Denkverbot
Page 40 of 50
Page 40 of 50 • 1 ... 21 ... 39, 40, 41 ... 45 ... 50
Re: Denkverbot
aben wrote:Gnječ wrote:uz to što si naučno dokazani sociopata narkojunac još si i licemjer jer nas ubjeđuješ da je socijalizam zlo a ti od socijalizma živiš dobivaš plaću. to je kao da mi liječnik ubjeđuje da je duhan zlo a on fuma ka fabrika cimenta španjulet jen za drugin.
to je totalno nezrelo i zapravo logički neispravno;
činjenica da likor puši nišće ne govori o istinitosti ili neistinosti izjave da je duhan zlo.
you should know better.
ma nemoj?! dokaži! ja ću ti sad dat dva zaušnjaka da će ti u lubanji zvonit ka na crikvi zvono. liječnik je netko tko ima dužnost da živi po načelima koje propovijeda mora biti pošten vjerodostojan trustworthy mora biti primjer drugima. isto kao ča prokleti popi cigansko psihopatska krama sa psihopatom ustašom Bozanićem na vrhu propovjedaju siromaštvo, bogobojaznost, moral, čednost a oni su totalno suprotno od toga totalno su nemoralni, brutalno bogati, ne boje se boga koga zastupaju tu na zemlji, čedni su u pizdu njihove smrdljive hrvatske matere totalna seksuanla perverzija prostitucija pedofilija i još pun kurac toga a djecu indoktrinijaju da je grijeh drkat kurac ili masturbirat a jebanje je grijeh prije stupanja u brak. jebote hrvatski prokleti bog da ti jeba sve ča imaš pička ti materina drkadžijo sociopatska narkojunca da ti jebem.
Guest- Guest
Re: Denkverbot
hoćeš propovijedati libertarijanizam? onda u ponedjeljak smjesta daj otkaz na radnom mjestu uhljeba u socijalizmu i počni radit prvi puta u životu sam. pa da vidimo dokle ćeš daleko doći.
Guest- Guest
Re: Denkverbot
Gnječ wrote:aben wrote:Gnječ wrote:uz to što si naučno dokazani sociopata narkojunac još si i licemjer jer nas ubjeđuješ da je socijalizam zlo a ti od socijalizma živiš dobivaš plaću. to je kao da mi liječnik ubjeđuje da je duhan zlo a on fuma ka fabrika cimenta španjulet jen za drugin.
to je totalno nezrelo i zapravo logički neispravno;
činjenica da likor puši nišće ne govori o istinitosti ili neistinosti izjave da je duhan zlo.
you should know better.
ma nemoj?! dokaži! ja ću ti sad dat dva zaušnjaka da će ti u lubanji zvonit ka na crikvi zvono. liječnik je netko tko ima dužnost da živi po načelima koje propovijeda mora biti pošten vjerodostojan trustworthy mora biti primjer drugima. isto kao ča prokleti popi cigansko psihopatska krama sa psihopatom ustašom Bozanićem na vrhu propovjedaju siromaštvo, bogobojaznost, moral, čednost a oni su totalno suprotno od toga totalno su nemoralni, brutalno bogati, ne boje se boga koga zastupaju tu na zemlji, čedni su u pizdu njihove smrdljive hrvatske matere totalna seksuanla perverzija prostitucija pedofilija i još pun kurac toga a djecu indoktrinijaju da je grijeh drkat kurac ili masturbirat a jebanje je grijeh prije stupanja u brak. jebote hrvatski prokleti bog da ti jeba sve ča imaš pička ti materina drkadžijo sociopatska narkojunca da ti jebem.
kako ginekolog more biti primjer svojin pacijentima? mora redovito minjati uložak?
ne, to su zaključci nezrelih.
cigaret je zlo, jer je štetan za telo.
_________________
Insofar as it is educational, it is not compulsory;
And insofar as it is compulsory, it is not educational
aben- Posts : 35492
2014-04-16
Re: Denkverbot
Gnječ wrote:hoćeš propovijedati libertarijanizam? onda u ponedjeljak smjesta daj otkaz na radnom mjestu uhljeba u socijalizmu i počni radit prvi puta u životu sam. pa da vidimo dokle ćeš daleko doći.
ne, činjenica kako jo živin ne govori nišće o neistinitosti mojih navoda.
čaviše, jo tek sa znun i praktično kako se u uhljabskin ustanovama - ne rodi.
_________________
Insofar as it is educational, it is not compulsory;
And insofar as it is compulsory, it is not educational
aben- Posts : 35492
2014-04-16
Re: Denkverbot
aben wrote:Gnječ wrote:aben wrote:Gnječ wrote:uz to što si naučno dokazani sociopata narkojunac još si i licemjer jer nas ubjeđuješ da je socijalizam zlo a ti od socijalizma živiš dobivaš plaću. to je kao da mi liječnik ubjeđuje da je duhan zlo a on fuma ka fabrika cimenta španjulet jen za drugin.
to je totalno nezrelo i zapravo logički neispravno;
činjenica da likor puši nišće ne govori o istinitosti ili neistinosti izjave da je duhan zlo.
you should know better.
ma nemoj?! dokaži! ja ću ti sad dat dva zaušnjaka da će ti u lubanji zvonit ka na crikvi zvono. liječnik je netko tko ima dužnost da živi po načelima koje propovijeda mora biti pošten vjerodostojan trustworthy mora biti primjer drugima. isto kao ča prokleti popi cigansko psihopatska krama sa psihopatom ustašom Bozanićem na vrhu propovjedaju siromaštvo, bogobojaznost, moral, čednost a oni su totalno suprotno od toga totalno su nemoralni, brutalno bogati, ne boje se boga koga zastupaju tu na zemlji, čedni su u pizdu njihove smrdljive hrvatske matere totalna seksuanla perverzija prostitucija pedofilija i još pun kurac toga a djecu indoktrinijaju da je grijeh drkat kurac ili masturbirat a jebanje je grijeh prije stupanja u brak. jebote hrvatski prokleti bog da ti jeba sve ča imaš pička ti materina drkadžijo sociopatska narkojunca da ti jebem.
kako ginekolog more biti primjer svojin pacijentima? mora redovito minjati uložak?
ne, to su zaključci nezrelih.
cigaret je zlo, jer je štetan za telo.
e to je tvoj sofizam veze s vezom nema. ja ću ti to oružje izbit iz glave pa makar ti prosuo mozak po trdoj stini na tvom jebenom incestuoznom otoku.
dokaži da je cigaret zlo. ajde dokaži dobit ćeš nobelovu nagradu ako zaista dokažeš da je duhan zlo. jer nitko do dana današnjeg nije dokazao ničime konkretnim a to što brutalno nameću da je duhan zlo je politička igra raznih kartela počelo je to trkeljanje u početku u Njemačkoj u doba nacizma.
Guest- Guest
Re: Denkverbot
aben wrote:Gnječ wrote:hoćeš propovijedati libertarijanizam? onda u ponedjeljak smjesta daj otkaz na radnom mjestu uhljeba u socijalizmu i počni radit prvi puta u životu sam. pa da vidimo dokle ćeš daleko doći.
ne, činjenica kako jo živin ne govori nišće o neistinitosti mojih navoda.
čaviše, jo tek sa znun i praktično kako se u uhljabskin ustanovama - ne rodi.
ma hajde odi zajebavat svoju mater.
je stvarno otkri si toplu vodu hahah...jebote ti si zreo. da jesi zreo si za ludnicu i to je ustanova. sad znuš kako se ne rodi u uhljebskim ustanovama. de što ne napišeš neku tezu i poslije doktorat pa da te konačno zovemo Dr. Aben.
