Austria first country to make Covid vaccine mandatory

Status
Not open for further replies.

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
17,725
Trophies
2
XP
17,446
Country
United States
Abortion isnt murder. Shit im goin to go out and shoot 50 people then claim its just post-abortion so it isnt murder. Bet that will go over real well in court. Sarcasm intended.
Shooting a person is murder. Not sure what point you were trying to make.

Again my body my choice only matters when its your liberal ass in line at the clinic.
Everyone has a right to bodily autonomy. Don't want to be pregnant anymore? Get an abortion. Don't want to get vaccinated? Don't get vaccinated. However, certain privileges associated with civilized society require certain concessions and certain responsibilities. I can't walk around naked in public, and you shouldn't be able to walk around unvaccinated in a public school, for example.

I guess the anti-vaxxers could send their kids to private school, but a.) Vaccines should be required in private schools, and b.) We all know a lot of anti-vaxxers are poor trailer trash who couldn't afford private school if they tried.

One of those aborted children 20 years ago could of grew up and cured cancer, maybe changed the whole world. But someone with your mindset decided to get out the vac and throw away the trash. Abortions should come with mandatory (and perminant) removal of ovaries and testicals of both parties.
Hypothetical people don't get moral considerations or rights. Otherwise, a rapist who impregnates his victim could claim that the great-grandchild of that rape could have cured cancer. Hypotheticals are irrelevant. That being said, if the argument is "something good could have hypothetically come from a specific individual not being aborted," you should probably do some research regarding the drop in crime/criminals after Roe v. Wade.

If a person is forcibly sterilized against their will, that's deplorable, and it's a violation of bodily autonomy.
 

wartutor

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2012
Messages
631
Trophies
0
Age
43
XP
1,604
Country
United States
Shooting a person is murder. Not sure what point you were trying to make.


Everyone has a right to bodily autonomy. Don't want to be pregnant anymore? Get an abortion. Don't want to get vaccinated? Don't get vaccinated. However, certain privileges associated with civilized society require certain concessions and certain responsibilities. I can't walk around naked in public, and you shouldn't be able to walk around unvaccinated in a public school, for example.

I guess the anti-vaxxers could send their kids to private school, but a.) Vaccines should be required in private schools, and b.) We all know a lot of anti-vaxxers are poor trailer trash who couldn't afford private school if they tried.


Hypothetical people don't get moral considerations or rights. Otherwise, a rapist who impregnates his victim could claim that the great-grandchild of that rape could have cured cancer. Hypotheticals are irrelevant. That being said, if the argument is "something good could have hypothetically come from a specific individual not being aborted," you should probably do some research regarding the drop in crime/criminals after Roe v. Wade.

If a person is forcibly sterilized against their will, that's deplorable, and it's a violation of bodily autonomy.
I walked around for the last 2 years unvaccinated...as a essential worker who the fuck do you think you are to tell someone they dont have the right to walk around freely. If you dont like being around unvaccinated people stay your ass the fuck home.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alexander1970

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
17,725
Trophies
2
XP
17,446
Country
United States
I walked around for the last 2 years unvaccinated...as a essential worker who the fuck do you think you are to tell someone they dont have the right to walk around freely. If you dont like being around unvaccinated people stay your ass the fuck home.
If you care about not getting sick, not ending up in the hospital if you do get sick, not dying if you end up in the hospital, and not spreading disease to others, then you must get vaccinated if you are medically able to do so.

Anything else is selfish, and there are things you shouldn't be able to do unvaccinated, just as there are things I shouldn't be able to do if I am naked.

It isn't more complicated than that.
 

Esdeath

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2016
Messages
200
Trophies
0
Age
29
XP
1,110
Country
Germany
At first I was against the poke for all mentality since I thought people were at least conscious enough to realize they need to be cautious. Now with the vaccine being effective and dumb politicians who promise that COVID will be gone again and again like they could actually deport it and not taking in account the majority of dumb people spreading it far and wide I don’t believe so anymore.
Imo everyone who can should get it, if they want it or not.
 
