Hypocrisy of The Left - part 2

[madmug]

18c is a law that is totally open to a judges ideological interpretation. It is the total opposite to a black and white law.

We have seen in the US how some leftie judges behave as we had 2 courts block Trumps travel ban before the correct decision was made by the supreme court.

18c just has to go.

Was that the travel ban on Muslim nations NOT involved in 9/11?

 

[geelong_crazy26]

Was that the travel ban on Muslim nations NOT involved in 9/11?

Did the supreme court give it the tick ?

 

[madmug]

Did the supreme court give it the tick ?

So were they paid off by the Saudis too? OMG!! The corruption! The swamp, its worse than we thought.

 

[The Passenger]

Make no mistake he new what he was doing when the choose those words. Firstly he wanted the attention which he got. Secondly a large number of Australians are sick and tired of these self appointed moral guardians of the land telling other s what they can and cant say, the PC police. Hearing a politician speak in such an unpolitical correct manner will appeal to many Australians.

Do you believe using the phrase "final solution" in a parliamentary speech about immigration deserves condemnation?

Remember freedom of speech isn't freedom from criticism.

 

[madmug]

Do you believe using the phrase "final solution" in a parliamentary speech about immigration deserves condemnation?

Remember freedom of speech isn't freedom from criticism.

The PC & FOS sects don't tolerate criticism. They just 'know' they're right.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

Do you believe using the phrase "final solution" in a parliamentary speech about immigration deserves condemnation?

Remember freedom of speech isn't freedom from criticism.

100% it should be condemned. Totally disgusting thing to say.

 

[Spectacular69]

i can only speak personally, but that is the first time i have heard anyone link the terms climate change denial with holocaust denial. seems like pretty big leap of logic to me but then what else could one expect from the old buffer bolt.

The out rage in the words Anning used something that Hitler back in the day! But is also a common term in the corporate world now days as well!

Where was the out rage when SHY stated all men are pigs and rapests!

Whilst not agreeing with what Anning said but do find the double standards of our rage hypocritical!
But it’s the norm now days

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

The out rage in the words Anning used something that Hitler back in the day! But is also a common term in the corporate world now days as well!

The corporate world discusses racial problems by using the term final solution?

Where was the out rage when SHY stated all men are pigs and rapests!

No, she didn't.

 

[Chief]

Where was the out rage when SHY stated all men are pigs and rapests!

a) She didn't.
b) You missed the wall-to-wall outrage on the Sky Evening Nutso Shows? The coverage on other channels of this wall-to-wall outrage?

 

[geelong_crazy26]

Its time to start increasing taxes on people who don't have private health insurance.

I am sick of paying well over $200 a month towards my healthcare while other people pay nothing and sponge of others.

If someone doesn't work take it out of their welfare payments.

 

[GreyWind]

Its time to start increasing taxes on people who don't have private health insurance.

I am sick of paying well over $200 a month towards my healthcare while other people pay nothing and sponge of others.

If someone doesn't work take it out of their welfare payments.

What about the people who can't afford private health insurance?

Or the people who keep themselves fit and healthy?

 

[geelong_crazy26]

What about the people who can't afford private health insurance?

Or the people who keep themselves fit and healthy?

If someone says they are fit and healthy than they don't need healthcare and should not expect any care if they were sick to be paid for by the taxpayer. I am fit and healthy and I have top level health cover. If someone chooses to take a risk than good luck to them.

Take more out of peoples tax if they don't have private health. If they are on welfare take it out of their payments.

Another option is to give out concession cards that would exempt low income people from making any direct payments on the condition most of their money goes into a cashless welfare card that can only be used to purchase basic necessities. If you can not afford to pay anything towards your own healthcare than you can not afford the latest smartphone or overseas holidays either.

 

[Gethelred]

If someone says they are fit and healthy than they don't need healthcare and should not expect any care if they were sick to be paid for by the taxpayer. I am fit and healthy and I have top level health cover. If someone chooses to take a risk than good luck to them.

