Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

I'm looking to establish the Forum Commission. It will be responsible for evaluating good alternatives to our dismal forums and creating a new forum. The commission will also handle the transferral of texts from the current forums to the new ones.

Who wants to head the commission?

Pevvania wrote:I'm looking to establish the Forum Commission. It will be responsible for evaluating good alternatives to our dismal forums and creating a new forum. The commission will also handle the transferral of texts from the current forums to the new ones.

Who wants to head the commission?

using phpbb forums?

Pevvania wrote:I'm looking to establish the Forum Commission. It will be responsible for evaluating good alternatives to our dismal forums and creating a new forum. The commission will also handle the transferral of texts from the current forums to the new ones.

Who wants to head the commission?

I guess what i mean to say is, I'd gladly offer myself up for the job.. using phpbb based forum. But i don't know if that's what y'all want.

Attention!

Residents of Libertatem, This is Blahbania. I will be doing a massive map project for the regional map, please TG me for a place on the regional map.

Also, we will be doing a vote, on whether the regional map should be a world map right-side up, or upside-down

Also please send me any votes questions, comments, or complaints

Vardakia wrote:I'm back.

There goes the neighborhood

Why thank you...

Do you guys find the adds to be a tad but creepy? I mean honestly "do you need a sugar mommy" do people click on this stuff?

Lack There Of wrote:Do you guys find the adds to be a tad but creepy? I mean honestly "do you need a sugar mommy" do people click on this stuff?

It's just another example of socialism! :P

Muh Roads wrote:It's just another example of socialism! :P

How?

The Time Alliance wrote:How?

Put in years of work for your sugar momma.. she'll take care of you. ..if you do it her way. LOL.

Post self-deleted by The Time Alliance.

Post self-deleted by The Time Alliance.

Muh Roads wrote:Put in years of work for your sugar momma.. she'll take care of you. ..if you do it her way. LOL.

What the hell is wrong with you?

Humpheria wrote:What the hell is wrong with you?

That is a question best left to a certified psychiatrist.

Other than that I was only joking.

Seriously if I offended you or anyone else somehow.. I am sorry. That wasn't my intention.

Muh Roads wrote:It's just another example of socialism! :P

Surely selling your body for money is a deeply capitalist thing? ;)

Muh Roads wrote:Seriously if I offended you or anyone else somehow.. I am sorry. That wasn't my intention.

I also joking, don't worry about it Muh, that was hi-larious but also rather strange, which is why I asked my question.

Humpheria wrote:that was hi-larious but also rather strange

Welcome to the Internet. There is no escape.

Anyone want to write a newspaper article? Anyone at all?

--IN VOTING--

The House of Representatives Restoration and Reform Amendment

Section I

Purpose of this amendment.

To reform the House of Representatives to increase efficiency, return power to the nations of Libertatem and to repeal specified provisions of the HOREF Amendment.

Section II

Alterations of the HOREF Amendment.

Provision I is to be repealed, and replaced with "The House of Representatives shall consist of all nations in Libertatem not vested with a legislatoral position."

Provision II is to be altered so "The passage of amendments may henceforth require the vote of two thirds of voting Representatives, or through the other means described in the Constitution."

Section III

Clauses to be amended to the Constitution.

Article I

Section II

Subsection I

The House of Representatives shall consist of all nations in Libertatem not vested with a legislatoral position.

Article IV

Section I

Subsection III

The House of Representatives may seek an amendment with 2/3 of the Representatives voting.

Authored by [nation=short]Pevvania[/nation].

--IN VOTING--

Pevvania wrote:Anyone want to write a newspaper article? Anyone at all?

I might, it's just nothing has happened yet.

But, now that the new bill is out for voting, there's a thing to write about.

Lack There Of wrote:Do you guys find the adds to be a tad but creepy? I mean honestly "do you need a sugar mommy" do people click on this stuff?

I get "Meet Ukranian woman today!"

The Department of Internal Affairs is now open again.