Last edited by Esdeath,

KingVamp

Haaah-hahahaha!
Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
12,855
Trophies
1
Location
Netherworld
XP
6,398
Country
United States
What other things constitute people’s livelihood? How about food? Shelter? Water? Electricity? What else am I expected to pay for, you can’t live without those either, effectively. Not that it matters, it’s not even an argument, I’m not responsible for strangers.
"Yes Meme" It is called welfare, that you may or may not use.

The sole reason why I make the homeless and insolvent exception is because *they’re insolvent* and ideally we shouldn’t have dead people littering the streets.
Ideally no. Unfortunately, some of the same people that want to shutdown public services for the sake of it, would fight against helping them too.

That said, what happened to "free market"? I thought that was the answer to everything. What happen to not paying for services you are never going to use?

I’m not ‘taking away people’s healthcare”, healthcare exists regardless of whether the NHS exists or not, I’m simply taking back my money, which is indeed justice.
You can't guarantee everyone will still be covered nor do you seem care if people lose their healthcare if the NHS falls.

Your sense of fairness is crooked because you’re uncomfortable with the concepts of death and disease - I’m not.
This is just an excuse to not do or care about anything.

Switzerland’s healthcare system is completely private and covers everyone, so you’re right, it is quite easy to provide an example, and a good one considering Swiss healthcare is some of the best in the world. Even that system is a little too intrusive since insurance is compulsory - universality is not a goal I’m particularly interested in, “covering everyone” isn’t and shouldn’t be a must.
You already posted this. Regulates prices, mandatory healthcare (as pointed out) and the government still covers you, if you don't have enough income.

This is not the complete free market you are looking for, try again. Not to mention, they are still better healthcare systems.

Firefighting started off as an entirely private venture, and it was profitable. Bad example, you don’t know history.
Missing the point. So I'll just say, the healthcare here is also profitable, too bad that's at the expense of healthcare being more expensive and still not covering everyone.

I would love to see the NHS dismantled - it’s a monopoly on UK healthcare. Much like other monopolies, it could benefit from being splintered into (ideally) privately ran institutions rather than stay one inefficient government monster. The quickest way to do that is to make sure it runs out of money, which it’s doing anyway without the government doing anything. It doesn’t matter *what* they do, if the NHS was concerned with patching roads instead of healthcare I’d want to see it broken up all the same, the government has no business doing either.

I care about other people, that’s why I want the government to stop stealing their money for superfluous, inefficient and poorly conceived nonsense.
Just not about the people that risk not having healthcare or any other needs met because the private market decided to price gouge them instead.

As a side note, I know what you’re doing, because all of you guys do the same thing. You want to push for government control over the entire sector under the guise of benevolence, and you paint whoever opposes that as someone who lacks empathy. It’s not that the idea is poor and amoral, the problem is that the other person is just evil. It’s pretty transparent, and it’s not going to work on me. I believe that there are other, better ways of doing this that don’t involve massive government overreach and taxing people out the ass - plenty of countries around the world figured it out. I’m okay playing the role of a villain though - I don’t really care what you think about me, attacking my character isn’t going to sway me.I’ve heard worse things about myself than “uncaring”, try harder.
"We" push for what makes sense and not just anti-government for the sake of it. They are painting themselves, at the center of it all, greed seems to be the only real reason why some people want to take these programs down.

Or maybe stuff like "not responsible for strangers" and “covering everyone isn’t and shouldn’t be a must.", when it comes to health, despite being able to, is inherently showing a lack empathy? Yeah, a lot of countries figured out that it is better to do universal services than let private companies not only price people out the wazoo, but price these people out of getting the services altogether. I don't think most people care that you play make believe, as long as it isn't making real victims.

No it doesn't. That's how you are choosing to interpret it.
One of those aborted children 20 years ago could of grew up and cured cancer, maybe changed the whole world. But someone with your mindset decided to get out the vac and throw away the trash.
As I said, this same argument can be use on anyone that chose not to have kids. Not to mention, the opposite could be true, give birth to someone that change the whole world, for the worse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dakitten

tabzer

etymological
Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
3,182
Trophies
1
Age
37
XP
2,521
Country
Japan
"Yes Meme" It is called welfare, that you may or may not use.


Ideally no. Unfortunately, some of the same people that want to shutdown public services for the sake of it, would fight against helping them too.

That said, what happened to "free market"? I thought that was the answer to everything. What happen to not paying for services you are never going to use?