Guest- Guest
Re: Denkverbot
Gnječ wrote:aben wrote:Gnječ wrote:aben wrote:Gnječ wrote:uz to što si naučno dokazani sociopata narkojunac još si i licemjer jer nas ubjeđuješ da je socijalizam zlo a ti od socijalizma živiš dobivaš plaću. to je kao da mi liječnik ubjeđuje da je duhan zlo a on fuma ka fabrika cimenta španjulet jen za drugin.
to je totalno nezrelo i zapravo logički neispravno;
činjenica da likor puši nišće ne govori o istinitosti ili neistinosti izjave da je duhan zlo.
you should know better.
ma nemoj?! dokaži! ja ću ti sad dat dva zaušnjaka da će ti u lubanji zvonit ka na crikvi zvono. liječnik je netko tko ima dužnost da živi po načelima koje propovijeda mora biti pošten vjerodostojan trustworthy mora biti primjer drugima. isto kao ča prokleti popi cigansko psihopatska krama sa psihopatom ustašom Bozanićem na vrhu propovjedaju siromaštvo, bogobojaznost, moral, čednost a oni su totalno suprotno od toga totalno su nemoralni, brutalno bogati, ne boje se boga koga zastupaju tu na zemlji, čedni su u pizdu njihove smrdljive hrvatske matere totalna seksuanla perverzija prostitucija pedofilija i još pun kurac toga a djecu indoktrinijaju da je grijeh drkat kurac ili masturbirat a jebanje je grijeh prije stupanja u brak. jebote hrvatski prokleti bog da ti jeba sve ča imaš pička ti materina drkadžijo sociopatska narkojunca da ti jebem.
kako ginekolog more biti primjer svojin pacijentima? mora redovito minjati uložak?
ne, to su zaključci nezrelih.
cigaret je zlo, jer je štetan za telo.
e to je tvoj sofizam veze s vezom nema. ja ću ti to oružje izbit iz glave pa makar ti prosuo mozak po trdoj stini na tvom jebenom incestuoznom otoku.
dokaži da je cigaret zlo. ajde dokaži dobit ćeš nobelovu nagradu ako zaista dokažeš da je duhan zlo. jer nitko do dana današnjeg nije dokazao ničime konkretnim a to što brutalno nameću da je duhan zlo je politička igra raznih kartela počelo je to trkeljanje u početku u Njemačkoj u doba nacizma.
a, misli sun da misliš da je to zlo, ok unda,
cigaret ni zlo.
jedino ča je bitno je da to ne ovisi o preferencijami likora.
_________________
Insofar as it is educational, it is not compulsory;
And insofar as it is compulsory, it is not educational
aben- Posts : 35492
2014-04-16
Re: Denkverbot
Gnječ wrote:aben wrote:Gnječ wrote:hoćeš propovijedati libertarijanizam? onda u ponedjeljak smjesta daj otkaz na radnom mjestu uhljeba u socijalizmu i počni radit prvi puta u životu sam. pa da vidimo dokle ćeš daleko doći.
ne, činjenica kako jo živin ne govori nišće o neistinitosti mojih navoda.
čaviše, jo tek sa znun i praktično kako se u uhljabskin ustanovama - ne rodi.
ma hajde odi zajebavat svoju mater.
je stvarno otkri si toplu vodu hahah...jebote ti si zreo. da jesi zreo si za ludnicu i to je ustanova. sad znuš kako se ne rodi u uhljebskim ustanovama. de što ne napišeš neku tezu i poslije doktorat pa da te konačno zovemo Dr. Aben.
možda, bilo kako bilo, jo bi uhljebljen ili ne, ne utječe na istinitost ili neistinitost onih tvrdnji.
_________________
Insofar as it is educational, it is not compulsory;
And insofar as it is compulsory, it is not educational
aben- Posts : 35492
2014-04-16
Re: Denkverbot
aben wrote:Gnječ wrote:aben wrote:Gnječ wrote:hoćeš propovijedati libertarijanizam? onda u ponedjeljak smjesta daj otkaz na radnom mjestu uhljeba u socijalizmu i počni radit prvi puta u životu sam. pa da vidimo dokle ćeš daleko doći.
ne, činjenica kako jo živin ne govori nišće o neistinitosti mojih navoda.
čaviše, jo tek sa znun i praktično kako se u uhljabskin ustanovama - ne rodi.
ma hajde odi zajebavat svoju mater.
je stvarno otkri si toplu vodu hahah...jebote ti si zreo. da jesi zreo si za ludnicu i to je ustanova. sad znuš kako se ne rodi u uhljebskim ustanovama. de što ne napišeš neku tezu i poslije doktorat pa da te konačno zovemo Dr. Aben.
možda, bilo kako bilo, jo bi uhljebljen ili ne, ne utječe na istinitost ili neistinitost onih tvrdnji.
dokaži te tvoje tvrdnje i počni živit po načelima libertarijanizma pa ćeš imati osobno iskustvo i praksu a ja tu tvoju teoriju koju mlatiš non stop ne priznajem jer je nisi dokazao u praksi. samo trkeljaš neplodnu pseudo-filozofsku sofističku trakavicu koju nikada nisi isprobao u praksi a to već spada u sferu fanatičnih religijskih kultova i sekti. dokaži tu tvoju tvrdnju u reali u praksi pa da možemo nastaviti. ako nemaš ništa za ponuditi praktično konkretno, onda odjebi.
Guest- Guest
Re: Denkverbot
Gnječ wrote:aben wrote:Gnječ wrote:aben wrote:Gnječ wrote:hoćeš propovijedati libertarijanizam? onda u ponedjeljak smjesta daj otkaz na radnom mjestu uhljeba u socijalizmu i počni radit prvi puta u životu sam. pa da vidimo dokle ćeš daleko doći.
ne, činjenica kako jo živin ne govori nišće o neistinitosti mojih navoda.
čaviše, jo tek sa znun i praktično kako se u uhljabskin ustanovama - ne rodi.
ma hajde odi zajebavat svoju mater.
je stvarno otkri si toplu vodu hahah...jebote ti si zreo. da jesi zreo si za ludnicu i to je ustanova. sad znuš kako se ne rodi u uhljebskim ustanovama. de što ne napišeš neku tezu i poslije doktorat pa da te konačno zovemo Dr. Aben.
možda, bilo kako bilo, jo bi uhljebljen ili ne, ne utječe na istinitost ili neistinitost onih tvrdnji.
dokaži te tvoje tvrdnje i počni živit po načelima libertarijanizma pa ćeš imati osobno iskustvo i praksu a ja tu tvoju teoriju koju mlatiš non stop ne priznajem jer je nisi dokazao u praksi. samo trkeljaš neplodnu pseudo-filozofsku sofističku trakavicu koju nikada nisi isprobao u praksi a to već spada u sferu fanatičnih religijskih kultova i sekti. dokaži tu tvoju tvrdnju u reali u praksi pa da možemo nastaviti. ako nemaš ništa za ponuditi praktično konkretno, onda odjebi.
dokaz kakov ti išćeš- dokaži u praksi da će libertarijansko društvo biti stabilno zauvik- je nemoguće doniti.
nočin kako se ote stvori dokaživaju je posredan. naprimjer, usporedi se koliko se čeko na mr u zajedničkoj ustanovi, a koliko u privatnoj. ili, promatro se koliko su ljudi zadovoljni kad se dogovoru da će nešto razminiti dobrovoljno, a koliko kad se jednomu nšto nametne. ili se gljedaju povjesni primjeri poput koliko su gustale privatne željeznice a koliko zajedničke, ili kako su se razvijale bunke dokle su mogle tiskati svoji šoldi, a kako kad to više nisu smile. i unda se na temelju toga zaključuje. međutin, to je sve za nos nebitno. retko ki s noše strone će te uvjeravati da je naš nočin proizvodi bolje ishode. ono ča ćemo te uvjeravati je da je naš nočin pravedniji.
