in a way, it actually does. Our awareness of the existence of the universe and everyone and everything in it begins with our first cognizant thought and awareness as a baby. For us, that is when the universe began. It will end when we die.
Someone once said that everyone dies twice. The first time when our vital physical organs cease to function and the second time when the last person who remembers us dies. After that, it is as if we never existed. By the way, based upon your most recent profile picture, your universe will no doubt exist for many years to come.
Scout wrote: "People like her need affordable insurance, and I'm willing to pay more taxes so that she can have that - but in doing so, I don't want to give up the insurance plan I have worked for and be forced to go with a government plan - which, judging by Obamacare isn't affordable or dependable. We need a better plan for those who need insurance at an affordable rate without taking away coverage that people have paid into all their lives."What you're describing is the Australian/British system (except there's a lot more flexibility in the Australian system). People pay a dedicated levy (up to 3.2% - I think - of their income) which is devoted solely to the health system. That provides all the basics for free and if it's an emergency you'll be treated immediately. For non-urgent or elective surgery you'll be on a wait list, but you'll still get it for free.
People still have the option, if they wish, to pay for private health cover which makes everything effectively free but with access to immediate care in all cases, doctor of choice, and also covers dental and other treatments.
Everyone gets what they need and no-one goes bankrupt for having no cover and getting cancer.
Jim wrote: "One of Mark Twain's many published works which I think you might find worth reading: A Connecticut Yankee in King Author's Court . It is an entertaining story, while at the same time, being a powerful satiric indictment of established social and class norms."Great book and stands the test of time very well.
Adrian wrote: "Scout wrote: "People like her need affordable insurance, and I'm willing to pay more taxes so that she can have that - but in doing so, I don't want to give up the insurance plan I have worked for ..."It seems to be a good system, but one that favors the wealthy. I'm afraid that if we implement such a system in our country, I won't be wealthy enough to have the premium coverage that I do now, as a middle-class retired person. Do you see where I'm coming from?
Scout wrote: "Adrian wrote: "Scout wrote: "People like her need affordable insurance, and I'm willing to pay more taxes so that she can have that - but in doing so, I don't want to give up the insurance plan I h..."No, because it doesn't favour the wealthy.
The wealthy (who pay) get more but everyone gets what they need, for free.
Obviously nothing is free, but it feels free once you ignore the inevitable taxation.
You didn't really address my concerns: The wealthy pay more to get better treatment. I'm afraid that if we implement such a system in our country, I won't be wealthy enough to have the premium coverage that I do now, as a middle-class retired person. In other words, I have great insurance now: why would I want to change to a system that favors the wealthy and takes away what I have? That makes no sense.
You get health here for free, or the better health care in private hospitals too. But also, you can get insurance for the better care here too. I had that and I don't consider myself to be rich. Obviously I am not poor, but definitely not rich.
Scout wrote: "You didn't really address my concerns: The wealthy pay more to get better treatment. I'm afraid that if we implement such a system in our country, I won't be wealthy enough to have the premium coverage that I do now, as a middle-class retired person. In other words, I have great insurance now: why would I want to change to a system that favors the wealthy and takes away what I have? That makes no sense."Why would it take away what you already have?
Most middle class retirees here have the top cover.
That doesn't ease my mind. If I'm forced to participate in a government health care system, one that provides basic health care for all, I don't know how much more it will cost me to have the same coverage I have now. Nobody is addressing that when they talk about Universal Health Care. Why wouldn't I worry? Our government passes bills without even reading them, much less explaining the impact they'll have on citizens. Of course, I worry.
I can't really ease your mind as I'm talking about a system that has been in place nearly 40 years in Oz, so we're all used to it. God knows how any such system would be introduced in the US and what teething pains there might be during adjustment.The only thing I can say with any confidence is that - as a whole - the US community would be better off and healthier with a system like ours. There might be some individual pain/cost for some - depends on the many other choices the community would need/want to make.
And no-one would be going bankrupt for getting cancer.