You can't guarantee everyone will still be covered nor do you seem care if people lose their healthcare if the NHS falls.


This is just an excuse to not do or care about anything.


You already posted this. Regulates prices, mandatory healthcare (as pointed out) and the government still covers you, if you don't have enough income.

This is not the complete free market you are looking for, try again. Not to mention, they are still better healthcare systems.


Missing the point. So I'll just say, the healthcare here is also profitable, too bad that's at the expense of healthcare being more expensive and still not covering everyone.


Just not about the people that risk not having healthcare or any other needs met because the private market decided to price gouge them instead.


"We" push for what makes sense and not just anti-government for the sake of it. They are painting themselves, at the center of it all, greed seems to be the only real reason why some people want to take these programs down.

Or maybe stuff like "not responsible for strangers" and “covering everyone isn’t and shouldn’t be a must.", when it comes to health, despite being able to, is inherently showing a lack empathy? Yeah, a lot of countries figured out that it is better to do universal services than let private companies not only price people out the wazoo, but price these people out of getting the services altogether. I don't think most people care that you play make believe, as long as it isn't making real victims.



As I said, this same argument can be use on anyone that chose not to have kids. Not to mention, the opposite could be true, give birth to someone that change the whole world, for the worse.
Choosing to not have kids =/= choosing to stop a kid from developing. You want to interpret the gestation period in terms that allow you to validate feelings about terminating life, and that's in your nature. Maybe you want to have recreational sex without the concerns of raising another life (birth control is option for degenerates). Maybe you were raped and do not want to have a child with a rapist father/mother (stop exposing yourself recklessly; we are in a pandemic). I kind of understand that. But choices and consequences and all of that. If assuming that they aren't sentient helps you validate you making the choice, that's your crutch. I'm still unconvinced of your sentience, so I totally relate.
 
Last edited by tabzer,

tabzer

etymological
Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
3,182
Trophies
1
Age
37
XP
2,521
Country
Japan
At first I was against the poke for all mentality since I thought people were at least conscious enough to realize they need to be cautious. Now with the vaccine being effective and dumb politicians who promise that COVID will be gone again and again like they could actually deport it and not taking in account the majority of dumb people spreading it far and wide I don’t believe so anymore.
Imo everyone who can should get it, if they want it or not.
Kind of funny that Lacius liked this massacre of a legible language--though fitting.

Basically, you've harbored authoritarian respect for yourself, with the hopes that you wouldn't have to force people. In your imagined scenario, people have decided to choose against what you have chose for them. Don't worry. You don't have a say in the matter, unless you are playing a part in the enforcing of it. Then I'd fear for you.
 
Last edited by tabzer,

weatMod

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2013
Messages
3,252
Trophies
1
Age
45
XP
2,951
Country
United States
threadly reminder



1) the vaccine don't work



2) the vaccines do NOT prevent transmission

even admitted by MSM now




, so there is fuckall reason to make them mandatory for anything because vaccinated people are just as if not MORE likely to spread the disease as the unvaccinated

also the vaccinated are CREATING variants , Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche was right



3) the vaccines cause heart attacks

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circ.144.suppl_1.10712

( my neighbor took 2 heart attacks after getting the shot, not even 50yo)
 

Foxi4

Endless Trash
Global Moderator
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
28,903
Trophies
2
Location
Gaming Grotto
XP
26,612
Country
Poland
"Yes Meme" It is called welfare, that you may or may not use.


Ideally no. Unfortunately, some of the same people that want to shutdown public services for the sake of it, would fight against helping them too.

That said, what happened to "free market"? I thought that was the answer to everything. What happen to not paying for services you are never going to use?


You can't guarantee everyone will still be covered nor do you seem care if people lose their healthcare if the NHS falls.


This is just an excuse to not do or care about anything.


You already posted this. Regulates prices, mandatory healthcare (as pointed out) and the government still covers you, if you don't have enough income.

This is not the complete free market you are looking for, try again. Not to mention, they are still better healthcare systems.


Missing the point. So I'll just say, the healthcare here is also profitable, too bad that's at the expense of healthcare being more expensive and still not covering everyone.


Just not about the people that risk not having healthcare or any other needs met because the private market decided to price gouge them instead.


"We" push for what makes sense and not just anti-government for the sake of it. They are painting themselves, at the center of it all, greed seems to be the only real reason why some people want to take these programs down.

Or maybe stuff like "not responsible for strangers" and “covering everyone isn’t and shouldn’t be a must.", when it comes to health, despite being able to, is inherently showing a lack empathy? Yeah, a lot of countries figured out that it is better to do universal services than let private companies not only price people out the wazoo, but price these people out of getting the services altogether. I don't think most people care that you play make believe, as long as it isn't making real victims.



As I said, this same argument can be use on anyone that chose not to have kids. Not to mention, the opposite could be true, give birth to someone that change the whole world, for the worse.
There is no national food service, electricity service, or even water service anywhere in the UK - all of those industries are privately ran. The government may purchase goods and services from private companies and/or individuals for the purposes of welfare, it does not actually provide any goods or services in and out of itself because that’s retarded - the government isn’t a bakery, or a power company, or a water company, and has zero expertise in any of those sectors. You could argue that council housing is a form of an actual government-ran service, but even that is built by private contractors. If the government built those houses, they would fall apart (like the ones in the Soviet bloc) because, surprise, the government is also not a construction company. Everything you’ve said so far is either inapplicable to the NHS scenario or wrong, so good job on the first paragraph, you’re totally not embarrassing yourself.

Healthcare should not be a public service. It doesn’t serve “the public”, it serves individual customers. Selling young people on the idea that this is not the case was an amazing achievement, but scandal after scandal people are slowly catching on - it’s a money pit, and a honey pot for those involved.

Me ensuring that my front yard isn’t littered with homeless people is a part of the free market, I pay for garbage collection too. Moreover, the government has a duty of care over its citizens and should probably ensure that they don’t die in the absence of means of payment. Those who have means of payment and use public funds regardless overburden the system. It’s called overhead - a given healthcare provider can and should profit from the business endeavour, but by the same token must not refuse service, so means of payment are of secondary importance. Healthcare isn’t the only industry where the government picks up the tab when no other payer is available, we call those critical industries, not that the socially-minded people would know.

I have indeed mentioned the Swiss, because their system is both more fair and objectively better based on outcome rankings. If you don’t have a counter-argument, you can just say so. It is indeed not a complete free market free-for-all, but it would be a step in the right direction. Not that it matters considering the NHS will be largely privatised not just in my lifetime, but in the immediate future, judging by the healthcare legislation and private contracts signed within the last 5 or so years, so the bear is already skinned.

I didn’t “miss the point”, you just made a very poor point. The private sector always takes over in the absence of government service, and usually does a better job.

Nobody controls the whims of the market, not even the government. If you think price gouging is exclusive to private enterprise, you should probably look into the size of the bonuses doctors receive in the NHS. The money is spent wastefully, and that’s a fact. There’s a reason why doctors from all over the world migrate to the UK and wrestle for government contracts.

What you’re pushing for doesn’t make sense, for a myriad of reasons I’ve mentioned and a lot more that I haven’t.

You’re the one showing lack of empathy - I’m the guy who doesn’t want people to be slaves for large swathes of the year, since their hard-earned money being taken away by the government without recourse to fund boondoggles effectively means they are working for free.

In any case, this argument is getting lengthy, and is straying further and further away from Austria and their mandates. We’ve had this conversation before countless times, and it’s exhausting to have to repeat myself over and over. If you want to discuss the benefits of private healthcare (which are numerous, as seen in Switzerland, Netherlands, Israel and many, many more countries with excellent healthcare), you can make a thread about it. I’m not particularly interested in detailing this thread just to give you a platform to pontificate from. What I’ve said is very simple - expecting other people to devote the fruits of their labour on a public service that they do not use just because it lets you sleep better at night is indistinguishable from theft. The government isn’t Robin Hood, it is not its job to rob its citizens just because it believes that it knows how to spend it better. If *you* think you know how to spend my money better, you’re delusional to begin with - you come across as someone who’s very young, somewhat naive and probably with no significant assets of your own, so it’s easy for you to give speeches on how other people’s money should be spent. Me, I’d rather if they spent it themselves, considering it is their money, and they’ll always know better what it should be spent on.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: AlexMCS

AmandaRose

Do what I do. Hold tight and pretend it’s a plan
Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2015
Messages
9,174
Trophies
1
Location
Glasgow
Website
www.rockstarnorth.com
XP
12,971
Country
United Kingdom
There is no national food service, electricity service, or even water service anywhere in the UK - all of those industries are privately ran. The government may purchase goods and services from private companies and/or individuals for the purposes of welfare, it does not actually provide any goods or services in and out of itself because that’s retarded - the government isn’t a bakery, or a power company, or a water company, and has zero expertise in any of those sectors.