_________________
Insofar as it is educational, it is not compulsory;
And insofar as it is compulsory, it is not educational
aben- Posts : 35492
2014-04-16
Re: Denkverbot
aben wrote:Gnječ wrote:aben wrote:Gnječ wrote:aben wrote:
ne, činjenica kako jo živin ne govori nišće o neistinitosti mojih navoda.
čaviše, jo tek sa znun i praktično kako se u uhljabskin ustanovama - ne rodi.
ma hajde odi zajebavat svoju mater.
je stvarno otkri si toplu vodu hahah...jebote ti si zreo. da jesi zreo si za ludnicu i to je ustanova. sad znuš kako se ne rodi u uhljebskim ustanovama. de što ne napišeš neku tezu i poslije doktorat pa da te konačno zovemo Dr. Aben.
možda, bilo kako bilo, jo bi uhljebljen ili ne, ne utječe na istinitost ili neistinitost onih tvrdnji.
dokaži te tvoje tvrdnje i počni živit po načelima libertarijanizma pa ćeš imati osobno iskustvo i praksu a ja tu tvoju teoriju koju mlatiš non stop ne priznajem jer je nisi dokazao u praksi. samo trkeljaš neplodnu pseudo-filozofsku sofističku trakavicu koju nikada nisi isprobao u praksi a to već spada u sferu fanatičnih religijskih kultova i sekti. dokaži tu tvoju tvrdnju u reali u praksi pa da možemo nastaviti. ako nemaš ništa za ponuditi praktično konkretno, onda odjebi.
dokaz kakov ti išćeš- dokaži u praksi da će libertarijansko društvo biti stabilno zauvik- je nemoguće doniti.
nočin kako se ote stvori dokaživaju je posredan. naprimjer, usporedi se koliko se čeko na mr u zajedničkoj ustanovi, a koliko u privatnoj. ili, promatro se koliko su ljudi zadovoljni kad se dogovoru da će nešto razminiti dobrovoljno, a koliko kad se jednomu nšto nametne. ili se gljedaju povjesni primjeri poput koliko su gustale privatne željeznice a koliko zajedničke, ili kako su se razvijale bunke dokle su mogle tiskati svoji šoldi, a kako kad to više nisu smile. i unda se na temelju toga zaključuje. međutin, to je sve za nos nebitno. retko ki s noše strone će te uvjeravati da je naš nočin proizvodi bolje ishode. ono ča ćemo te uvjeravati je da je naš nočin pravedniji.
hrvatska koju vi zovete država je u biti izdrkotina jugoudbaša, ustaške emigracije i klerofašističke katoličke crkve u hrvata, davanja dvojnog državljanstva hrvatima koji žive u BiH koji su totalni niškoristi horde zla kriminalci i sjecikese ima časnih izuzetaka naravno ali oni samo potvrđuju pravilo.
zato tvoj primjer pada odmah u startu, citiram:"usporedi se koliko se čeko na mr u zajedničkoj ustanovi, a koliko u privatnoj." jer ne dokazuje ništa nikakvu ideologiju nego totalno rasulo i raspad kompletnog zdravstvenog sustava u izdrkotini hrvatskoj. a tu nije kriva ideologija nego kvarni ljudi mediokriteti totalni luzeri u centrima moći. takvi bi u svakom sistemu izvan izdrkotine zvane hrvatska bili promptno eliminirani smijenjeni at once pronto. negdje bi bili i streljani zbog podrivanja i sabotaže države kao takve osuđeni za teški zločin veleizdaje i streljani ili giljotinirani.
prema tome izbaci ovu psihopatsku tvorevinu hrvatsku iz jednadžbe jer izdrkotina hrvatska je slučaj per se.
Guest- Guest
Re: Denkverbot
Gnječ wrote:aben wrote:Gnječ wrote:aben wrote:Gnječ wrote:
ma hajde odi zajebavat svoju mater.
je stvarno otkri si toplu vodu hahah...jebote ti si zreo. da jesi zreo si za ludnicu i to je ustanova. sad znuš kako se ne rodi u uhljebskim ustanovama. de što ne napišeš neku tezu i poslije doktorat pa da te konačno zovemo Dr. Aben.
možda, bilo kako bilo, jo bi uhljebljen ili ne, ne utječe na istinitost ili neistinitost onih tvrdnji.
dokaži te tvoje tvrdnje i počni živit po načelima libertarijanizma pa ćeš imati osobno iskustvo i praksu a ja tu tvoju teoriju koju mlatiš non stop ne priznajem jer je nisi dokazao u praksi. samo trkeljaš neplodnu pseudo-filozofsku sofističku trakavicu koju nikada nisi isprobao u praksi a to već spada u sferu fanatičnih religijskih kultova i sekti. dokaži tu tvoju tvrdnju u reali u praksi pa da možemo nastaviti. ako nemaš ništa za ponuditi praktično konkretno, onda odjebi.
dokaz kakov ti išćeš- dokaži u praksi da će libertarijansko društvo biti stabilno zauvik- je nemoguće doniti.
nočin kako se ote stvori dokaživaju je posredan. naprimjer, usporedi se koliko se čeko na mr u zajedničkoj ustanovi, a koliko u privatnoj. ili, promatro se koliko su ljudi zadovoljni kad se dogovoru da će nešto razminiti dobrovoljno, a koliko kad se jednomu nšto nametne. ili se gljedaju povjesni primjeri poput koliko su gustale privatne željeznice a koliko zajedničke, ili kako su se razvijale bunke dokle su mogle tiskati svoji šoldi, a kako kad to više nisu smile. i unda se na temelju toga zaključuje. međutin, to je sve za nos nebitno. retko ki s noše strone će te uvjeravati da je naš nočin proizvodi bolje ishode. ono ča ćemo te uvjeravati je da je naš nočin pravedniji.
hrvatska koju vi zovete država je u biti izdrkotina jugoudbaša, ustaške emigracije i klerofašističke katoličke crkve u hrvata, davanja dvojnog državljanstva hrvatima koji žive u BiH koji su totalni niškoristi horde zla kriminalci i sjecikese ima časnih izuzetaka naravno ali oni samo potvrđuju pravilo.
zato tvoj primjer pada odmah u startu, citiram:"usporedi se koliko se čeko na mr u zajedničkoj ustanovi, a koliko u privatnoj." jer ne dokazuje ništa nikakvu ideologiju nego totalno rasulo i raspad kompletnog zdravstvenog sustava u izdrkotini hrvatskoj. a tu nije kriva ideologija nego kvarni ljudi mediokriteti totalni luzeri u centrima moći. takvi bi u svakom sistemu izvan izdrkotine zvane hrvatska bili promptno eliminirani smijenjeni at once pronto. negdje bi bili i streljani zbog podrivanja i sabotaže države kao takve osuđeni za teški zločin veleizdaje i streljani ili giljotinirani.
prema tome izbaci ovu psihopatsku tvorevinu hrvatsku iz jednadžbe jer izdrkotina hrvatska je slučaj per se.
ali na mr se svugdi čeko više u zajedničkin ustanovami. imoš na jutubu dokumentarac o nhs-u, i kaosu ki ih očekuje.
stvor je u tomu da je upravo ideologija kriva jer uporno očekuje da će se u centre moći nekakovon magijon dovesti nekvarne ljude. a ne će.
