Thread: Timesonline - men need not visit GP's anymore

Quote from RebelliousVanilla

Yes. It's the same concept. And I'm referring to real arguments, not suppositions. By the way that article starts, it's emotion, not logic.

No it's not. Medicine is a need for survival in many cases. We aren't talking about plastic surgery here, we are talking about life threatning conditions to which simple antibiotics could mean a world of difference. Antibiotics that many people cannot afford.

If you honestly put the desire for a BMW on the same scale as medicine, then there is nothing more I can say.

Those people that "don't afford" antibiotics shouldn't live in houses that are 1500 square feet, shouldn't have plasma screens or afford having a car. If you're a beggar, act like one.

And since you're so good, donate your income to a charity that buys antibiotics for the poor. I don't want to do it, but I'm coerced into maintaining people. And by the way, I paid 100$ to a private clinic ambulance for a check up and I make 400$ a month. Somehow I afford doing it without any help from the government.

And I read that article and it has no figures in it about budgets or actual cases. It's just talk.

Quote from RebelliousVanilla

Those people that "don't afford" antibiotics shouldn't live in houses that are 1500 square feet, shouldn't have plasma screens or afford having a car. If you're a beggar, act like one.

And since you're so good, donate your income to a charity that buys antibiotics for the poor. I don't want to do it, but I'm coerced into maintaining people. And by the way, I paid 100$ to a private clinic ambulance for a check up and I make 400$ a month. Somehow I afford doing it without any help from the government.

And I read that article and it has no figures in it about budgets or actual cases. It's just talk.

Same ol same ol. "Give up your home if you want medical care". What you fail to consider is the monopolistic nature of the market and that it is more expensive than it should be. Besides, the idea that all who can't afford medical care are "living it up" in huge homes with a $3000 TV is as ridiculous as claiming that beat dead dads don't pay because they don't want to.

I'm done with you.

What always bugs me when folk talk about how poverty stricken they are is it always seems to be the "pensioners" or "single mothers" who everyone refers to, hardly ever families with kids to raise struggling to support in homes they can hardly afford, taxed to hell and getting very little from the state.

When they realise they are better off splitting up, because of the states perverse incentives schemes, well, that is what happens!!

In the uk we often get the old gits brigade moaning about "council tax hikes" etc..

If they were truly poor, they would not need to pay for it anyway!

ANd that is not considering that many of them are living in house that are more suited for families and worth a bloody fortune..

Everyone wants freebies and no responsibility for others it seems, all these old gits who moan also moan when as a result of the cuts in tax, they have to suffer cuts in the services THEY use!!

I generally class the over-60's as the lot that created the bloody mess in the first place and got the best deal all the way through!!

The main difference about supporting kids and supporting the elderly is that there is a good chance that kids will become productive, whereas there is bugger all hope that the elderly will ever do anything other than grab for the rest of their lives!

Sounds harsh, but, they were the buggers that sat by while the family was being destroyed by the state and did nothing..

Quote from haahoo

I generally class the over-60's as the lot that created the bloody mess in the first place and got the best deal all the way through!!

The thing is that many of this age group put money aside for their retirement but the governments decided to use this money for something else.

After 9/11 Bush was able to access all the retirement funds for weaponry. I am not saying it was unnecessary but that it happened.

NZ did the same thing to these people back ... when... can't say if it was 80's or 90's.

Also because of the recession many governments have lost on investments for people's retirement.

I don't like the idea of putting down pensioners because I think we will go backwards by thinking they are worth killing for they are not useful any more.

Quote from RebelliousVanilla

Those people that "don't afford" antibiotics shouldn't live in houses that are 1500 square feet, shouldn't have plasma screens or afford having a car. If you're a beggar, act like one.

And since you're so good, donate your income to a charity that buys antibiotics for the poor. I don't want to do it, but I'm coerced into maintaining people. And by the way, I paid 100$ to a private clinic ambulance for a check up and I make 400$ a month. Somehow I afford doing it without any help from the government.

And I read that article and it has no figures in it about budgets or actual cases. It's just talk.

You would make a better Men's rights advocate than I do for sure.

But since we are here, I may as well continue ....

What is so wrong with helping out others less fortunate than yourself?

Also...

Do you think we as a global society should care about Africa?

After all, it was our ancestors who raped that land of resources. We became rich countries from exploiting them. (If we are European)

We still have people in this world willing to exploit the whole planet for 'me' wealth and 'me' power. Do you think we should care about the future of the planet?

Quote from julie

The thing is that many of this age group put money aside for their retirement but the governments decided to use this money for something else.

After 9/11 Bush was able to access all the retirement funds for weaponry. I am not saying it was unnecessary but that it happened.

NZ did the same thing to these people back ... when... can't say if it was 80's or 90's.

Also because of the recession many governments have lost on investments for people's retirement.

I don't like the idea of putting down pensioners because I think we will go backwards by thinking they are worth killing for they are not useful any more.

The idea of "pensions" has come about because of the states attempts to break the family.

By offerring to "support" older folk (who have a great contribution to make to grandchildren etc in reality and are sources of great wisdom) the state thereby frees the "productive" citizens to work at the grindstone and effectively "ignore" thier older family members.

Who is responsible for older members of society?

We here much of how folk dont want to support other peoples children..

But, why chould these folk be forced to support other peoples parents, grand parents etc.?

Lets just say the average pensioner will live on for as long as it takes to raise a child, 18 years?

Economic and other realities do show that pensioners are pushed aside and neglected.

Primarily by their own families!!

The state promotes the idea of retirement as being a time when older folk can reap their productive harvest.

That, in itself, is so clearly a myth, of epic proportions..

You create the harvest.. The state shall take it from you!

