PureSodiumDiet Posted June 28, 2017 Posted June 28, 2017 I hope the title isn't as eyecatching as it is meaningful to what I feel and have encountered: In Austria we have pseudo socialized healthcare, if you aren't employed and don't have some sort of excuse (studying at university, minor, handicap, etc) you have to privately sign up to pay for health insurance. The cheapest option in my case is roughly 400€ monthly (the maximum amount they can charge) which doesn't include the state-pension (both combined would run you around 1000€ monthly which is nearly a minimum wage 40h/week). Both systems are transfer systems by nature, your money isn't actually pooled for you to use later, it's just immediately passed on to the expensive healthcare tourists, immigrant descended (I've heard rumors that around half the healthcare costs incurred in Vienna are due to immigrants and chiefly because of their defective infants as a result of consanguinity in their ethnic populations), and in the case of your "pension", it feeds some person you don't know until they keel over. So not being insured doesn't sound that terrible right? Well, in the fine print of socialized healthcare (which no one bothered to read when the electorate decided to pass this law in a frenzy of feel good emotions decades ago) if you don't have health insurance and you can't pay your bills the government is empowered to come chase down everyone you are related to or have a connection with and to financially eviscerate them until the costs are accounted for. There is no way to waive this: both as the uninsured party as well as the unsuspecting party who is about to get taken for their money's worth. As you can imagine healthcare costs far too much because practically everyone is allowed access to it. What inspired the following thought was when Stefan described something incredible about the nature of NASA in one of his recent podcasts, specifically how publicly funding science is unjustifiable when people are starving to death in the streets (I'm paraphrasing but I believe that to be around 90% accurate). Assuming we accept a welfare state as a given (even though I hate it), surely it would at least try to give the impression that it cares about it's in-group. The absolute worst aftertaste comes after reading budget reports and newspaper articles of how many billion euros these "refugees" are costing the Austrian government. Mind you these are roughly 100 000 people who have gotten around 2.2 bn € allocated to them from the government for this year alone. The democratic option? All of them socialist, just depends on whether the "immigration" box is checked or not. Sure this inspires the deliberation: the world doesn't owe you shit, so to speak. If we take that for granted, then how come you are supposed to owe the world a whole lot of your shit (40% income tax, 20% VAT, a myriad of smaller fun taxes, payroll tax, healthcare contribution, pension contribution)? I just find it funny how if we lived in a world where you truly were owed nothing, there wouldn't be a state this size. I can only give these retorts, crude as they are: in response to "well you need to pay into the social system, what if something happens to you?": private insurance or alternatively no insurance, using debit to afford any services you might need (especially good for young healthy people). in response to "when you're old you don't want to work anymore and can't, who should pay for it?": investing the money on your own, having children and nurturing your relationship so they would care about you when you age. Honestly sometimes my disdain for the boomers and their insecurity about their retirement gets to the point where I would want them to work until the day they die for what they have done (drowning Europe in debt and ethnic conflict). It's also impossible to point out that the "safety net" only works with certain racial groups as the boomers have eaten up the egalitarian nonsense both for the sexes and for the races. Another point I've come up with recently has to do with socialism and voluntaryism, specifically I engaged a lefty who retorted "well not enough people would care/pay money if welfare was privatized", to which I responded "find a way to convince more people or accept that your ideas aren't interesting". I've distilled it since into this: socialists have already admitted to themselves that voluntary participation in the welfare state is impossible and as such don't consider the option and will force involuntary participation upon everyone whether they like it or not. Some days I despair believing the fight to be lost, other days I get the idea to stand for election (and conveniently there is one soon) with one simple promise: to eradicate the welfare state. Roughly 43% of the GDP flows into the state annually (150 bn €), this works out to 17 000 € per Austrian citizen annually. State expenses include 23 billion euros to run a government for 8.5 mn people (that's 2 700 € per citizen) of which 8 bn are to pay interest on the public debt, 2 bn for defense (our military is