_________________
Insofar as it is educational, it is not compulsory;
And insofar as it is compulsory, it is not educational
aben- Posts : 35492
2014-04-16
Re: Denkverbot
aben wrote:
ali na mr se svugdi čeko više u zajedničkin ustanovami. imoš na jutubu dokumentarac o nhs-u, i kaosu ki ih očekuje.
stvor je u tomu da je upravo ideologija kriva jer uporno očekuje da će se u centre moći nekakovon magijon dovesti nekvarne ljude. a ne će.
čeka se svuda ali to nije the point. the point is koliko se vremena čeka.
da ti bacim škaf ledene vode na glavu?
evo da te demantiram našao sam na brzinu Italia regiju Friuli Venezia Giulia i to samo jedan djelić nemam više živaca s tobom debatirati jebote ti si deformiran ti si genetska greška u evoluciji, tebi pun kurac stvari u mozgu ne funkcionira ili je ugašeno ili se uopće nije razvilo.
evo:
max 30 dana sve ostalo manje pa do odmah sada znači u realnom vremenu nema čekanja niti sekunde. pazi pričamo o Italiji koju vi hrvati prezirete i rugate im se onako perverzno kako jedino hrvati umiju.
Informazioni utili / Tempi di attesa vrijeme čekanja
Esami in sole 48 ore
Qui potete prenotare ed effettuare qualsiasi esame, anche i più specialistici, in sole 48 ore ed ottenere il referto in tempi altrettanto ridotti. Per gli esami più semplici (come ad esempio risonanze articolari, ecografie etc), la consegna del referto avviene in tempo reale.
L'Istituto di Diagnostica Radiologica offre questa opportunità ai pazienti che si rivolgono alla struttura privatamente e desiderano una risposta rapida e professionale.
In più, l'esame può essere prenotato in un'ora scelta, dalle 8 alle 19 con orario continuato, un'ulteriore comodità per chi sceglie di usufruire dei nostri servizi.
TEMPI D’ATTESA IN REGIME DI CONVENZIONE CON SSN PER LA REGIONE FRIULI VENEZIA GIULIA*
Panoramica delle arcate dentarie | 20 giorni |
RX torace | 20 giorni |
RX bacino/rachide un tratto | 20 giorni |
RX articolare un tratto | 20 giorni |
RM Encefalo | 35 giorni |
RM Encefalo + contrasto | non disponibile |
Angio RM distretto vascolare intracranico | 35 giorni |
RM rachide un tratto (cervicale-dorsale-lombare) | 35 giorni |
RM ginocchio | 65 giorni |
RM articolare un tratto (spalla-bacino-gomito-caviglia-piede-mano-polso) | 60 giorni |
RM pelvi femminile | Non disponibile |
RM pelvi femminile + contrasto | Non disponibile |
TC spirale 16 slices articolare | Non disponibile |
TC Dentascan volumetrico 3D a basso dosaggio | Non disponibile |
TC rachide lombare | 30 giorni |
TC colon virtuale a basso dosaggio | Non disponibile |
TC torace a basso dosaggio | 30 giorni |
TC encefalo | 30 giorni |
Densitometria ossea DEXA | Non disponibile |
Mammografia | 30 giorni |
Mammografia + Ecografia mammaria | 30 giorni |
Ecografia addome completo | 60 giorni |
Ecografia addome inferiore | 60 giorni |
Ecografia addome superiore | 60 giorni |
Ecografie parti molli e muscolo-tendinee | Non disponibile |
Ecografia mammaria | non disponibile |
Ecografia scrotale | Non disponibile |
Ecografia prostatica endocavitaria | Non previsto |
Ecografia ginecologica endocavitaria | Non previsto |
Ecocolordoppler | non disponibile |
*Durante l’anno i tempi d’attesa sono soggetti a variazione in base alle disponibilità di budget, pertanto si consiglia sempre di telefonare in struttura per avere delle informazioni aggiornate in merito.
TEMPI D'ATTESA IN PRIVATO
Panoramica delle arcate dentarie | In giornata | 24 ore |
RX torace | In giornata | 24 ore |
RX bacino/rachide un tratto | In giornata | 24 ore |
RX articolare un tratto | In giornata | 24 ore |
RM Encefalo | In giornata | 48 ore |
RM Encefalo + contrasto | 24 ore | 7 giorni |
Angio RM distretto vascolare intracranico | 24 ore | 7 giorni |
RM rachide un tratto (cervicale-dorsale-lombare) | In giornata | 24 ore |
RM rachide un tratto + contrasto | 24 ore | 7 giorni |
RM ginocchio | In giornata | 24 ore |
RM articolare un tratto (spalla-bacino-gomito-caviglia-piede-mano) | In giornata | 24 ore |
RM articolazioni temporo mandibolari | In giornata | 24 ore |
RM pelvi femminile | In giornata | 24 ore |
RM pelvi femminile + contrasto | In giornata | 24 ore |
TC spirale 16 slices articolare | In giornata | 24 ore |
TC Dentascan volumetrico 3D a basso dosaggio | In giornata | 24 ore |
TC rachide lombare | In giornata | 24 ore |
TC colon virtuale a basso dosaggio | 3 giorni | 7 giorni |
TC torace a basso dosaggio | In giornata | 24 ore |
TC encefalo | In giornata | 24 ore |
Densitometria ossea DEXA | In giornata | 3 giorni |
Mammografia | In giornata | 3 giorni |
Mammografia + Ecografia mammaria | In giornata | 3 giorni |
Ecografia addome completo | In giornata | 24 ore |
Ecografia addome inferiore | In giornata | 24 ore |
Ecografia addome superiore | In giornata | 24 ore |
Ecografie parti molli e muscolo-tendinee | In giornata | 24 ore |
Ecografia mammaria | In giornata | 24 ore |
Ecografia scrotale | In giornata | 24 ore |
Ecocolordoppler | 24 ore | 7 giorni |
Ecografia prostatica endocavitaria | 24 ore | 4 giorni |
Ecografia ginecologica endocavitaria | 24 ore | 4 giorni |
Tempo di attesa per ottenere la documentazione clinica
Radiologia scheletrica tradizionale (compresi gli esami dentali) | Entro 45' dalla fine dell'esame |
Mammografia | Entro 45' dalla fine dell'esame |
Mammografia + ecografia mammaria | Entro 30' dalla fine dell'ecografia |
Ecografia | Entro 30' dalla fine dell'esame |
Densitometria ossea | Entro 30' dalla fine dell'esame |
TAC | Entro 24/48 ore |
Risonanza Magnetica articolare | Entro 24/48 ore |
Risonanza Magnetica cerebrale e cerebro-spinale | Entro 72 ore |
Risonanza Magnetica con mezzo di contrasto | Entro 72 ore |
RM articolazioni temporo mandibolari | Entro 24/48 ore |
RM pelvi femminile | Entro 24/48 ore |
RM pelvi femminile + contrasto | Entro 24/48 ore |
dati aggiornati al 1 dicembre 2017
http://www.istitutoradiologia.it/it_IT/tempi-di-attesa.html
Guest- Guest
Re: Denkverbot
Gnječ wrote:aben wrote:
ali na mr se svugdi čeko više u zajedničkin ustanovami. imoš na jutubu dokumentarac o nhs-u, i kaosu ki ih očekuje.
stvor je u tomu da je upravo ideologija kriva jer uporno očekuje da će se u centre moći nekakovon magijon dovesti nekvarne ljude. a ne će.