Quote from julie

The thing is that many of this age group put money aside for their retirement but the governments decided to use this money for something else.

Indeed. But, bear this in mind, the "never had it so good" postwar baby-boom generation were "provided" with the opportunities to have these resources and have taken it through on their journeys through life..

From the 60's when they were the first young people to be able to make healthy wages and buy homes and consumer goods, through the 70's and 80's when they were the property owners and higher paid managers etc and through to now when they are, arguably, the last bunch of folk who will be able to "securely" retire. (and in the process, many of them are reaping a further harvest from the death of their own parents)..

Just wait another decade or so, lets see what happens when their pensions dry up!!

What is the average age of the voting population?

it cant be under 50 can it?

Give it a few more decades and I will not be surprised if the "grey vote" (mostly female!) is the new "womans vote" that we all have to pander to and accept..

Kinda paradoxical, seeing as most politicians have historically been of this age!!

Quote from haahoo

The idea of "pensions" has come about because of the states attempts to break the family.

The first British pensions

The relative poverty of older women was the major reason why the first British state pensions, introduced in 1908, took a different form from the pioneering German scheme introduced in the 1880s. The German pensions were contributory and income related, components of the first ever national insurance scheme. The German model was subsequently adopted by a number of European countries. A similar scheme was strongly advocated for Britain at the time, but was rejected because the two schemes had very different objectives: the German system aimed to provide income replacement for contributors when they became physically unable to work, at whatever age; the British to replace the ancient Poor Law as the means of providing out of the tax system for very poor, but respectable, old people. From the beginning, the German system provided mainly for men, the British mainly for women.


The first state pension proposal to be taken seriously by the British state, in the 1870s, advocated compulsory saving into a state-guaranteed pension fund by all young people between entry to paid work and marriage. Thereafter, it was recognized, saving became difficult for most working-class men and impossible for most women. After investigation, it became obvious that most young people, especially women, did not earn enough to fund a pension since many of them helped support their families with their earnings and had no surplus for saving. For the same reason very few women, and the poorly and irregularly paid, less skilled half of the male working class were not members of Friendly Societies, the voluntary associations which provided sickness benefit and often pensions in return for members' contributions.



After a succession of official enquiries, the British government concluded that the clinching argument against a German-style social insurance pension was that the majority of the neediest older people were women, and very few women could afford to pay adequate, regular insurance contributions. No way could be found to include them in an insurance scheme. Hence the first British state pensions were non-contributory. They were fixed at less than the estimated weekly cost of subsistence, to encourage saving and family support to supplement the pension, and were subject to stringent means and character tests, to exclude those who squandered their resources. The principles of the Poor Law lived on in the new pension system. The pension age was fixed at 70. This was widely known to be too late for most poor older people who became unfit for regular work in their early sixties or before. The age of 70 was chosen by the Treasury as a cost-cutting measure: by that age many people were dead. Two-thirds of the first state pensioners were female.


The pension came to be because women outlived men.(this bit is sarcasm)

Quote from haahoo

Indeed. But, bear this in mind, the "never had it so good" postwar baby-boom generation were "provided" with the opportunities to have these resources and have taken it through on their journeys through life..

From the 60's when they were the first young people to be able to make healthy wages and buy homes and consumer goods, through the 70's and 80's when they were the property owners and higher paid managers etc and through to now when they are, arguably, the last bunch of folk who will be able to "securely" retire. (and in the process, many of them are reaping a further harvest from the death of their own parents)..

Just wait another decade or so, lets see what happens when their pensions dry up!!

What is the average age of the voting population?

it cant be under 50 can it?

Give it a few more decades and I will not be surprised if the "grey vote" (mostly female!) is the new "womans vote" that we all have to pander to and accept..

Kinda paradoxical, seeing as most politicians have historically been of this age!!

In a couple of decades you and I will be the grey vote.

You can give me your share.

Interesting link.

The industrial revolution contributed to longer lifespans and also to the break-up of the extended family and the more modern "nuclear family" (soon to be socially engineering into extinction to if the state has their way!)..

Quote from haahoo

Interesting link.

I didn't give you link because it is to a site about the gender pay gap.

The industrial revolution contributed to longer lifespans and also to the break-up of the extended family and the more modern "nuclear family" (soon to be socially engineering into extinction to if the state has their way!)..

That's as good as saying wars break up families.

But for sure the industrial revolution has sparked a few other revolutions which we have today as ISMS.

Quote from julie

I didn't give you link because it is to a site about the gender pay gap.



That's as good as saying wars break up families.

But for sure the industrial revolution has sparked a few other revolutions which we have today as ISMS.

isms? Look at the housing in old mill towns. Built for the new influx of workers who migrated from the fields from their parents to work in the mills. Not exactly spacious for the 15 kids and grandparents too!

(But still more spacious than what the modern family seems to be expected to live in judging from the size of current cattle pens being built!)

Quote from julie

You would make a better Men's rights advocate than I do for sure.

But since we are here, I may as well continue ....

What is so wrong with helping out others less fortunate than yourself?

Also...

Do you think we as a global society should care about Africa?

After all, it was our ancestors who raped that land of resources. We became rich countries from exploiting them. (If we are European)

We still have people in this world willing to exploit the whole planet for 'me' wealth and 'me' power. Do you think we should care about the future of the planet?

I don't have any problem with being nice to people. I have problems with being coerced into doing it. If I'd be rich I'd make male only scholarships for instance. Why would I pay taxes for education?

And I have no moral obligations for what my grandparents did. Romania didn't have colonies anyway so if I move to the UK, I have no moral obligation towards the poor people who the UK citizens from 100 years ago exploited. This is the same as affirmative action. Let's have women scholarships because women were oppressed. Also, if you're sympathetic to a cause, nobody would be keeping you from donating all your income to it.