Pax Osca wrote:Surely selling your body for money is a deeply capitalist thing? ;)

Possibly, but a sugar baby sugar momma relationship seems rather socialist to me. "Work" for the sugar momma and she let's you love a wonderful life and provides you with everything, stop "working" and she'll kick you out on the cold cold street faster than you can say "wait baby, I love you!"

Entirely speculation really, no personal experience. I think capitalists would more likely sell there body and be prostitutes rather than a sugar baby. Prostitute could make a quick few bucks, hire other Prostitutes and become an escort agency.

I also have no idea why I'm thinking this serious about this.. I'm going to bed.

Vardakia wrote:I get "Meet Ukranian woman today!"

Lucky you!!! I get "under the gunn" on lifetime.. Can we trade?

Muh Roads wrote:Lucky you!!! I get "under the gunn" on lifetime.. Can we trade?

Ha! I get the ubermension NS++ chrome addon that removes all the adverts :3

Pax Osca wrote:Ha! I get the ubermension NS++ chrome addon that removes all the adverts :3

I have NS++ aswell. But i get ads on my mobile.

Everyone, please vote on the new bill.

This bill has my support.

And newspaper article, remind me to publish an article on it once voting's over.

President: 1/1

Board: 2/5

Managers: 0/3

House: 2/7

Voting poll is out!

Behold! I have redone the regional map:

http://oi41.tinypic.com/15n87s3.jp

Color key for map:

Red=NCSA

Violet-Red=Blahbania

Light Blue=Meincraft

Dark Blue=Pevvania

Orange=Islands

Light Green=Muh Roads

Dark Green=Humpheria

Dark Purple=The United Regions

I have voted yea. This is the amendment the region has waited for!

Hm, these islands are a bit closer to the mainland than I'd have liked, but it has that old feel about it, so it's best to assume it's not gonna be 100% accurate.

War!

The USSA has declared war on the NCSA. The USSA govt has said:

"We shall take out the secessionist traitors, and restore the Socialist order in the so-called NCSA".

The USSA troops have attacked the NCSA border regions.

The NCSA govt has asked all citizens to take up arms and fight, and is asking other govts to help in stopping the USSA.

The bill has my support. Yea.

USSA troops have taken much of Northern Virginia, and there is now a stalemate between USSA troops and NCSA troops, just north of Richmond.

Meanwhile, NCSA troops and militias have liberated Alberta, and the Dakotas.

The Neo-Confederate States Of America wrote:Behold! I have redone the regional map:

http://oi41.tinypic.com/15n87s3.jp

Looks great!

Me and [nation=short]Pevvania[/nation] could have some real fine sea based trade routes :)

And of course we will be importing our finest "goods" to my neighbors to the south for their war effort.

I voted yes. The Free Market Paradise of Pevvania but we should have more representative in the house.

The stalemate has moved closer to Richmond, and the fighting has intensified. We have liberate Saskatchewan, Minnesota, and southern Manitoba.

Bah, those colors on that map are hard for my eyes to distinguish. I can't tell if that big red bit of the Americas is Blahbania.

If it is, Howdy, Neighbor!

Anyways, newspaper article inbound. Expect delivery tomorrow.

Miencraft wrote:Bah, those colors on that map are hard for my eyes to distinguish. I can't tell if that big red bit of the Americas is Blahbania.

If it is, Howdy, Neighbor!

Sorry about that. Since I'm not very good with paint, I decided to draw it by hand.

You are next to my new main nation, aka [nation=short]The Neo-Confederate States of America[/nation].

I vote yea on this amendment

Back to the war effort.

Richmond is now a war torn ruin, but now, the USSA Marxist forces are now starting to retreat, and the NCSA is now winning.

NCSA forces have now liberated the rest of Manitoba, Wisconsin, the upper peninsula of Michigan, and most of Illonois, minus Chicago.

Galacticorp has ceased to exist.

Post self-deleted by Pevvania.

HORRREF

P: 1/1

B/M: 8/8

H: 5/7

With full support from every branch of government, the House of Representatives Restoration and Reform Amendment hereby passes into law.