čeka se svuda ali to nije the point. the point is koliko se vremena čeka.
da ti bacim škaf ledene vode na glavu?
evo da te demantiram našao sam na brzinu Italia regiju Friuli Venezia Giulia i to samo jedan djelić nemam više živaca s tobom debatirati jebote ti si deformiran ti si genetska greška u evoluciji, tebi pun kurac stvari u mozgu ne funkcionira ili je ugašeno ili se uopće nije razvilo.
evo:
ali, gnječ, zoč ti morun objašnjavati osnove ko da ti je 5 godin?
ne moreš me demantirati s polak informacije. dakle, 30 dana u zajedničkoj, a koliko u privatnoj?
_________________
Insofar as it is educational, it is not compulsory;
And insofar as it is compulsory, it is not educational
aben- Posts : 35492
2014-04-16
Re: Denkverbot
evo lik napisao pjesmu svom psu koji ga je nažalost napustio i otišao chasing butterflies.
This is a song I wrote for my dog "Keys" who got diagnosed with Lymphoma. He passed away Monday, November 28, 2016. You can purchase the song on iTunes or stream on Spotify, from my album "Depending on the Weather"- Frankly Speaking
(I went by my original name for this video but my artist name is Frankly Speaking)
This is a song I wrote for my dog "Keys" who got diagnosed with Lymphoma. He passed away Monday, November 28, 2016. You can purchase the song on iTunes or stream on Spotify, from my album "Depending on the Weather"- Frankly Speaking
(I went by my original name for this video but my artist name is Frankly Speaking)
Guest- Guest
Re: Denkverbot
aben wrote:Gnječ wrote:aben wrote:
ali na mr se svugdi čeko više u zajedničkin ustanovami. imoš na jutubu dokumentarac o nhs-u, i kaosu ki ih očekuje.
stvor je u tomu da je upravo ideologija kriva jer uporno očekuje da će se u centre moći nekakovon magijon dovesti nekvarne ljude. a ne će.
čeka se svuda ali to nije the point. the point is koliko se vremena čeka.
da ti bacim škaf ledene vode na glavu?
evo da te demantiram našao sam na brzinu Italia regiju Friuli Venezia Giulia i to samo jedan djelić nemam više živaca s tobom debatirati jebote ti si deformiran ti si genetska greška u evoluciji, tebi pun kurac stvari u mozgu ne funkcionira ili je ugašeno ili se uopće nije razvilo.
evo:
ali, gnječ, zoč ti morun objašnjavati osnove ko da ti je 5 godin?
ne moreš me demantirati s polak informacije. dakle, 30 dana u zajedničkoj, a koliko u privatnoj?
ma slušaj ti mene jebem ti majku sotonsku. ti si nitko i ništa ti si taj koji nema niti 5 jebenih godina u mozgu jeboti pas mater. NEMAŠ pravo mene niti ikoga patronizirati TI koji si mentalno deformiran i zaostao u psiho neurološkom razvoju. CAPITO?
REKOH TI MANI SE IZDRKOTINE HRVATSKE I PRIMJERA IZ ISTE JER IZDRKOTINA HRVATSKA JE SLUČAJ ZA SEBE CASO A PARTE. CAPISCI STRONZO?! ma kužiš ti kurac. aben, sine, junac, mani se sofizama i iskrivljene logike.
Guest- Guest
Re: Denkverbot
What are the fundamental flaws in libertarian thinking?
[ltr]Fundamental flaws in libertarian thinking:[/ltr]
[list="margin-right: 2em; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 0px; list-style-position: initial; list-style-image: initial; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: q_serif, Georgia, Times, \"Times New Roman", "Hiragino Kaku Gothic Pro", Meiryo, serif; font-size: 15px;"]
[*]In the absence of government, monopoly and coercive power are impossible. This ought to be an obvious falsehood, but it’s the core libertarian justification for total deregulation of all economic activity.
[*]All interactions in an unfettered free market, being voluntary, are by definition fair and equitable, because one side can always just walk away. Libertarians ignore the fact that most free market transactions are between entities of vastly unequal negotiating power; the wealthy, who seek greater profit but could live without the transaction, and the poor, whose only alternative in most cases is starvation, homelessness, sickness and death.
[*]Government created prejudices between races, genders, religious groups, etc., and with government abolished such prejudices will become unenforceable. This is backwards. Government does not create prejudice; it reflects the prejudices of the people it governs, or else it falls and is replaced by something else. In the absence of government individual prejudice and bigotry will not disappear; it will be fully unleashed to abuse and persecute any and all disliked minorities into submission, slavery, or extermination.
[*]In an unregulated free market businesses who do not deal fairly with consumers, who poison or defraud their consumers, etc. will go out of business. This is so contrary to historical experience, particularly in 19th Century America, that it ought to fail the laugh test for everyone. The fact it doesn’t just demonstrates how poor Americans are at teaching and learning our own history.
[*]Without government individuals will settle their own differences fairly and equitably. Yeah. Right. Just as they do in Somalia. Just, incidentally, as they did in frontier America, when organized bands of people deliberately slaughtered their enemies and, more often than not, never suffered any penalty from the law or from their neighbors.
[*]People do not need government to defend their own rights; each person has the ability to defend themselves from any aggression; and if a person find themselves outmatched, other people will voluntarily come to their side to defend their liberty. Again, anyone with a basic education in either history or human nature should find this one failing the laugh test.
[*]Only government can ever exert coercive power, because in a free market unfettered by government any person can simply walk away. Because, apparently, in the Libertarian utopia there are no such things as gangs, militias, cartels, organized crime, etc.
[*]Only government can ever establish economic monopolies, because in a free market anyone can create a competing business, and customers can freely move to more favorable markets. This ignores two basic elements of economics: entry costs and economies of scale. In reality, the bigger and stronger a monopoly is, the LESS likely it is that competition will arise, because even if the competition somehow has the money to achieve the same economies of scale as the existing monopoly, the profits will be so much reduced by competition as to make the investment unattractive. Better, instead, to invest in the existing monopoly and get a share of the high profits and other benefits.
[*]Government creates no freedom; instead it destroys freedom. This is the argument of privilege, of the haves who want to keep the have-nots in their place. Such people have no fear that they will lose out in a society without police, laws, etc. They are the Galts and Digbys and such. In the real world governments exist, and continue to exist, because the people being governed are willing to give up certain freedoms (the freedom to seek revenge, the freedom to take anything you want, the freedom to dump barrels of mercury into the river) in exchange for certain securities (security against being murdered, security against theft, secure clean drinking water and edible fish). Which leads to…
[*]It is possible to create and maintain a society without an effective government. This is the biggest Libertarian fantasy of them all. Government is nothing more than the means by which we enforce the rules by which human beings live together. Right now we, in the United States, have a government in which the general population has some, but not total, power to check and control the actions of our government (though with Trump’s election this is not guaranteed to remain the case). If this government were eliminated tomorrow at every level, in short order a new one would arise, either because groups of people demand securities for their lives and property or (much more likely) someone with a lot of power and no scruples sees an opportunity to rewrite the rules of society for his own benefit. Anarcho-capitalism is not, and never will be, a stable condition, because it is by definition unable to defend itself, either from a tyrant or from simple people who demand something more.