I agree with Adrian's comment in message 167. There is always a period of adustment, involving trial and error, before any new program is established and begins to provide the desired benefits. The adage "No pain, no gain!" comes to mind.Every government-supported social program initiated and sustained in the United States (Social Security, Unemployment Benefits, Disability Benefits, Medicare, Medicade, Free School Lunch Programs, the Affordable Care Act, etc., etc.) were all initially met with general skepticism and reviled continuously by a small segment of the population.
Today, only a tiny segment of the population suggests eliminating any of the aforementioned programs. At 74 years of age, I personally benefit from and am grateful for Medicare and monthly Social Security retirement benefits and do not regret paying for them prior to retiring from the workforce in 2001.
Right, Jim, I paid into Medicare and have great benefits. I don't want to have them compromised at my age when I really need them. If I could be assured that I would keep what I have, I'd be all for some change for others; otherwise, I'll feel disenfranchised.
We have had the last two Presidents try for medical for all. They happened to be both Democrats. The first one (Clinton) tried to pull the stunt and not tell anyone what was in it and was found out. It died due to backlash. The second President (Obama) lied outright. It got through and has been a disaster. That one cost Obama both Houses of Congress. BTW, you want to know the biggest reason nobody trusts any of this? The politicians exempt themselves every time so they do not have to follow the law too. Now why do you suppose they do this? Because the healthcare is so good?
You want your socialized medicine, go ahead and enjoy. Yet, where are all of the medical breakthroughs happening? Yep, the good Ole U.S.A.
Living in New Jersey, we had the car insurance version of Obama care and it was a disaster. Less coverage and much higher premiums.
Papaphilly wrote: "You want your socialized medicine, go ahead and enjoy. Yet, where are all of the medical breakthroughs happening? Yep, the good Ole U.S.A"Sorry but that is very far from the truth. Medical research happens in all 1st world countries. Australia punches way above its weight when it comes to numerous aspects of health science - as does the UK, many parts of Europe, Canada, NZ, Japan and others.
I know where I'd rather be if I got sick.
Thing is, this discussion is supposed to be about differing mentalities rather than the benefits (or otherwise) of particular systems. So thanks for the insight...
Adrian wrote: "Thing is, this discussion is supposed to be about differing mentalities rather than the benefits (or otherwise) of particular systems. So thanks for the insight..."Difference in attitude... way of thinking. OK.
Tell us, have you ever hunted? Have you ever found yourself laid off the week before Xmas, knowing that success in the woods means a freezer full of meat? Have you ever sat shivering in a tree when you hear the deer walk beneath? Have you ever fought to steady your nerves as you take aim? Have you ever felt time stop as you squeeze the trigger? Have you ever felt the relief as you prey drops? Have you fought the urge to run out to it? Have you felt every emotion wash over you as you begin the work of gutting and packing it out? Have you ever felt gratitude as you fed the venison to your family?
How do you think such experiences color one's opinions of those who decry murdering Bambi and the evils of guns?
Now we're talking - great insight.I doubt it will change my views regarding guns but that was almost poetry.
Adrian wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "You want your socialized medicine, go ahead and enjoy. Yet, where are all of the medical breakthroughs happening? Yep, the good Ole U.S.A"Sorry but that is very far from the tr..."
https://www.scimagojr.com/countryrank...
Adrian wrote: "Now we're talking - great insight.I doubt it will change my views regarding guns but that was almost poetry."
It is not about changing your opinion. It is about showing there are more than one opinion and they are legitimate.
Adrian wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "https://www.scimagojr.com/countryrank..."
You said ALL the medical breakthroughs."
Give me a break. This proves my point. The broken American system is kicking ass. Your socialist system has to come to the U.S.
In have hunted, although in fairness not because I needed the food or I would starve (but I always ate what I got - I never killed for the sake of killing, and yes, game does taste better). As for the other emotions, not exactly, but I had a summer job as a student in a freezing works and when they are killing 3,600 animals a shift and you are working hard to keep up with the chain, emotions over the stages of dealing with a carcass tend to be mild.As for guns, my view is guns should be appropriate for legitimate purpose. Military weapons are designed to kill people, not to hunt, and I oppose fully automatic weapons and accessories that can make rifles automatic. I also object to the mentally unstable having them, and I also object to guns being available to people who do not know how to handle them. Does it take that much to get a licence to show you know what you are doing? Everyone who drives a car has to.