Near*-full support.

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/mexican-vigilantes-throw-government-cartels/

What do you guys think of this? I think the liberty-loving peoples of the world have a lot to learn from these brave, brave men.

"A government without a national health service is a government that cares so little for its citizens that it is willing to let them die. It is a doctor who will not lift a finger to save the life of a dying man for fear of the profit he will loose saving him."

Opinions?

Pax Osca wrote:"A government without a national health service is a government that cares so little for its citizens that it is willing to let them die. It is a doctor who will not lift a finger to save the life of a dying man for fear of the profit he will loose saving him."

Opinions?

That quote is complete sh*t

The Neo-Confederate States Of America wrote:Back to the war effort.

Richmond is now a war torn ruin, but now, the USSA Marxist forces are now starting to retreat, and the NCSA is now winning.

NCSA forces have now liberated the rest of Manitoba, Wisconsin, the upper peninsula of Michigan, and most of Illonois, minus Chicago.

Back to the war front.

Now that we are near Chicago, the USSA capitol, USSA forces are retreating, to defend their capitol, and thus, we, the free NCSA forces, are driving them out of their occupied territories.

We have already liberated, western Ontario, Maryland, Delaware, Most of Indiana, and southern New Jersey.

Pax Osca wrote:"A government without a national health service is a government that cares so little for its citizens that it is willing to let them die. It is a doctor who will not lift a finger to save the life of a dying man for fear of the profit he will loose saving him."

Opinions?

I like how it assumes that you need government in order for people to be healthy.

Everyone knows what I mean by that by now, I'm sure. In case you don't, it's sarcasm.

So I tried to write an article but I couldn't get it as long as I had wanted.

Oh well.

Pevvania wrote:http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/mexican-vigilantes-throw-government-cartels/

What do you guys think of this? I think the liberty-loving peoples of the world have a lot to learn from these brave, brave men.

Good on them!

Pax Osca wrote:"A government without a national health service is a government that cares so little for its citizens that it is willing to let them die. It is a doctor who will not lift a finger to save the life of a dying man for fear of the profit he will loose saving him."

Opinions?

I dont pay the government to care for me. I pay the government because i'd be detained if i didn't. :)

Muh Roads wrote:

I dont pay the government to care for me. I pay the government because i'd be detained if i didn't. :)

Then you really are a prisoner to your own government X)

Miencraft wrote:I like how it assumes that you need government in order for people to be healthy.

Everyone knows what I mean by that by now, I'm sure. In case you don't, it's sarcasm.

Private healthcare is great! As long as you're rich enough to pay for it.

Pax Osca wrote:Then you really are a prisoner to your own government X)

Private healthcare is great! As long as you're rich enough to pay for it.

Like 97% of Americans as late as the early 60s.

Pevvania wrote:Like 97% of Americans as late as the early 60s.

and, according to wikipedia, up to 83.7% of them today.

That said, wikipedia also states that

"60–65% of healthcare provision and spending comes from programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE, the Children's Health Insurance Program, and the Veterans Health Administration. Most of the population under 67 is insured by their or a family member's employer, some buy health insurance on their own, and the remainder are uninsured. Health insurance for public sector employees is primarily provided by the government.

The United States life expectancy of 78.4 years at birth, up from 75.2 years in 1990, ranks it 50th among 221 nations, and 27th out of the 34 industrialized OECD countries, down from 20th in 1990.[3][4] Of 17 high-income countries studied by the National Institutes of Health in 2013, the United States had the highest or near-highest prevalence of infant mortality, heart and lung disease, sexually transmitted infections, adolescent pregnancies, injuries, homicides, and disability. Together, such issues place the U.S. at the bottom of the list for life expectancy. On average, a U.S. male can be expected to live almost four fewer years than those in the top-ranked country.[5]

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the United States spent more on health care per capita ($8,608), and more on health care as percentage of its GDP (17.2%), than any other nation in 2011. The Commonwealth Fund ranked the United States last in the quality of health care among similar countries, and notes U.S. care costs the most. In a 2013 Bloomberg ranking of nations with the most efficient health care systems, the United States ranks 46th among the 48 countries included in the study.[6][7]"

Sure, they've got healthcare, but it barely ensures them for anything worthwhile, and even when it does, isn't very good.