[/list]
Libertarianism is not a mode of government; it is a vacuum of government. And a vacuum will inevitably be filled with something new- with destructive consequences.
[ltr]Fundamental flaws in libertarian thinking:[/ltr]
[list="margin-right: 2em; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 0px; list-style-position: initial; list-style-image: initial; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: q_serif, Georgia, Times, \"Times New Roman", "Hiragino Kaku Gothic Pro", Meiryo, serif; font-size: 15px;"]
[*]In the absence of government, monopoly and coercive power are impossible. This ought to be an obvious falsehood, but it’s the core libertarian justification for total deregulation of all economic activity.
[*]All interactions in an unfettered free market, being voluntary, are by definition fair and equitable, because one side can always just walk away. Libertarians ignore the fact that most free market transactions are between entities of vastly unequal negotiating power; the wealthy, who seek greater profit but could live without the transaction, and the poor, whose only alternative in most cases is starvation, homelessness, sickness and death.
[*]Government created prejudices between races, genders, religious groups, etc., and with government abolished such prejudices will become unenforceable. This is backwards. Government does not create prejudice; it reflects the prejudices of the people it governs, or else it falls and is replaced by something else. In the absence of government individual prejudice and bigotry will not disappear; it will be fully unleashed to abuse and persecute any and all disliked minorities into submission, slavery, or extermination.
[*]In an unregulated free market businesses who do not deal fairly with consumers, who poison or defraud their consumers, etc. will go out of business. This is so contrary to historical experience, particularly in 19th Century America, that it ought to fail the laugh test for everyone. The fact it doesn’t just demonstrates how poor Americans are at teaching and learning our own history.
[*]Without government individuals will settle their own differences fairly and equitably. Yeah. Right. Just as they do in Somalia. Just, incidentally, as they did in frontier America, when organized bands of people deliberately slaughtered their enemies and, more often than not, never suffered any penalty from the law or from their neighbors.
[*]People do not need government to defend their own rights; each person has the ability to defend themselves from any aggression; and if a person find themselves outmatched, other people will voluntarily come to their side to defend their liberty. Again, anyone with a basic education in either history or human nature should find this one failing the laugh test.
[*]Only government can ever exert coercive power, because in a free market unfettered by government any person can simply walk away. Because, apparently, in the Libertarian utopia there are no such things as gangs, militias, cartels, organized crime, etc.
[*]Only government can ever establish economic monopolies, because in a free market anyone can create a competing business, and customers can freely move to more favorable markets. This ignores two basic elements of economics: entry costs and economies of scale. In reality, the bigger and stronger a monopoly is, the LESS likely it is that competition will arise, because even if the competition somehow has the money to achieve the same economies of scale as the existing monopoly, the profits will be so much reduced by competition as to make the investment unattractive. Better, instead, to invest in the existing monopoly and get a share of the high profits and other benefits.
[*]Government creates no freedom; instead it destroys freedom. This is the argument of privilege, of the haves who want to keep the have-nots in their place. Such people have no fear that they will lose out in a society without police, laws, etc. They are the Galts and Digbys and such. In the real world governments exist, and continue to exist, because the people being governed are willing to give up certain freedoms (the freedom to seek revenge, the freedom to take anything you want, the freedom to dump barrels of mercury into the river) in exchange for certain securities (security against being murdered, security against theft, secure clean drinking water and edible fish). Which leads to…
[*]It is possible to create and maintain a society without an effective government. This is the biggest Libertarian fantasy of them all. Government is nothing more than the means by which we enforce the rules by which human beings live together. Right now we, in the United States, have a government in which the general population has some, but not total, power to check and control the actions of our government (though with Trump’s election this is not guaranteed to remain the case). If this government were eliminated tomorrow at every level, in short order a new one would arise, either because groups of people demand securities for their lives and property or (much more likely) someone with a lot of power and no scruples sees an opportunity to rewrite the rules of society for his own benefit. Anarcho-capitalism is not, and never will be, a stable condition, because it is by definition unable to defend itself, either from a tyrant or from simple people who demand something more.
[/list]
Libertarianism is not a mode of government; it is a vacuum of government. And a vacuum will inevitably be filled with something new- with destructive consequences.
Guest- Guest
Re: Denkverbot
The question libertarians just can't answer
If your approach is so great, why hasn’t any country anywhere in the world ever tried it?
Why are there no libertarian countries? If libertarians are correct in claiming that they understand how best to organize a modern society, how is it that not a single country in the world in the early twenty-first century is organized along libertarian lines?
It’s not as though there were a shortage of countries to experiment with libertarianism. There are 193 sovereign state members of the United Nations—195, if you count the Vatican and Palestine, which have been granted observer status by the world organization. If libertarianism was a good idea, wouldn’t at least one country have tried it? Wouldn’t there be at least one country, out of nearly two hundred, with minimal government, free trade, open borders, decriminalized drugs, no welfare state and no public education system?
When you ask libertarians if they can point to a libertarian country, you are likely to get a baffled look, followed, in a few moments, by something like this reply: While there is no purely libertarian country, there are countries which have pursued policies of which libertarians would approve: Chile, with its experiment in privatized Social Security, for example, and Sweden, a big-government nation which, however, gives a role to vouchers in schooling.
But this isn’t an adequate response. Libertarian theorists have the luxury of mixing and matching policies to create an imaginary utopia. A real country must function simultaneously in different realms—defense and the economy, law enforcement and some kind of system of support for the poor. Being able to point to one truly libertarian country would provide at least some evidence that libertarianism can work in the real world.
Some political philosophies pass this test. For much of the global center-left, the ideal for several generations has been Nordic social democracy—what the late liberal economist Robert Heilbroner described as “a slightly idealized Sweden.” Other political philosophies pass the test, even if their exemplars flunk other tests. Until a few decades ago, supporters of communism in the West could point to the Soviet Union and other Marxist-Leninist dictatorships as examples of “really-existing socialism.” They argued that, while communist regimes fell short in the areas of democracy and civil rights, they proved that socialism can succeed in a large-scale modern industrial society.
While the liberal welfare-state left, with its Scandinavian role models, remains a vital force in world politics, the pro-communist left has been discredited by the failure of the Marxist-Leninist countries it held up as imperfect but genuine models. Libertarians have often proclaimed that the economic failure of Marxism-Leninism discredits not only all forms of socialism but also moderate social-democratic liberalism.
But think about this for a moment. If socialism is discredited by the failure of communist regimes in the real world, why isn’t libertarianism discredited by the absence of any libertarian regimes in the real world? Communism was tried and failed. Libertarianism has never even been tried on the scale of a modern nation-state, even a small one, anywhere in the world.
Lacking any really-existing libertarian countries to which they can point, the free-market right is reduced to ranking countries according to “economic freedom.” Somewhat different lists are provided by the Fraser Institute in Canada and the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C.
According to their similar global maps of economic freedom, the economically-free countries of the world are by and large the mature, well-established industrial democracies: the U.S. and Canada, the nations of western Europe and Japan. But none of these countries, including the U.S., is anywhere near a libertarian paradise. Indeed, the government share of GDP in these and similar OECD countries is around forty percent—nearly half the economy.