Take more out of peoples tax if they don't have private health. If they are on welfare take it out of their payments.

Another option is to give out concession cards that would exempt low income people from making any direct payments on the condition most of their money goes into a cashless welfare card that can only be used to purchase basic necessities. If you can not afford to pay anything towards your own healthcare than you can not afford the latest smartphone or overseas holidays either.

Given that I've kept from biting until this point...

Just who do you think is going on overseas holidays or purchasing the latest smartphone on welfare? How much do you think welfare payments are, that you think there is enough money left over for either of those things? Let alone the reality that, if you go overseas for any other reason than looking for work your payment will be withdrawn.

If people already struggle to meet their needs from the payments as things stand, how then do you think they will go after you increase their payments to compensate for their medicare cover? "If someone chooses to take a risk good luck to them," huh? Hard to believe it, but not all people are wealthy enough to be capable of affording cover and not getting it ("taking the risk" as it were; playing dice with your body more like it) and not all people are capable of evaluating their medical needs, in the moment or properly at all. Are you going to remove the safety net for dementia patients? Are you going to remove the safety net from children?

And finally, how does the creation of the 'cashless welfare card' differ in any way from an identity card for the poor, and how does that not violate their privacy? Are you suggesting that the poor have no rights to privacy?

 

[GreyWind]

If someone says they are fit and healthy than they don't need healthcare and should not expect any care if they were sick to be paid for by the taxpayer. I am fit and healthy and I have top level health cover. If someone chooses to take a risk than good luck to them.

What defines a risk? Currently at my age my biggest risks in regards to my health are assaults, car crashes, work place injuries or mental health problems. In majority of cases the private sector will do **** all for me as I'll be an emergency patient. So what's the point in having private health cover if I'm going a preventative route for my health care?

In saying that I do have extras for things like dental, optical and physio.

 

[bfff]

Its time to start increasing taxes on people who don't have private health insurance.

I am sick of paying well over $200 a month towards my healthcare while other people pay nothing and sponge of others.

If someone doesn't work take it out of their welfare payments.

Stop paying. Problem solved.

 

[Spectacular69]

The corporate world discusses racial problems by using the term final solution?


No, she didn't.

Going by your first comment you have never had a job



Stop living in that delusional bubble

 

[Spectacular69]

a) She didn't.
b) You missed the wall-to-wall outrage on the Sky Evening Nutso Shows? The coverage on other channels of this wall-to-wall outrage?

I can find more copies of shy caking men rapists if you want

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Going by your first comment you have never had a job

Can you provide an example?




On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[sherb]

I can find more copies of shy caking men rapists if you want

Anyone with half a brain would realize what she was saying.

And it wasn't that all men are rapists. In the same way she wasn't saying that all women need pepper spray.

It's really not that difficult to work out.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

Given that I've kept from biting until this point...

Just who do you think is going on overseas holidays or purchasing the latest smartphone on welfare? How much do you think welfare payments are, that you think there is enough money left over for either of those things? Let alone the reality that, if you go overseas for any other reason than looking for work your payment will be withdrawn.

If people already struggle to meet their needs from the payments as things stand, how then do you think they will go after you increase their payments to compensate for their medicare cover? "If someone chooses to take a risk good luck to them," huh? Hard to believe it, but not all people are wealthy enough to be capable of affording cover and not getting it ("taking the risk" as it were; playing dice with your body more like it) and not all people are capable of evaluating their medical needs, in the moment or properly at all. Are you going to remove the safety net for dementia patients? Are you going to remove the safety net from children?

And finally, how does the creation of the 'cashless welfare card' differ in any way from an identity card for the poor, and how does that not violate their privacy? Are you suggesting that the poor have no rights to privacy?

Firstly I don't doubt some people can not afford healthcare for themselves, however I would argue that number is much lower than what you most likely believe. Currently we have a system were half the working age population is supporting the other half , the idea that half the working age population can not afford to make any direct contribution towards their own healthcare is ridiculous.