I mean... is this:

"Recent evidence demonstrates that lack of health insurance causes some 45,000 to 48,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States.[8][9] In 2007, 62.1% of filers for bankruptcies claimed high medical expenses. A 2013 study found that about 25% of all senior citizens declare bankruptcy due to medical expenses, and 43% are forced to mortgage or sell their primary residence."

Really an acceptable state of affairs in an OECD?

Forty five THOUSAND people die because some bits of America think it's "too socialist" or "too expensive" to give people healthcare. 62% of people that go bankrupt do it trying to save themselves or a family member from horrible disease or disability.

That's a pretty hefty price tag you're paying for asserting that private healthcare is best.

Pax Osca wrote:

That's a pretty hefty price tag you're paying for asserting that private healthcare is best.

Well, if only people would accept this, then it'd be a lot lower.

Also, Wikipedia =/= credible source. 83.7% is still a lot.

Pax Osca wrote:Forty five THOUSAND people die because some bits of America think it's "too socialist" or "too expensive" to give people healthcare. 62% of people that go bankrupt do it trying to save themselves or a family member from horrible disease or disability.

That's a pretty hefty price tag you're paying for asserting that private healthcare is best.

Thank you.

My opinion is simple. Give the Government half of economic control like Regulations, Healthcare...

Give American citizens Ability to found public Corporations. Let them run the business however they want within regulatory terms.

Pax Osca wrote:Forty five THOUSAND people die because some bits of America think it's "too socialist" or "too expensive" to give people healthcare. 62% of people that go bankrupt do it trying to save themselves or a family member from horrible disease or disability.

That's a pretty hefty price tag you're paying for asserting that private healthcare is best.

For the record, we have no idea what a true free market health care system would look like in America. We've got needless regulation that benefits big-pharma and super medical corporations driving up costs artificially. Mean while the unsuspecting consumer now faces the options of dieing, outrageous costs, or submitting to medicare/Medicaid not realizing how costs could be drastically lower. The system perpetuates itself and the Affordable Healthcare Act is the epitome of this vicious cycle that allows mega-corps to make huge money off the backs of the very people the state says its helping. But I digress, the assumption that the state can somehow change economic law through regulation is on thin ice, and those who claim that the free market would do far worse should look at our current situation and see what is really to blame.

America used to be renowned for having the best healthcare system in the world. It was under a free market system. But then Medicare, Medicaid and a slew of regulations came in the 1960s, and insurance providers began to become cartelised. Hell, they can't even compete across state lines! There's a severe lack of competition that needs to be remedied.

There are 40 million 'uninsured Americans', according to liberals, but this statistic is misleading. 27 million of those are either temporarily uninsured due to job changes, or illegal immigrants. There are only 13 million seriously uninsured Americans, so the problem is far less pronounced than it's made to be.

Miencraft wrote:Well, if only people would accept this, then it'd be a lot lower.

Also, Wikipedia =/= credible source. 83.7% is still a lot.

True, it's not always the best of sources. Fortunately it gives us sources so you can fact check yourself!

In this case the US Census Bureau.

"The U.S. Census Bureau reported that 49.9 million residents, 16.3% of the population, were uninsured in 2010 (up from 49.0 million residents, 16.1% of the population, in 2009)"

Do you want the link to the report(s)?

Lack There Of wrote:For the record, we have no idea what a true free market health care system would look like in America. We've got needless regulation that benefits big-pharma and super medical corporations driving up costs artificially. Mean while the unsuspecting consumer now faces the options of dieing, outrageous costs, or submitting to medicare/Medicaid not realizing how costs could be drastically lower. The system perpetuates itself and the Affordable Healthcare Act is the epitome of this vicious cycle that allows mega-corps to make huge money off the backs of the very people the state says its helping. But I digress, the assumption that the state can somehow change economic law through regulation is on thin ice, and those who claim that the free market would do far worse should look at our current situation and see what is really to blame.

Ohh no, I don't advocate more regulation of the American system, or even modifications to it. I advocate a revamp of the entire system into a comprehensive state national healthcare system as seen in many places in Europe and around the world. One where the state forks out the cash for your expensive treatment when you get cancer instead of leaving you at the mercy of people who have no interest in your actual health but only in how much your treatment will cost them and hence how much profit they can make off of you.

The one thing state healthcare systems are really [B]really[/B] good at is making as many people as well as they can on a budget. This is something no for-profit private company can or will ever achieve. Why? Because it is uncompetitive. If you could save a patient by forking out an extra few tens of thousand of dollars (in some cases more than they've ever payed in or will ever be able to pay into the system), or take those dollars and make a profit from them, the only logical thing to do is let the patient die and tell the family "there's nothing we can do... unless you have a few tens of thousands of dollars handy?". State systems can afford to save "uncompetitive" patients precisely because they have a guaranteed form of income. Even the most good-willed and moralistic private system would be foolish to take on patients like this, as they'd be forcing themselves to be uncompetitive.

For the record, tens of thousands of dollars is not an overestimate for cancer treatments, for which one round can cost up to 30k (and often people need several rounds).

There would only be one case in which I could ever support socialised medicine in the US: if nearly all other functions of government - including welfare, regulation and utilities - were completely eliminated.

Pevvania wrote:America used to be renowned for having the best healthcare system in the world. It was under a free market system. But then Medicare, Medicaid and a slew of regulations came in the 1960s, and insurance providers began to become cartelised. Hell, they can't even compete across state lines! There's a severe lack of competition that needs to be remedied.

There are 40 million 'uninsured Americans', according to liberals, but this statistic is misleading. 27 million of those are either temporarily uninsured due to job changes, or illegal immigrants. There are only 13 million seriously uninsured Americans, so the problem is far less pronounced than it's made to be.

Sauces? I have been providing mine...

"Temporarily uninsured" is dangerously ambiguous terminology. "Due to job changes" could mean anything from 2 weeks to several months/a year or two of unemployment in certain situations.

Pevvania wrote:There would only be one case in which I could ever support socialised medicine in the US: if nearly all other functions of government - including welfare, regulation and utilities - were completely eliminated.

Why? In almost every single measurable way, a socialized system would be superior to the current system by a mile if implemented as it has been time and time again in Europe.

[qoute=pax_osca;5058426]Why? In almost every single measurable way, a socialized system would be superior to the current system by a mile if implemented as it has been time and time again in Europe.[/quote]

It depends on what example your going for. If you mean USSR then no. However I would love it if America patterned it's economy after Britain's abd Germany's.

Firstly I would like to apologize, I'm uncertain what compelled me to refer to the ACA as the "Affordable Healthcare Act" my deepest apologies to everyone.

Secondly, let us not forget the power of private charity. Obviously a for profit company would have no interest in helping a patient for free, that's just bad business. That being said, the role of private charity organizations has been grossly underscored by the state ran services that attempt to do the same job with funds collected at gun point. Left in a vacuum, a truly free society would be left to experiment in its own form dealing with the needs of the poverty stricken ill.

[quote=the_time_alliance;5058847][qoute=pax_osca;5058426]Why? In almost every single measurable way, a socialized system would be superior to the current system by a mile if implemented as it has been time and time again in Europe.[/quote]

It depends on what example your going for. If you mean USSR then no. However I would love it if America patterned it's economy after Britain's abd Germany's. [/quote]

I was, obviously, referring to the healthcare systems of modern democracies, not the failed Soviet state.

My biggest problem is that i cannot think of a single US government agency that has been proven both as effective and efficient as private industry. Infact, we already throw money at programs such as medicare and the people who qualify are constantly griping about something being wrong with it. So to give everyone government based healthcare, i think not.

Its a proven fact that profit motives among private industry bring better prices, if there is no competition to the government how much exactly should be spent? The government at any point could say "sorry we have to raise taxes because the price of this medication went up..because.. uh.. because 9/11.". Before you begin the argument of law and legislation blah blah blah.. When has that exactly mattered before?

Pax Osca wrote:Sauces? I have been providing mine...

"Temporarily uninsured" is dangerously ambiguous terminology. "Due to job changes" could mean anything from 2 weeks to several months/a year or two of unemployment in certain situations.

The Tea Party Goes to Washington, by Rand Paul. An admittedly biased source, but I'm sure I can support it with more when I have a bit more time on my hands.

When I say temporarily I mean for less than a year.

Pax Osca wrote:Why? In almost every single measurable way, a socialized system would be superior to the current system by a mile if implemented as it has been time and time again in Europe.

That's completely true. The NHS here in Britain is excellent. But in America, socialised healthcare just isn't needed. The free-market system used to work SO well, and I fear that nationalised healthcare will expand the Federal Government even more so. I also fear that it could turn into the Canadian system - which is horrible.

Pevvania wrote:The Tea Party Goes to Washington, by Rand Paul. An admittedly biased source, but I'm sure I can support it with more when I have a bit more time on my hands.

When I say temporarily I mean for less than a year.

I am rather loathe to take that as a source, no offense... especially if it refers to the US Census Bureau as "liberals".

Pevvania wrote:That's completely true. The NHS here in Britain is excellent. But in America, socialised healthcare just isn't needed. The free-market system used to work SO well, and I fear that nationalised healthcare will expand the Federal Government even more so. I also fear that it could turn into the Canadian system - which is horrible.

Key here is used to. Why experiment with a relatively untested less-regulated-privatized system where you could aim for a tried and tested NHS style system?

The Canadian system may be "horrible", but it still achieves better statistics than the US system in many key areas, and is ranked seven countries above the US by the WHOrganization.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada#Comparison_to_other_countries

Pevvania wrote: I fear that nationalised healthcare will expand the Federal Government even more so

According to most sources I've seen, the current American healthcare system means America is paying more on average, per capita, than countries with socialized healthcare systems. More than twice as much as the UK or Sweden. Even in terms of % of GDP, America is spending several percent more than nations with socialized systems, and getting a whole lot less out of it (see wiki article, percentage varies from ~1-5% more).

Surely if you can slash the amount the US is paying into the their healthcare by half you'd be making the federal government smaller, not bigger?

Ganzeland wrote:COMMUNISM FTW!

I'm sorry for your loss.

Miencraft wrote:I'm sorry for your loss.

Of what?

Vote FOR in the Security Council resolution - Commend Laissez Faireholm, a region to which Libertatem is allied!

Pax Osca wrote:Key here is used to. Why experiment with a relatively untested less-regulated-privatized system where you could aim for a tried and tested NHS style system?

The Canadian system may be "horrible", but it still achieves better statistics than the US system in many key areas, and is ranked seven countries above the US by the WHOrganization.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada#Comparison_to_other_countries

America is hardly the classic example of a 'failed free market system', because it's not free market at all. Its healthcare market is one of the most highly regulated in the Western world. It is tried and tested, and it did work well before the government touched it. What the US has now is not an example of capitalism gone crazy; it's an example of corporatism gone crazy.

Post by Pevvania suppressed by a moderator.

Post by Ganzeland suppressed by a moderator.

Ganzeland wrote:Of what?

Sanity... j/k.. lol

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:Vote FOR in the Security Council resolution - Commend Laissez Faireholm, a region to which Libertatem is allied!

As much as I would love to do this, some research into both sides has shown that it probably isn't the best course of action.

I mean, we could very well be commended using an almost identical bill, but unfortunately that isn't going to happen.

Muh Roads wrote:Sanity... j/k.. lol

I think you're talking about your ideology there.

Ganzeland wrote:I think you're talking about your ideology there.

Right, because living life as unrestricted as possible is totally insane.

Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.