Even worse, the economic-freedom country rankings are biased toward city-states and small countries. For example, in the latest ranking of economic liberty by the Heritage Foundation, the top five nations are Hong Kong (a city, not a country), Singapore (a city-state), Australia, New Zealand and Switzerland (small-population countries).
With the exception of Switzerland, four out of the top five were small British overseas colonies which played interstitial roles in the larger British empire. Even though they are formally sovereign today, these places remain fragments of larger defense systems and larger markets. They are able to engage in free riding on the provision of public goods, like security and huge consumer populations, by other, bigger states.
Australia and New Zealand depended for protection first on the British empire and now on the United States. Its fabled militias to the contrary, Switzerland might not have maintained its independence for long if Nazi Germany had won World War II.
These countries play specialized roles in much larger regional and global markets, rather as cities or regions do in a large nation-state like the U.S. Hong Kong and Singapore remain essentially entrepots for international trade. Switzerland is an international banking and tax haven. What works for them would not work for a giant nation-state like the U.S. (number 10 on the Heritage list of economic freedom) or even medium-sized countries like Germany (number 19) or Japan (number 24).
And then there is Mauritius.
According to the Heritage Foundation, the U.S. has less economic freedom than Mauritius, another small island country, this one off the southeast coast of Africa. At number 8, Mauritius is two rungs above the U.S., at number 10 in the global index of economic liberty.
The Heritage Foundation is free to define economic freedom however it likes, by its own formula weighting government size, freedom of trade, absence of regulation and so on. What about factors other than economic freedom that shape the quality of life of citizens?
How about education? According to the CIA World Fact book, the U.S. spends more than Mauritius—5.4 percent of GDP in 2009 compared to only 3.7 percent in Mauritius in 2010. For the price of that extra expenditure, which is chiefly public, the U.S. has a literacy rate of 99 percent, compared to only 88.5 percent in economically-freer Mauritius.
Infant mortality? In economically-more-free Mauritius there are about 11 deaths per 1,000 live births—compared to 5.9 in the economically-less-free U.S. Maternal mortality in Mauritius is at 60 deaths per 100,000 live births, compared to 21 in the U.S. Economic liberty comes at a price in human survival, it would seem. Oh, well—at least Mauritius is economically free!
Even to admit such trade-offs—like higher infant mortality, in return for less government—would undermine the claim of libertarians that Americans and other citizens of advanced countries could enjoy the same quality of life, but at less cost, if most government agencies and programs were replaced by markets and for-profit firms. Libertarians seem to have persuaded themselves that there is no significant trade-off between less government and more national insecurity, more crime, more illiteracy and more infant and maternal mortality, among other things.
It’s a seductive vision—enjoying the same quality of life that today’s heavily-governed rich nations enjoy, with lower taxes and less regulation. The vision is so seductive, in fact, that we are forced to return to the question with which we began: if libertarianism is not only appealing but plausible, why hasn’t any country anywhere in the world ever tried it?
If your approach is so great, why hasn’t any country anywhere in the world ever tried it?
Why are there no libertarian countries? If libertarians are correct in claiming that they understand how best to organize a modern society, how is it that not a single country in the world in the early twenty-first century is organized along libertarian lines?
It’s not as though there were a shortage of countries to experiment with libertarianism. There are 193 sovereign state members of the United Nations—195, if you count the Vatican and Palestine, which have been granted observer status by the world organization. If libertarianism was a good idea, wouldn’t at least one country have tried it? Wouldn’t there be at least one country, out of nearly two hundred, with minimal government, free trade, open borders, decriminalized drugs, no welfare state and no public education system?
When you ask libertarians if they can point to a libertarian country, you are likely to get a baffled look, followed, in a few moments, by something like this reply: While there is no purely libertarian country, there are countries which have pursued policies of which libertarians would approve: Chile, with its experiment in privatized Social Security, for example, and Sweden, a big-government nation which, however, gives a role to vouchers in schooling.
But this isn’t an adequate response. Libertarian theorists have the luxury of mixing and matching policies to create an imaginary utopia. A real country must function simultaneously in different realms—defense and the economy, law enforcement and some kind of system of support for the poor. Being able to point to one truly libertarian country would provide at least some evidence that libertarianism can work in the real world.
Some political philosophies pass this test. For much of the global center-left, the ideal for several generations has been Nordic social democracy—what the late liberal economist Robert Heilbroner described as “a slightly idealized Sweden.” Other political philosophies pass the test, even if their exemplars flunk other tests. Until a few decades ago, supporters of communism in the West could point to the Soviet Union and other Marxist-Leninist dictatorships as examples of “really-existing socialism.” They argued that, while communist regimes fell short in the areas of democracy and civil rights, they proved that socialism can succeed in a large-scale modern industrial society.
While the liberal welfare-state left, with its Scandinavian role models, remains a vital force in world politics, the pro-communist left has been discredited by the failure of the Marxist-Leninist countries it held up as imperfect but genuine models. Libertarians have often proclaimed that the economic failure of Marxism-Leninism discredits not only all forms of socialism but also moderate social-democratic liberalism.
But think about this for a moment. If socialism is discredited by the failure of communist regimes in the real world, why isn’t libertarianism discredited by the absence of any libertarian regimes in the real world? Communism was tried and failed. Libertarianism has never even been tried on the scale of a modern nation-state, even a small one, anywhere in the world.
Lacking any really-existing libertarian countries to which they can point, the free-market right is reduced to ranking countries according to “economic freedom.” Somewhat different lists are provided by the Fraser Institute in Canada and the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C.
According to their similar global maps of economic freedom, the economically-free countries of the world are by and large the mature, well-established industrial democracies: the U.S. and Canada, the nations of western Europe and Japan. But none of these countries, including the U.S., is anywhere near a libertarian paradise. Indeed, the government share of GDP in these and similar OECD countries is around forty percent—nearly half the economy.
Even worse, the economic-freedom country rankings are biased toward city-states and small countries. For example, in the latest ranking of economic liberty by the Heritage Foundation, the top five nations are Hong Kong (a city, not a country), Singapore (a city-state), Australia, New Zealand and Switzerland (small-population countries).
With the exception of Switzerland, four out of the top five were small British overseas colonies which played interstitial roles in the larger British empire. Even though they are formally sovereign today, these places remain fragments of larger defense systems and larger markets. They are able to engage in free riding on the provision of public goods, like security and huge consumer populations, by other, bigger states.
Australia and New Zealand depended for protection first on the British empire and now on the United States. Its fabled militias to the contrary, Switzerland might not have maintained its independence for long if Nazi Germany had won World War II.
These countries play specialized roles in much larger regional and global markets, rather as cities or regions do in a large nation-state like the U.S. Hong Kong and Singapore remain essentially entrepots for international trade. Switzerland is an international banking and tax haven. What works for them would not work for a giant nation-state like the U.S. (number 10 on the Heritage list of economic freedom) or even medium-sized countries like Germany (number 19) or Japan (number 24).
And then there is Mauritius.
According to the Heritage Foundation, the U.S. has less economic freedom than Mauritius, another small island country, this one off the southeast coast of Africa. At number 8, Mauritius is two rungs above the U.S., at number 10 in the global index of economic liberty.
The Heritage Foundation is free to define economic freedom however it likes, by its own formula weighting government size, freedom of trade, absence of regulation and so on. What about factors other than economic freedom that shape the quality of life of citizens?
How about education? According to the CIA World Fact book, the U.S. spends more than Mauritius—5.4 percent of GDP in 2009 compared to only 3.7 percent in Mauritius in 2010. For the price of that extra expenditure, which is chiefly public, the U.S. has a literacy rate of 99 percent, compared to only 88.5 percent in economically-freer Mauritius.