depleted), 4 bn for the police&firefighters (includes courts of law and prisons), 28 bn for healthcare, 17.5 bn to run the public schools, and now finally for the real superstar: 76.2 bn € for the social welfare state of which 45 bn € are age-related costs (pensions). Am I correct in understanding that my freedom of association is denied when I am forced to pay taxes for a bunch of people whom I don't personally know? What is there to do in a country that you feel compelled to save from it's demise yet cannot find anything worth saving in? All I see are the selfish, the childless, the racially foreign, and the lesser violent (those who advocate big government) and the greater violent (those who advocate positivist human rights and the EU). For anyone seeking a quick political overview of Austria: (Large) SPÖ, Socialist Democrats of Austria; naturally left leaning and pro-EU, currently collapsing due to internal power struggle (Large) ÖVP, Austrian Peoples Party; was once genuinely conservative but has lost its core ideology and they have become sporadic in their ideas and associations, also collapsing due to a power struggle (Large) FPÖ, Austrian "Freedom" Party; these guys actually caused Austria to get sanctioned by the EU for poising the chancellor (an anti-EU man named Jörg Haider), have since become socialist but without immigration, also has a tinge of civic nationalism and regarded as "nazis" in the state-run media (Small) Grüne, Green Party; customed Marxists LARPing as treehuggers, they think cars should be illegal. (Small) Team Stronach, their head of party repeatedly tries bringing the ethnic angle into view but gets shot down as racist and excluded from TV debates. Also pretty left leaning. (Small) NEOS, some splinter faction of the more left leaning elements of the ÖVP, these guys are close to the greens. Voting demographics: The biggest voting block are the boomers split between the SPÖ and ÖVP according to how poor/wealthy they are, respectively. Then you've got the millennials (30-50) which are spread pretty evenly across the board. The younger the voters the more "extreme" they are (polarization between the greens and the FPÖ). I'm sorry if its been a little ranty, I'm just disparaged. In April I posted about the relative crime rates of the Austrian population and the asylum seekers and I am working at turning that into a leaflet in hopes of "memeing" the parliamentary elections this fall, but I'm skeptical given the responses I've gotten when I presented my findings to a number of different audiences. Cheers lads.
meetjoeblack Posted June 28, 2017 Posted June 28, 2017 12 hours ago, PureSodiumDiet said: I hope the title isn't as eyecatching as it is meaningful to what I feel and have encountered: Quote What inspired the following thought was when Stefan described something incredible about the nature of NASA in one of his recent podcasts, specifically how publicly funding science is unjustifiable when people are starving to death in the streets (I'm paraphrasing but I believe that to be around 90% accurate). Assuming we accept a welfare state as a given (even though I hate it), surely it would at least try to give the impression that it cares about it's in-group. The absolute worst aftertaste comes after reading budget reports and newspaper articles of how many billion euros these "refugees" are costing the Austrian government. Mind you these are roughly 100 000 people who have gotten around 2.2 bn € allocated to them from the government for this year alone. The democratic option? All of them socialist, just depends on whether the "immigration" box is checked or not. Every country that isn't third world promotes this leftist socialist/Marxist jargon. The welfare state is the single mother victimhood state. My tax dollars that are increasing at a rapid rate are extracted against my own will so, even if I don't endorse something, I have absolutely no say in the matter. If I am not party to it, I can avoid low status women, single moms, women with children out of wedlock, different baby daddy's. Yet, by default, if my country allocates resources to this cause, I am party to it. The promos for 'sloot gonna sloot' and single moms; tinder bios reading, "proud single mom" as if this is some sort of badge of honor absolutely disgusts me. All these countries are betraying their actual citizens, extracting their resources, and burying their future children in more national debt. Quote Am I correct in understanding that my freedom of association is denied when I am forced to pay taxes for a bunch of people whom I don't personally know? By default, you have absolutely no say so, your resources are allocated to single moms and immigrants that are handed freebies without your consent. Women are told by feminists, its their to protect them, and that they need a career as state in the government education system. Of course the system that need the education bubble, forces women to have to work harder, and have a job because nearly no body is getting an actual career that pays high and they enjoy.
Recommended Posts