The above might be true for the rest of Britain but not for Scotland. Our water is 100% supplied by one company called Scottish Water. They are 100% owned by the Scottish government.

Screenshot_20211128-102119_Samsung Internet.jpg


And as for the claim it would be retarded for a government to supply water ect as they have zero experience in such sectors well all I can say is the Scottish Government must be doing something right as the water here is constantly voted as being amongst the safest and best in the world.
 

Esdeath

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2016
Messages
200
Trophies
0
Age
29
XP
1,110
Country
Germany
Kind of funny that Lacius liked this massacre of a legible language--though fitting.

Basically, you've harbored authoritarian respect for yourself, with the hopes that you wouldn't have to force people. In your imagined scenario, people have decided to choose against what you have chose for them. Don't worry. You don't have a say in the matter, unless you are playing a part in the enforcing of it. Then I'd fear for you.
I agree, the second sentence especially got a bit out of hand.
There is a difference though with the scenario part. You let people have more than enough freedom, but they didn’t care enough to sustain it, so they have to live with restrictions. It apparently doesn’t work otherwise, so the appropriate thing to say would be „people decided to choose what I chose for them, because they didn’t like the only other possible choice“.
I am not some kind of evil overlord, I was just pointing out, why IMO it was the right choice to make the vaccine mandatory in Austria.
Don’t really get why you would have to fear for me either if I had some say in this matter, most of those who would go and had to get it would probably forget soon anyways since it takes less than 5 minutes to get over with it.
 

Esdeath

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2016
Messages
200
Trophies
0
Age
29
XP
1,110
Country
Germany
The "do this, or we'll make you do this," kind of choice?
That would imply they had no choice at all.
Just imagine a teacher collecting the homework and one student didn't do it multiple times over different subjects (let those be the measures against covid), what comes next is clear, a letter is sent to the parents. It is taken to the next level if you will. It is not like the student didn't know what would happen, it is just so he wanted to always get the same warning without any consequences.
Everything has general conditions in which you can act, and sometimes the scope isn't too big.
 

KingVamp

Haaah-hahahaha!
Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
12,855
Trophies
1
Location
Netherworld
XP
6,398
Country
United States
The above might be true for the rest of Britain but not for Scotland. Our water is 100% supplied by one company called Scottish Water. They are 100% owned by the Scottish government.

And as for the claim it would be retarded for a government to supply water ect as they have zero experience in such sectors well all I can say is the Scottish Government must be doing something right as the water here is constantly voted as being amongst the safest and best in the world.
Interesting. Not that it was my point that the government directly does everything.

Things like public housing exist, because runaway privatization isn't the answer to everything.

Healthcare should not be a public service. It doesn’t serve “the public”, it serves individual customers. Selling young people on the idea that this is not the case was an amazing achievement, but scandal after scandal people are slowly catching on - it’s a money pit, and a honey pot for those involved.
It literally serves public health. Yes, all the young people (and people in general) that wouldn't have healthcare if the government didn't step in, are slowing catching on that private companies are overpricing healthcare.

is indeed not a complete free market free-for-all, but it would be a step in the right direction.
So, you admit such a thing doesn't exist. Your ideal in reality, will only cause price gorging and people not being covered.


you come across as someone who’s very young, somewhat naive and probably with no significant assets of your own, so it’s easy for you to give speeches on how other people’s money should be spent. Me, I’d rather if they spent it themselves, considering it is their money, and they’ll always know better what it should be spent on.
No, I pay taxes like everyone. It is a weird assumption that people that want their taxes to actually help people, that they must not have money themselves, but yeah, rich people totally need their 10th jet while poorer people can't even get healthcare or even a home.

Anyway, OK. Agree To disagree.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlexMCS

smf

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
5,650
Trophies
1
XP
4,395
Country
United Kingdom
That’s two completely different things, I can’t believe I’m going to sort of compare this to the flu but why not, since this vaccine is still in a way new, this may not make since right now. So every year people get the flu shot, and every year I keep hearing the same thing this a person passed away after about week even though they got the flu shot, in other cases they say the flu shot may have helped the person recover. Here’s the thing I haven’t got a flu shot in about 4 years now and I’m still good.
Again, that is like saying that you drive over the speed limit, drunk and don't wear a seat belt & you didn't die & so it must be safe.

The government disagree & put laws in place, which is up to you whether you follow them or not.

You can say you don't care about causing an accident or killing someone, but you can't argue that you're just as safe just because you haven't killed anyone yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlexMCS

smf

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
5,650
Trophies
1
XP
4,395
Country
United Kingdom
If they weren't motivated by profit, they'd distribute said vaccines for free, rather than charging the governments of the world billions for them.
That would be impossible as their suppliers need paying, astra zeneca said they won't make a profit during the pandemic though.
 

smf

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
5,650
Trophies
1
XP
4,395
Country
United Kingdom
One of those aborted children 20 years ago could of grew up and cured cancer, maybe changed the whole world. But someone with your mindset decided to get out the vac and throw away the trash. Abortions should come with mandatory (and perminant) removal of ovaries and testicals of both parties.
One of those aborted fetus could have grown into a person who murdered the person who will cure cancer.

I'm a believer in not asking people to do something you won't agree to yourself, so have your reproduction organs removed and we can talk.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlexMCS

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
17,725
Trophies
2
XP
17,446
Country
United States
Kind of funny that Lacius liked this massacre of a legible language--though fitting.
  1. There was nothing wrong with the content of @Esdeath's post. I liked the post because I agreed with it. I'd love to see a substantive response to it from you though.
  2. You should probably make sure your own posts are legible before criticizing other people's posts.
  3. Please have the courage to tag me the next time you talk about me.

1) the vaccine don't work
The vaccines do work. They make it less likely a person will get infected with COVID-19, they make it less likely you will be hospitalized if you do get infected with COVID-19, and they make it less likely you will die if you get infected with COVID-19. I'm not sure what else you want from the vaccines.

2) the vaccines do NOT prevent transmission
The vaccines reduce the odds that someone will be infected with COVID-19. If you are less likely to get infected with COVID-19, then you are less likely to spread the disease. If you are vaccinated and get infected with COVID-19, yes, you can still spread the disease. This is one of the many reasons why it's important for as many people as possible to get vaccinated, particularly when there are people out there who cannot get vaccinated (or the vaccine isn't likely to work for them, like if you're severely immunocompromised).

so there is fuckall reason to make them mandatory for anything because vaccinated people are just as if not MORE likely to spread the disease as the unvaccinated
Vaccinated people, if they suffer a breakthrough infection, are about as likely to spread the disease as their unvaccinated counterparts. That doesn't mean they are equally likely to contract the disease in the first place. In addition, unvaccinated people make up approximately 92-94% of COVID-19 deaths. That would be reason enough to get vaccinated.

also the vaccinated are CREATING variants
All of the available evidence suggests every notable variant we've heard about so far was the result of the virus spreading unchecked amongst unvaccinated populations. The more people who are vaccinated, the less likely the disease will spread. The less the disease spreads, the less likely new variants will pop up.

3) the vaccines cause heart attacks
There is zero evidence the vaccines have ever caused a heart attack. Just because someone has a heart attack after the vaccine does not mean the vaccine caused the heart attack. Correlation does not equal causality. When you have millions of people getting vaccinated, you're going to have millions who suffer something after the vaccine that they would have otherwise suffered without it. What you have to do is analyze if the frequency of heart attacks increased after vaccinations. The science presently shows that the frequency of heart attacks has been unaffected by the vaccines.

In very rare circumstances, myocarditis and pericarditis have been reported with the mRNA vaccines, mostly in males between ages 12-29. However, the odds of this are extraordinarily rare, there are other vaccines available (J&J in the USA, for example), and there are other mitigations in place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dakitten

Foxi4

Endless Trash
Global Moderator
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
28,903
Trophies
2
Location
Gaming Grotto
XP
26,612
Country
Poland
The above might be true for the rest of Britain but not for Scotland. Our water is 100% supplied by one company called Scottish Water. They are 100% owned by the Scottish government.

View attachment 287331

And as for the claim it would be retarded for a government to supply water ect as they have zero experience in such sectors well all I can say is the Scottish Government must be doing something right as the water here is constantly voted as being amongst the safest and best in the world.
Scottish Water is a statutory corporation. It was *started* by the state (via merger of major water providers through the Water Industry Act of 2002), but it is not ran by the state, nor is it part of the state. Instead, it has its own CEO and board of directors, private citizens, who are accountable before the state and the public for its day to day operations. The easiest way to explain it to a layman is that it’s a business with the government as a majority shareholder. Is that public or private? The answer is… Ehh? *Shrugs* It’s a corporation with a majority shareholder, like any other, except that shareholder happens to be the state. The state owns Scottish Water, but Scottish Water is not part of the government. You are not taxed for your water, you are paying a bill to your water supplier, just like you normally would. The government doesn’t siphon public funds to keep Scottish Water solvent - it’s supposed to be solvent in and out of itself. That is not the same as the government having a water department - what I said remains true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Water

EDIT: It appears that in Scotland your water bill is included in Council Tax, which is band-dependent, so a little correction on my part. Thanks for pointing it out, @AmandaRose!
Interesting. Not that it was my point that the government directly does everything.

Things like public housing exist, because runaway privatization isn't the answer to everything.


It literally serves public health. Yes, all the young people (and people in general) that wouldn't have healthcare if the government didn't step in, are slowing catching on that private companies are overpricing healthcare.


So, you admit such a thing doesn't exist. Your ideal in reality, will only cause price gorging and people not being covered.



No, I pay taxes like everyone. It is a weird assumption that people that want their taxes to actually help people, that they must not have money themselves, but yeah, rich people totally need their 10th jet while poorer people can't even get healthcare or even a home.

Anyway, OK. Agree To disagree.
Runaway privatisation is not the answer for everything, just most things. There are certain duties that the government has (judiciary, defense from internal and external threats etc.) and those necessarily cannot be privatised, others absolutely can be ran privately, and if anything, Scottish Water is a prime example that the private sector is perfectly capable of providing services that the government would otherwise suck at. It is also an example of the government setting up monopolies, but that’s a different discussion.

Public health is just statistics - individual people are either healthy or unhealthy. The public doesn’t go to the doctor, patients do. We call them “customers”.

You asked me for examples of free market private healthcare, I’ve given you a very admirable example of free market healthcare. If you want to move the goalpost from where it was all the way to the moon then you’re welcome to do so, but I’m not playing sour grapes with you - the Swiss healthcare system is 100% private, covers everyone via compulsory health insurance and *only* subsidises care for patients who are homeless, insolvent or otherwise incapable of payment. That is literally, word for word, what I described as fair, so yes, it closely describes what I want and ranks first in the world. Nothing that exists is perfect, but Switzerland got pretty dang close, and I’m okay with close to perfect.

Everybody pays taxes because sales taxes and other consumption taxes exist. That doesn’t mean you have a horse in the race. If rich people want 11 jets then that is their prerogative, it’s their money to spend as they please. It is not encumbent on them, or anyone else, to fund other people’s healthcare, they are not responsible for other people’s life choices and they shouldn’t pay for their mistakes, in the most literal sense.
 
Last edited by Foxi4,

AmandaRose

Do what I do. Hold tight and pretend it’s a plan
Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2015
Messages
9,174
Trophies
1
Location
Glasgow
Website
www.rockstarnorth.com
XP
12,971
Country
United Kingdom
You are not taxed for your water, you are paying a bill to your water supplier, just like you normally would. The government doesn’t siphon public funds to keep Scottish Water solvent - it’s supposed to be solvent in and out of itself. That is not the same as the government having a water department - what I said remains true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Water
Exept we do pay for water in our taxes unlike the rest of Britain that pays water bills.


Screenshot_20211128-151328_Samsung Internet.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlexMCS and Foxi4
Status
Not open for further replies.
General chit-chat
Help Users
    AliceCE @ AliceCE: this should help