Secondly with regards to those on welfare you need to keep in mind their living circumstances, if you are a young person who lives with your family and has all your expenses paid for than life is not too bad. None the less the they don't spend money on non essential items than a cashless welfare card will make no difference.

I don't think someone must have cover as they can also make a some form of direct contribution towards their own healthcare needs instead if they wish. We all understand that we can get sick at any point so that is why people like me get heath cover in good health.

The disabled and children simply cant look after themselves. Also a key point here is that a safety net should be for our most vulnerable and net that is as narrow as possible not so wide that we cant look after the most vulnerable.

A cashless welfare card will force people to spend money on only the essentials. It does 2 things 1 it stops people from spending money on alcohol and 2 it provides an incentive to get of welfare and into work.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

What defines a risk? Currently at my age my biggest risks in regards to my health are assaults, car crashes, work place injuries or mental health problems. In majority of cases the private sector will do **** all for me as I'll be an emergency patient. So what's the point in having private health cover if I'm going a preventative route for my health care?

In saying that I do have extras for things like dental, optical and physio.

That's fine, you are free to decide not to get private health insurance. But what if something was to go wrong a vital organ who do you think should pay ?

You cant say I am fit and healthy I shouldn't get private health but if something was to go wrong I should get free cover.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

Stop paying. Problem solved.

If something goes wrong I want to choose my own doctor who works with a team of his choice in the best facilities possible.

 

[Gethelred]

Firstly I don't doubt some people can not afford healthcare for themselves, however I would argue that number is much lower than what you most likely believe. Currently we have a system were half the working age population is supporting the other half , the idea that half the working age population can not afford to make any direct contribution towards their own healthcare is ridiculous.

That last sentence is point blank wrong; the majority of people in this country - save those below the minimum tax bracket - contribute to their health care via the Medicare rebate, and therefore subsidize their own medical cover in the event that their life changes around in such a negative way that they either cannot afford private cover or that they cannot afford it in the first place due to other expenses. Say, you need support a family and pay a mortgage that due to financial circumstances (ie, interest rates on the loan rising in an unforeseen way) that mortgage grows to an extent that what was once an affordable luxury in private cover becomes not only unaffordable but out of reach.

Do those people not deserve the safety net, given that they've spent the last however many years contributing to it?

Secondly with regards to those on welfare you need to keep in mind their living circumstances, if you are a young person who lives with your family and has all your expenses paid for than life is not too bad. None the less the they don't spend money on non essential items than a cashless welfare card will make no difference.

There are more circumstances than just yours. According to your posts - I don't post much on the SRP, but I do read a fair bit - you're from a stable, wealthy family, but not everyone is.

There are children who are forced out of home at 16 or younger, sent into foster homes. There are babies who are orphaned young. There are plenty of potential situations in which such cover serves as an inbetween, while people get back on their feet after a tragedy wipes out their plans and their economic infrastructure, and to remove it would be tantamount to consigning them to poverty whilst shrugging from inside your warm home.

I don't think someone must have cover as they can also make a some form of direct contribution towards their own healthcare needs instead if they wish. We all understand that we can get sick at any point so that is why people like me get heath cover in good health.

The disabled and children simply cant look after themselves. Also a key point here is that a safety net should be for our most vulnerable and net that is as narrow as possible not so wide that we cant look after the most vulnerable.

The first two sentences don't make sense in their existing forms. You're making a claim that people shouldn't have cover because they can make some form of direct cover, something they're actively doing already with their payment of the Medicare rebate.

The last sentence is actually something I agree with, to a certain extent, but is at severe conflict with a number of your contributions in the past.

A cashless welfare card will force people to spend money on only the essentials. It does 2 things 1 it stops people from spending money on alcohol and 2 it provides an incentive to get of welfare and into work.

I repeat, how is this in any way different to an identification card for the poor, and how does this fail to violate the poor's right to privacy?

One, shame is not a great motivator. You shame someone, you don't drive them not to improve themselves, you're driving them down into themselves, pushing their faces into the mud. Two, you're supposedly a champion of the individual; how from an individualist perspective is imposing an identification card that is connected to what a poor person can and cannot purchase not either limiting their freedom or their privacy?

Leaving aside the fact that, for the vast majority of the people on welfare payments, the essentials is all they can afford, in order for people to make the right choices, you cannot force them into it, because then it ceases to be a choice. You are compelling their compliance, in such a way that is a profound violation of their sovereignty as people, and should be as antithetic to someone who calls themselves a libertarian as it would be someone who calls themselves left wing.

 

[GreyWind]

That's fine, you are free to decide not to get private health insurance. But what if something was to go wrong a vital organ who do you think should pay ?

You cant say I am fit and healthy I shouldn't get private health but if something was to go wrong I should get free cover.

Except I don't get free cover. I pay taxes and the Medicare rebate and we live in a country where that is our healthcare system. I'm also happy to cover other costs that may occur. You seem to also be under the impression that by having private health you're always going to be in the private sector, that's not going to happen.

You can always go live in the States as you seem to prefer their system.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

That last sentence is point blank wrong; the majority of people in this country - save those below the minimum tax bracket - contribute to their health care via the Medicare rebate, and therefore subsidize their own medical cover in the event that their life changes around in such a negative way that they either cannot afford private cover or that they cannot afford it in the first place due to other expenses. Say, you need support a family and pay a mortgage that due to financial circumstances (ie, interest rates on the loan rising in an unforeseen way) that mortgage grows to an extent that what was once an affordable luxury in private cover becomes not only unaffordable but out of reach.

Do those people not deserve the safety net, given that they've spent the last however many years contributing to it?

There are more circumstances than just yours. According to your posts - I don't post much on the SRP, but I do read a fair bit - you're from a stable, wealthy family, but not everyone is.

There are children who are forced out of home at 16 or younger, sent into foster homes. There are babies who are orphaned young. There are plenty of potential situations in which such cover serves as an inbetween, while people get back on their feet after a tragedy wipes out their plans and their economic infrastructure, and to remove it would be tantamount to consigning them to poverty whilst shrugging from inside your warm home.

The first two sentences don't make sense in their existing forms. You're making a claim that people shouldn't have cover because they can make some form of direct cover, something they're actively doing already with their payment of the Medicare rebate.

The last sentence is actually something I agree with, to a certain extent, but is at severe conflict with a number of your contributions in the past.

I repeat, how is this in any way different to an identification card for the poor, and how does this fail to violate the poor's right to privacy?

One, shame is not a great motivator. You shame someone, you don't drive them not to improve themselves, you're driving them down into themselves, pushing their faces into the mud. Two, you're supposedly a champion of the individual; how from an individualist perspective is imposing an identification card that is connected to what a poor person can and cannot purchase not either limiting their freedom or their privacy?

Leaving aside the fact that, for the vast majority of the people on welfare payments, the essentials is all they can afford, in order for people to make the right choices, you cannot force them into it, because then it ceases to be a choice. You are compelling their compliance, in such a way that is a profound violation of their sovereignty as people, and should be as antithetic to someone who calls themselves a libertarian as it would be someone who calls themselves left wing.

You do realise that half the working age population pay just 2% of all income tax in this country and that half of all households pay no net tax ? this does not include the elderly or children just working age people. Thin basically means half the population is paying for the healthcare of the other half.

If someone can not afford to make any contribution via insurance or a direct fee than they go on a cashless welfare card that means they are eligible for free cover, however not luxury's at all. This will weed our those who can afford to pay but choose not to.

Again half the working age population pay no net tax.
https://theconversation.com/factche...ia-paid-by-10-of-the-working-population-45229

Sorry but people do not have a right to have someone else pay their healthcare, no person is forced to have a cashless welfare card however if you want other people to pay for you healthcare costs one is required. No more privacy is invaded than a concession card.

Shame is not really the key factor, the key factor is preventing these people from spending money on non essential luxury items.

A libertarian believes people work and keep their own money to spend on themselves. A libertarian does not believe people have some entitlement to take money that other people have worked for, you have to earn your own money.