Ian wrote: "In have hunted, although in fairness not because I needed the food or I would starve (but I always ate what I got - I never killed for the sake of killing, and yes, game does taste better). As for ..."The difference is that cars are not in the Constitution. The right to bear arms is a right, not drive a car. As for weapons, all of them kill people.
Adrian wrote: "Now we're talking - great insight.I doubt it will change my views regarding guns but that was almost poetry."
But do you understand it?
Being "blooded" is an ancient rite of passage. It is one of the moments of pain and blood which separates the child from the adult. Many have set out to strip such rites of passage from society. They seek to create a kinder, gentler world. They only succeed in making soft, childish adults.
Firearms are tools. They do only what we use them for. There are no evil guns, only evil people.
In fairness, I am not that familiar with the US constitution, but I thought it was the right to bear arms and form a militia, not the right to go shooting all and sundry. I still think it would not hurt to require people to know what they were doing with guns. I can't see any militia would want members running around doing stupid things because they would be a hazard to their other militia members. The US army would not permit recruits to be ignorant of how their guns work.
Ian wrote: "In have hunted, although in fairness not because I needed the food or I would starve (but I always ate what I got - I never killed for the sake of killing, and yes, game does taste better). As for ..."I've always been amazed by people who talk about the "cruelty of hunting" over a belly full of McDonald's or chicken nuggets. Do they have any understanding of how a chicken becomes a piece of deep fried goo served with a dipping sauce?
At least you understand firearms as physical objects. Most of the Antis with which I've dealt just made up word salad to describe the magical murder machines that menace their nightmares. After you have explained the difference between semi-automatic and full auto fifteen times, you start to think that your opponents are more than a little disingenuous.
As for licensing, if you have to prove that you have a right, then it isn't a right. Hence the "shall not be abridged" clause.
Ian wrote: "In fairness, I am not that familiar with the US constitution, but I thought it was the right to bear arms and form a militia, not the right to go shooting all and sundry. I still think it would not..."The US was born with the understanding that the greatest threat to our liberty is our own government. Something about the Red Coats coming...
Therefore the Bill of Rights was written to limit government, not the people. To Jefferson and company, every man was a member of the militia who could band together to defend their homes and liberty.
There was a reason it was called the Bill of Rights.
Ian wrote: "In fairness, I am not that familiar with the US constitution, but I thought it was the right to bear arms and form a militia, not the right to go shooting all and sundry. I still think it would not..."It is the oldest Constitution on the the planet and it is the shortest. It is also the one all the rest were based upon.
Two of my sons-in-law and one of my grandchildren are avid hunters. They occasionally use bolt-action rifles and are excellent marksmen. However, they prefer bow hunitng when in-season because they say it is more personally challenging and satisfying. All three participated in state-sponsored weapons safety training and keep their rifles and ammunition secured in a safe specifically designed to store weapons. One of the sons-in-law served 23 years active duty in the U.S. Air Force, during which he met and married my daughter who served 4 years active dutiy in the Air Force and 18 years in the New Jersey Air Guard. It was during their military service that both became familiar with and proficient with firearms. Coincidentally, both retired with the rank of Senior Master Sergeant (E-8).
They often tease me because I prefer to not own a gun of any kind and do not hunt. They say they cannot understand why a former U.S. Marine and Vietnam veteran would not own a weapon. I respond that I often enjoy watching deer in my half-acre backyard. If any of them ever try to kill me, I will definitely procure a weapon and retaliate in-kind.
As long as a person is responsible, mature, procures and registers a weapon legally, and consistently operates and stores it safely, I have no objection.
Meanwhile Alec Baldwin "hunted" a Ukrainian photographer and killed her on the set: https://edition.cnn.com/2021/10/21/en...Not connected to anything, just a sad incident, but somebody needs to check those guns and their load
Nik wrote: "Meanwhile Alec Baldwin "hunted" a Ukrainian photographer and killed her on the set: https://edition.cnn.com/2021/10/21/en...Not connected to anything, just a ..."
Except for blanks, I can't think of any good reason why they would have live ammo on set. It brings to mind the sad series of events which led to Brandon Lee's death.
https://youtu.be/37IlM2gYg7Y
J. wrote: "Nik wrote: "Meanwhile Alec Baldwin "hunted" a Ukrainian photographer and killed her on the set: https://edition.cnn.com/2021/10/21/en...Not connected to anyth..."
Understand that was a stuck blank then another blank fired.
Don't understand why a weapon would be pointed at a cinema photographer/camera. Basic range safety never point loaded weapon (Or unloaded for that matter) at anyone.
I’m more or less with Jim on this. I don’t hunt, and have no desire to hunt because I enjoy just watching the animal kingdom in all its majesty, but I certainly don’t object to others hunting.
This conversation got me thinking…Every huntsman I’ve ever met has loved animals. Those that hunt for food respect their prey. Those who dress up in red to hunt what is (wrongly IMO) viewed as vermin love their dogs and horses, and are only killing what would be killed by farmers anyway. Fishermen either eat their catch or throw the fish back in the water unharmed.
However, I can’t agree with hunting when it is for no other purpose than ‘sport’. That attitude belongs in the past.
In terms of wider animal welfare issues, despite all of the medical and scientific advancements gained by it, I am extremely uncomfortable with animal testing. I’m not sure we have the right as a species to do that. As for those gimps who injected zoo animals with the experimental mRNA vaccines…well, I don’t think it’s the animals who deserve to be the ones held behind bars.
This conversation got me thinking…Every huntsman I’ve ever met has loved animals. Those that hunt for food respect their prey. Those who dress up in red to hunt what is (wrongly IMO) viewed as vermin love their dogs and horses, and are only killing what would be killed by farmers anyway. Fishermen either eat their catch or throw the fish back in the water unharmed.
However, I can’t agree with hunting when it is for no other purpose than ‘sport’. That attitude belongs in the past.
In terms of wider animal welfare issues, despite all of the medical and scientific advancements gained by it, I am extremely uncomfortable with animal testing. I’m not sure we have the right as a species to do that. As for those gimps who injected zoo animals with the experimental mRNA vaccines…well, I don’t think it’s the animals who deserve to be the ones held behind bars.
Philip wrote: "J. wrote: "Nik wrote: "Meanwhile Alec Baldwin "hunted" a Ukrainian photographer and killed her on the set: https://edition.cnn.com/2021/10/21/en...Not connect..."
The news here claimed there was one live round mixed with blanks, which suggests murder of another actor was planned. Whoever loaded the gun should be able to tell the difference between a blank and a live round, like seeing the actual bullet present.
But I too do not understand why a gun would be fired at a cameraman
Superbly stated, J.: "Firearms are tools. They do only what we use them for. There are no evil guns, only evil people." "Therefore the Bill of Rights was written to limit government, not the people. To Jefferson and company, every man was a member of the militia who could band together to defend their homes and liberty." Thanks.
If you want to talk about differing mentalities, Adrian, see PapaP's comment about universal health care: "BTW, you want to know the biggest reason nobody trusts any of this? The politicians exempt themselves every time so they do not have to follow the law too. Now why do you suppose they do this? Because the healthcare is so good?" What better example of differing mentalities? The pols want to keep their great coverage while proposing inferior coverage for the populace, who don't think that's fair. What do you say about this?
Papaphilly wrote: "Give me a break. This proves my point. The broken American system is kicking ass. Your socialist system has to come to the U.S."Clearly you don't understand the data you posted.
Ours isn't a socialist system by the way. Health is a priority for the way we spend public money.
Scout wrote: "What better example of differing mentalities? The pols want to keep their great coverage while proposing inferior coverage for the populace, who don't think that's fair. What do you say about this?"Frankly, I don't know enough about American politics or politicians to comment... I can really only limit my comments to differing mentalities and they are pretty different. We have a lot in common but some of the narratives are VERY different and it makes for very different communities and individuals.
I never judge other 1st world nations, but I am occasionally bewildered by their choices.
I'm also extremely charming so even when we disagree profoundly on certain issues, Poms and Americans can't help but like me.
Socialist is an adjective that seems to have different meanings to different people. For example, on medicine, from what I understand in the US there is medicare and care for the aged. If I am wrong, i apologise, but what you have is some government funded medical care and the rest private. In NZ the boundary is just in a different place - all people can have care, or they can pay insurance for better more comfortable care. The general care is not free - it comes out of tax. We pay a little more in tax but he medical care ends up a lot cheaper. We have a government organization that purchases drugs and passes these on to hospitals and pharmacies at cost. By buying large parcels and choosing carefully which suppliers are preferred, we get pharmaceuticls much cheaper than in the US. That government intervention could be called socialism, or it could be called good practice. Take your pick
I'm sure pharma and medical services vendors are the happiest, selling the same drugs and services times more expensive than elsewhere. The happy clients pay dearly much of their lives to have them covered and fear to be stripped of that privilege :(
In comment 191 and comment 193 Phillip and Ian express their confusion regarding why an actor would point a weapon at the cameraman.Although the facts behind the Alec Baldwin episode have yet to be revealed, I would like to point out that, in almost every movie involving a gunfight, the actor occasionally aims their weapon directly at the cameraman. This procedure provides the audience with a view from the intended person or target's perspective.
Those who disparage and demean their nation's government most often are among those who have an incorrect perception and/or understanding of the basic purpose and duty of the governing body.The purpose of government is basically to create, direct, and occasionally modify or discontinue a policy or law. The only practical, effective way a democratic government can be effective is for all to agree that the majority rules. Effective government must restrain freelancing and radicalism which usually lead to chaos.
Within a democratic organization or nation, the citizens may express their approval or disapproval of those governing by exercising their voting privilege.
Govern / verb 1 : To control and direct the making and administration of policy in : RULE 2 : CONTROL, DIRECT, INFLUENCE 3 : DETERMINE, REGULATE 4 : RESTRAIN.
Source: Merriam-Webster English Dictionary
Jim wrote: "In comment 191 and comment 193 Phillip and Ian express their confusion regarding why an actor would point a weapon at the cameraman.Although the facts behind the Alec Baldwin episode have yet to ..."
Appreciate that but the camera person could stand aside rather than behind once shot is framed?
Philip wrote: "Jim wrote: "In comment 191 and comment 193 Phillip and Ian express their confusion regarding why an actor would point a weapon at the cameraman.Although the facts behind the Alec Baldwin episode ..."
Philip,
Yes. The cameraman could elect to stand aside; however, that is up to the cameraman, the poducer's, and/or director's prerogative. Some prefer to remain behind the camera. It may not be the safest choice, just as some actors insist upon performing their own stunts. They may not be sound decisions or even wise, but it happens.
In fairness to the cameraman, the shot may be framed now, but if someone moves when he moves, oops. My view is that whoever is using said gun should strip it and ensure that they are all blanks. It is not that hard to do, and an extra check does no harm. If it were me, I would demand to load the thing.
Ian wrote: "In fairness to the cameraman, the shot may be framed now, but if someone moves when he moves, oops. My view is that whoever is using said gun should strip it and ensure that they are all blanks. It..."A description of normal, proper safety procedure as laid out by an experienced actor:
https://youtu.be/2O6gudWsxIM
As individuals we do make things about ourselves, but as part of a community doesn't the whole suffer if members are sick?
Working for small and owner small businesses, I have been without healthcare too often. When I became disabled, because it wasn't work related, I had no healthcare in December 2013. In January 2014, because of the Affordable Care Act, Arizona wanted the federal monies enough to comply and changed their coverage for the unemployed to include those like me who didn't qualify. The year before, my 21 year old son tried to get state aid and was literally told if he had a baby then he could get services. A system which encourages more children by a group of citizens who can't afford to have children in order to get healthcare coverage is simply wrong.