Infant mortality? In economically-more-free Mauritius there are about 11 deaths per 1,000 live births—compared to 5.9 in the economically-less-free U.S. Maternal mortality in Mauritius is at 60 deaths per 100,000 live births, compared to 21 in the U.S. Economic liberty comes at a price in human survival, it would seem. Oh, well—at least Mauritius is economically free!
Even to admit such trade-offs—like higher infant mortality, in return for less government—would undermine the claim of libertarians that Americans and other citizens of advanced countries could enjoy the same quality of life, but at less cost, if most government agencies and programs were replaced by markets and for-profit firms. Libertarians seem to have persuaded themselves that there is no significant trade-off between less government and more national insecurity, more crime, more illiteracy and more infant and maternal mortality, among other things.
It’s a seductive vision—enjoying the same quality of life that today’s heavily-governed rich nations enjoy, with lower taxes and less regulation. The vision is so seductive, in fact, that we are forced to return to the question with which we began: if libertarianism is not only appealing but plausible, why hasn’t any country anywhere in the world ever tried it?
Guest- Guest
Re: Denkverbot
LETTER FROM COLORADO SPRINGS
The Short, Unhappy Life of a Libertarian Paradise
The residents of Colorado Springs undertook a radical experiment in government. Here’s what they got.
By CALEB HANNAN July/August 2017
Colorado Springs has always leaned hard on its reputation for natural beauty. An hour’s drive south of Denver, it sits at the base of the Rocky Mountains’ southern range and features two of the state’s top tourist destinations: the ancient sandstone rock formations known as Garden of the Gods, and Pikes Peak, the 14,000-foot summit visible from nearly every street corner. It’s also a staunchly Republican city—headquarters of the politically active Christian group Focus on the Family (Colorado Springs is nicknamed “the Evangelical Vatican”) and the fourth most conservative city in America, according to a recent study. It’s a right-wing counterweight to liberal Boulder, just a couple of hours north, along the Front Range.
It was its jut-jawed conservatism that not that long ago made the city’s local government a brief national fixation. During the recession, like nearly every other city in America, Colorado Springs’ revenue—heavily dependent on sales tax—plunged. Faced with massive shortfalls, the city’s leaders began slashing. Gone were weekend bus service and nine buses.
Out went some police officers along with three of the department’s helicopters, which were auctioned online. Trash cans vanished from city parks, because when you cut 75 percent of the parks’ budget, one of the things you lose is someone to empty the garbage. For a city that was founded when a wealthy industrialist planted 10,000 trees on a shadeless prairie, the suddenly sparse watering of the city’s grassy lawns was a profound and dire statement of retreat.
To fill a $28 million budget hole, Colorado Springs’ political leaders—who until that point might have been described by most voters as fiscal conservatives—proposed tripling property taxes. Nearly two-thirds of voters said no. In response, city officials (some would say almost petulantly) turned off one out of every three street lights. That’s when people started paying attention to a city that seemed to be conducting a real-time experiment in fiscal self-starvation. But that was just the prelude. The city wasn’t content simply to reject a tax increase. Voters wanted something genuinely different, so a little more than a year later, they elected a real estate entrepreneur as mayor who promised a radical break from politics as usual.
For a city, like the country at large, that was hurting economically, Steve Bach seemed like a man with an answer. What he promised sounded radically simple: Wasteful government is the root of the pain, and if you just run government like the best businesses, the pain will go away. Easy. Because he had never held office and because he actually had been a successful entrepreneur, people were inclined to believe he really could reinvent the way a city was governed.
The city’s experiment was fascinating because it offered a chance to observe some of the most extreme conservative principles in action in a real-world laboratory. Producers from “60 Minutes” flew out to talk with the town’s leaders. The New York Times found a woman in a dark trailer park pawning her flat screen TV to buy a shotgun for protection. “This American Life” did a segment portraying Springs citizens as the ultimate anti-tax zealots, willing to pay $125 in a new “Adopt a Streetlight” program to illuminate their own neighborhoods, but not willing to spend the same to do so for the entire city. “I’ll take care of mine” was the gist of what one council member heard from a resident when she confronted him with this fact.
read on:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/30/colorado-springs-libertarian-experiment-america-215313
The Short, Unhappy Life of a Libertarian Paradise
The residents of Colorado Springs undertook a radical experiment in government. Here’s what they got.
By CALEB HANNAN July/August 2017
Colorado Springs has always leaned hard on its reputation for natural beauty. An hour’s drive south of Denver, it sits at the base of the Rocky Mountains’ southern range and features two of the state’s top tourist destinations: the ancient sandstone rock formations known as Garden of the Gods, and Pikes Peak, the 14,000-foot summit visible from nearly every street corner. It’s also a staunchly Republican city—headquarters of the politically active Christian group Focus on the Family (Colorado Springs is nicknamed “the Evangelical Vatican”) and the fourth most conservative city in America, according to a recent study. It’s a right-wing counterweight to liberal Boulder, just a couple of hours north, along the Front Range.
It was its jut-jawed conservatism that not that long ago made the city’s local government a brief national fixation. During the recession, like nearly every other city in America, Colorado Springs’ revenue—heavily dependent on sales tax—plunged. Faced with massive shortfalls, the city’s leaders began slashing. Gone were weekend bus service and nine buses.
Out went some police officers along with three of the department’s helicopters, which were auctioned online. Trash cans vanished from city parks, because when you cut 75 percent of the parks’ budget, one of the things you lose is someone to empty the garbage. For a city that was founded when a wealthy industrialist planted 10,000 trees on a shadeless prairie, the suddenly sparse watering of the city’s grassy lawns was a profound and dire statement of retreat.
To fill a $28 million budget hole, Colorado Springs’ political leaders—who until that point might have been described by most voters as fiscal conservatives—proposed tripling property taxes. Nearly two-thirds of voters said no. In response, city officials (some would say almost petulantly) turned off one out of every three street lights. That’s when people started paying attention to a city that seemed to be conducting a real-time experiment in fiscal self-starvation. But that was just the prelude. The city wasn’t content simply to reject a tax increase. Voters wanted something genuinely different, so a little more than a year later, they elected a real estate entrepreneur as mayor who promised a radical break from politics as usual.
For a city, like the country at large, that was hurting economically, Steve Bach seemed like a man with an answer. What he promised sounded radically simple: Wasteful government is the root of the pain, and if you just run government like the best businesses, the pain will go away. Easy. Because he had never held office and because he actually had been a successful entrepreneur, people were inclined to believe he really could reinvent the way a city was governed.
The city’s experiment was fascinating because it offered a chance to observe some of the most extreme conservative principles in action in a real-world laboratory. Producers from “60 Minutes” flew out to talk with the town’s leaders. The New York Times found a woman in a dark trailer park pawning her flat screen TV to buy a shotgun for protection. “This American Life” did a segment portraying Springs citizens as the ultimate anti-tax zealots, willing to pay $125 in a new “Adopt a Streetlight” program to illuminate their own neighborhoods, but not willing to spend the same to do so for the entire city. “I’ll take care of mine” was the gist of what one council member heard from a resident when she confronted him with this fact.
read on:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/30/colorado-springs-libertarian-experiment-america-215313
Guest- Guest
Page 40 of 50 • 1 ... 21 ... 39, 40, 41 ... 45 ... 50
Page 40 of 50
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum