I'll throw another question out there. How do we pay for universal healthcare?
Ok crazy (call me crazy ). I saw something the other day that addressed this. It said like this person who paid like 35% tax would instead pay 37% but get universal healthcare. No copays, no restrictions, full coverage. I'll post the chart if I can find it.
-----
The UN General Assembly voted 189 to 2 today on a resolution to end the United States‑led embargo against Cuba. The two against were the United States and Israel.
Also today Fox news personality and National Security Adviser John Bolton gave a "Axis of Evil” type speech about Latin America saying the US will now go after a so-called “Troika of Tyranny”: Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. Brazil is down with toppling Venezuela.
I'll throw another question out there. How do we pay for universal healthcare?
Ok crazy (call me crazy ). I saw something the other day that addressed this. It said like this person who paid like 35% tax would instead pay 37% but get universal healthcare. No copays, no restrictions, full coverage. I'll post the chart if I can find it.
-----
The UN General Assembly voted 189 to 2 today on a resolution to end the United States‑led embargo against Cuba. The two against were the United States and Israel.
Also today Fox news personality and National Security Adviser John Bolton gave a "Axis of Evil” type speech about Latin America saying the US will now go after a so-called “Troika of Tyranny”: Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. Brazil is down with toppling Venezuela.
Are you willing to say that even the poor should have some skin in the game then? Not saying how much, just that they should have to pay something. I'm sorry, I don't think I should have to wait in line behind four people whose kids have the sniffles because their care is free. Just saying...
For one thing preventative care such as that woman going in when her kids have the sniffles is what SAVES money for everyone down the road when it doesn't become something more serious. We'd be far better off from every perspective if people could afford (or didn't have to worry about the cost) actually going to the doctor to catch something early before it turns into something else that is totally prohibitive cost-wise compared to what could have been done if it was caught at the onset.
For another, no one likes waiting at the doctor, but I don't see how that is the fault of a mother with four kids. If she didn't have the appointment, someone else would. And the poor do have skin in the game. They pay sales tax, they pay Social Security, Medicare and payroll taxes. In relation to their income, it's quite a bit more than "skin in the game". If you participate in the economy on any level, you are contributing money.
Btw: I think the embargo against Cuba is pretty much bullshit at this point. I know the Cubans here in the US vote Republican but they're never going to get their land back no matter how long the embargo lasts. Let me buy some f'ing Cuban cigars for God's sake. It's the same damned thing with Taiwan. Guess what China? They never really belonged to you. Japan occupied it last, not you. Get over it!
For one thing preventative care such as that woman going in when her kids have the sniffles is what SAVES money for everyone down the road when it doesn't become something more serious. We'd be far better off from every perspective if people could afford (or didn't have to worry about the cost) actually going to the doctor to catch something early before it turns into something else that is totally prohibitive cost-wise compared to what could have been done if it was caught at the onset.
For another, no one likes waiting at the doctor, but I don't see how that is the fault of a mother with four kids. If she didn't have the appointment, someone else would.
Going to the doctor for a cold is irresponsible. Sorry. There are people like me who would try to fix a severed artery with duct tape and there are the opposite type who run to the doctor whenever they need a band-aid. I have a friend who's a doctor and the stories he tells are hilarious. How is that resolved?
Maybe we should start by discussing how to fix our educational system because that would help a lot.
I'll suggest a place to start for reducing the cost of healthcare. Only allow pharmaceutical ads to announce: "There is a new drug for 'x' ask your doctor for more details."
Troika of tyranny sounds ominous. Lets take a serious look at that.
I'm not sure we have to do anything with Venezuela. They're pretty much taking themselves out of the equation. I already stated my opinion of Cuba. The only interesting thing with Cuba is that they were actually ABLE to extend their influence beyond their borders at one time. Kudos to them but that influence is pretty much gone. Nicaragua? I doubt they could endanger Costa Rica, let alone the US. Laughable...
For one thing preventative care such as that woman going in when her kids have the sniffles is what SAVES money for everyone down the road when it doesn't become something more serious. We'd be far better off from every perspective if people could afford (or didn't have to worry about the cost) actually going to the doctor to catch something early before it turns into something else that is totally prohibitive cost-wise compared to what could have been done if it was caught at the onset.
For another, no one likes waiting at the doctor, but I don't see how that is the fault of a mother with four kids. If she didn't have the appointment, someone else would.
Going to the doctor for a cold is irresponsible. Sorry. There are people like me who would try to fix a severed artery with duct tape and there are the opposite type who run to the doctor whenever they need a band-aid. I have a friend who's a doctor and the stories he tells are hilarious. How is that resolved?
Maybe we should start by discussing how to fix our educational system because that would help a lot.
Sniffles aren't necessarily a cold. I thought I just had some particularly bad allergies once, and within a week I was in critical care for pneumonia. I only ended up in the hospital because I collapsed at the pharmacy getting some decongestion medicine. The doctor said that if I had gone home (which I was about 5 minutes from doing) I would not have survived the night. It was a three or four day hospital stay and I wasn't allowed to even stand up or go to the bathroom alone. All because i thought some extra sniffles were nothing. I have enough stories of my son's "minor" ills turning into multi week hospital stays. Sorry, but laughing at people for being careful about their health does not make your argument stronger.
@LadyRhian At what point am I inciting violence though? What is the hard line where it stops being a crapp opinion and becomes dangerous? How do you prove that I somehow incited violence? What is to stop someone from calling out any random person as pushing them to violence? Marilyn Manson was the scapegoat for Columibine even though the shooters didn't even listen to him (some people still insist its his fault). Do you think he would have gotten a fair shake in the emotionally charged aftermath? Again, how do you enforce this? Should I be jailed even though I did not order anyone to go out and commit violence? Do I share capital punishment? What does enforcing this and punishment look like? Because every scenario I can think of is disturbingly familiar to how many dictatorships handle dissenters.
Words set off those killers. They reiterated talking points from Trump and FOX News.
I disagree. Hatred set off those killers, not mere words. If you dont have hatred in your heart, the words are powerless. Otherwise, everybody who listened to Trump would become a hate filled maniac whether they're a far-right nut or not. Hell, you shouldn't even be able to listen to a Hitler speech on the History Channel if that's the case.
I'm fairly positive the end result of concentration camps doesn't come to pass if Hitler and Goebbels don't spend YEARS dehumanizing the Jews in a focused propaganda effort. The hatred was PLACED inside the German people on purpose. Propaganda is used because it works. People didn't wake up one day and decide the Jews were a parasitic race preying on the German people. They came to believe it because that is what they were repeatedly told for years. This stuff doesn't happen overnight. The center erodes little by little and then it can't hold anymore. And the rhetoric around immigrants and "diseases" I've heard in the right-wing media in the last week is eerily similar.
The fact is that anti-Semitism was already rampant in Austria, Germany and most of Eastern Europe. The Germans weren't the only ones who persecuted Jews. The Poles, Ukrainians, and Russians were implicit in the process. Hitler stoked the flames that were already there.
Don't forget to mention the French, Belgians and Dutch, who were (with some notable exceptions) quite happy to send off their Jews. Not the Danes, though. The Danes were awesome.
For one thing preventative care such as that woman going in when her kids have the sniffles is what SAVES money for everyone down the road when it doesn't become something more serious. We'd be far better off from every perspective if people could afford (or didn't have to worry about the cost) actually going to the doctor to catch something early before it turns into something else that is totally prohibitive cost-wise compared to what could have been done if it was caught at the onset.
For another, no one likes waiting at the doctor, but I don't see how that is the fault of a mother with four kids. If she didn't have the appointment, someone else would.
Going to the doctor for a cold is irresponsible. Sorry. There are people like me who would try to fix a severed artery with duct tape and there are the opposite type who run to the doctor whenever they need a band-aid. I have a friend who's a doctor and the stories he tells are hilarious. How is that resolved?
Maybe we should start by discussing how to fix our educational system because that would help a lot.
Sniffles aren't necessarily a cold. I thought I just had some particularly bad allergies once, and within a week I was in critical care for pneumonia. I only ended up in the hospital because I collapsed at the pharmacy getting some decongestion medicine. The doctor said that if I had gone home (which I was about 5 minutes from doing) I would not have survived the night. It was a three or four day hospital stay and I wasn't allowed to even stand up or go to the bathroom alone. All because i thought some extra sniffles were nothing. I have enough stories of my son's "minor" ills turning into multi week hospital stays. Sorry, but laughing at people for being careful about their health does not make your argument stronger.
I will bet there were indicators that it wasn't simple sniffles. You seem pretty educated to me so I doubt you went to the doctor when that was your only symptom. If you went to the doctor and all you had were sniffles, what are the odds that they would have diagnosed it correctly anyway? 99.999% of the time it's the common cold.
@Balrog99 Do we have facts to back up that statistic? I wouldn't have gone to the doctor's at all, it was purely at my wife's insistence, of coursem they completely missed the pneumonis that I apparently had in both lungs and sent me off with a decongestant prescription. That day was my only ambulance ride.
@Balrog99 Do we have facts to back up that statistic? I wouldn't have gone to the doctor's at all, it was purely at my wife's insistence, of coursem they completely missed the pneumonis that I apparently had in both lungs and sent me off with a decongestant prescription. That day was my only ambulance ride.
You're a dude (I think anyway). That means you probably ignored symptoms that your wife picked up on. It's true about the duct tape thing I commented on earlier. It likely means I'll die sooner now that I'm divorced unless I find somebody else sometime before my death. A hangover has made me miss more work than any flu I've ever had! My point is kind of proven even if I can't quote statistics by the very fact that they missed your diagnosis. As a country are we willing to maybe get diagnoses from nurse practitioners at a reduced price for symptoms like yours? MD's aren't much more likely to find the rare cases. I'm just throwing my thoughts out there. There aren't enough rich people to pay for everybody.
Ostensibly, a common cold would be very easy to diagnose and the kid would be out of the doctor's office pretty quickly. Honestly, I'm not sure I would object to having to wait in line for a few extra minutes to make sure a child is healthy--nor do I see why universal healthcare would mean we'd have more kids with a cold visiting the doctor.
If the only reason people aren't checking in with their doctor is because they can't afford it, that seems like a much, much worse problem. If someone is sick but can't afford treatment, I think the better outcome is them getting treatment. I don't think that's really debatable.
As for paying for it: healthcare costs less when it's not subject to free market forces. The whole reason healthcare is so expensive in a free market system is because you can't bargain over the price of a procedure that you need to live. In Europe, however, healthcare overall costs less, because the government has control over the prices it pays. A single payer healthcare system would involve the government directly negotiating prices for treatment to keep expenses low, just like they do with Medicare.
I'll throw another question out there. How do we pay for universal healthcare?
The NHS is funded by taxation. Once people actually have universal healthcare they'll generally be in favour of whatever funding methods are necessary to keep it. There is talk in the UK of hypothecated taxes to directly fund the service.
The four people with sniffles will last shorter because the long wait to do paperwork and insurance will be cut out. You know how you go to the ER and inevitably wait forever and then you get in the room and then an hour later someone comes by and asks for your insurance information? If the woman with four kids isnt serious then she'd be sent on her way quickly without the wait occupying a room while waiting for that part.
If like to think that as a county we'd focus on medical training and education more than we have been to meet increased access and demand. The access component is solvable.
@Balrog99 According to this study from 1996 out of the top 100 most common reasons for hospital treatment and visits, colds are waaaaaaaaay down at number 96. And they are lumped together with general upper respiratory infections, so they are less than even that. By far the most common incidents seem to pregnancy related, or various kinds of infection. Both of which can easily be fatal. I'd say that not going to the hospital is the more irresponsible decision.
Ostensibly, a common cold would be very easy to diagnose and the kid would be out of the doctor's office pretty quickly. Honestly, I'm not sure I would object to having to wait in line for a few extra minutes to make sure a child is healthy--nor do I see why universal healthcare would mean we'd have more kids with a cold visiting the doctor.
If the only reason people aren't checking in with their doctor is because they can't afford it, that seems like a much, much worse problem. If someone is sick but can't afford treatment, I think the better outcome is them getting treatment. I don't think that's really debatable.
As for paying for it: healthcare costs less when it's not subject to free market forces. The whole reason healthcare is so expensive in a free market system is because you can't bargain over the price of a procedure that you need to live. In Europe, however, healthcare overall costs less, because the government has control over the prices it pays. A single payer healthcare system would involve the government directly negotiating prices for treatment to keep expenses low, just like they do with Medicare.
The common cold is impossible to distinguish from the flu or pneumonia without a lab test. Pneumonia is bacterial, both the cold and the flu are viruses. It 'might' be fairly easy to tell the difference between a cold and pneumonia but not any other viral infection with the same symptoms. For financial reasons those symptoms are associated with cold or flu unless other indicators are present.
Edit: Actually now that I think about it, I believe some pneumonias may be viral too.
@Balrog99 According to this study from 1996 out of the top 100 most common reasons for hospital treatment and visits, colds are waaaaaaaaay down at number 96. And they are lumped together with general upper respiratory infections, so they are less than even that. By far the most common incidents seem to pregnancy related, or various kinds of infection. Both of which can easily be fatal. I'd say that not going to the hospital is the more irresponsible decision.
In all fairness to myself, I wasn't arguing against those. Sniffles is what I referenced. That would seem to be the upper respiratory thing. I wouldn't complain about being behind a pregnant woman in distress!
Edit: Also, I wasn't really talking about hospital visits but visits to the clinic/primary care physician.
On hate speech the Victorian philosopher John Stuart Mill argued that it was hard to restrain intemperate language by law, and that such laws would likely be turned against minorities. (He was in favour of free speech but made an exception for cases of direct harm like falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre.)
Undoubtedly the manner of asserting an opinion, even though it be a true one, may be very objectionable, and may justly incur severe censure. But the principal offences of the kind are such as it is mostly impossible, unless by accidental self-betrayal, to bring home to conviction. The gravest of them is, to argue sophistically, to suppress facts or arguments, to misstate the elements of the case, or misrepresent the opposite opinion. But all this, even to the most aggravated degree, is so continually done in perfect good faith, by persons who are not considered, and in many other respects may not deserve to be considered, ignorant or incompetent, that it is rarely possible on adequate grounds conscientiously to stamp the misrepresentation as morally culpable; and still less could law presume to interfere with this kind of controversial misconduct. With regard to what is commonly meant by intemperate discussion, namely invective, sarcasm, personality, and the like, the denunciation of these weapons would deserve more sympathy if it were ever proposed to interdict them equally to both sides; but it is only desired to restrain the employment of them against the prevailing opinion: against the unprevailing they may not only be used without general disapproval, but will be likely to obtain for him who uses them the praise of honest zeal and righteous indignation. Yet whatever mischief arises from their use, is greatest when they are employed against the comparatively defenceless; and whatever unfair advantage can be derived by any opinion from this mode of asserting it, accrues almost exclusively to received opinions. The worst offence of this kind which can be committed by a polemic, is to stigmatise those who hold the contrary opinion as bad and immoral men. To calumny of this sort, those who hold any unpopular opinion are peculiarly exposed, because they are in general few and uninfluential, and nobody but themselves feel much interest in seeing justice done them; but this weapon is, from the nature of the case, denied to those who attack a prevailing opinion: they can neither use it with safety to themselves, nor, if they could, would it do anything but recoil on their own cause. In general, opinions contrary to those commonly received can only obtain a hearing by studied moderation of language, and the most cautious avoidance of unnecessary offence, from which they hardly ever deviate even in a slight degree without losing ground: while unmeasured vituperation employed on the side of the prevailing opinion, really does deter people from professing contrary opinions, and from listening to those who profess them. For the interest, therefore, of truth and justice, it is far more important to restrain this employment of vituperative language than the other; and, for example, if it were necessary to choose, there would be much more need to discourage offensive attacks on infidelity, than on religion. It is, however, obvious that law and authority have no business with restraining either, while opinion ought, in every instance, to determine its verdict by the circumstances of the individual case; condemning every one, on whichever side of the argument he places himself, in whose mode of advocacy either want of candour, or malignity, bigotry, or intolerance of feeling manifest themselves; but not inferring these vices from the side which a person takes, though it be the contrary side of the question to our own: and giving merited honour to every one, whatever opinion he may hold, who has calmness to see and honesty to state what his opponents and their opinions really are, exaggerating nothing to their discredit, keeping nothing back which tells, or can be supposed to tell, in their favour. This is the real morality of public discussion; and if often violated, I am happy to think that there are many controversialists who to a great extent observe it, and a still greater number who conscientiously strive towards it.
@LadyRhian At what point am I inciting violence though? What is the hard line where it stops being a crapp opinion and becomes dangerous? How do you prove that I somehow incited violence? What is to stop someone from calling out any random person as pushing them to violence? Marilyn Manson was the scapegoat for Columibine even though the shooters didn't even listen to him (some people still insist its his fault). Do you think he would have gotten a fair shake in the emotionally charged aftermath? Again, how do you enforce this? Should I be jailed even though I did not order anyone to go out and commit violence? Do I share capital punishment? What does enforcing this and punishment look like? Because every scenario I can think of is disturbingly familiar to how many dictatorships handle dissenters.
Why can't you answer the questions I asked? Why do I have to keep answering when you don't? But in this case, when the violence becomes actual. Both these people made it obvious what incited their hateful acts. You can scapegoat anyone. President Trump has done that as well, The so-called "Central Park rapists" were scapegoated for the crime that happened. Trump also called for their deaths. And here, FOX News and the President informed the responses of the Pipe Bomber and the Pittsburgh shooter. are we supposed to give them a pass for this?
Should Hitler not be blamed for the deaths of the Jews in WWII? He's the one who kept blaming them for the state of Germany before WWII, and he's the one who decided to put them into internment camps. Does he somehow escape blame for that simply because he didn't kill any of them with his own two hands? As for punishment, I would suggest the inciter pay a fine- the more massive the more people were killed as a result of their words. And some kind of restitution in other ways.
Now, I will answer no more questions until you decide to answer mine.
Hitler wasn't the author of the 'Final Solution' it was Himmler and Heydrich. Does that mean Hitler isn't to blame for the slaughter? Or maybe he's solely to blame even though he didn't come up with it. Are Himmler and Heydrich blameless then because they were under Hitler's 'spell'? Maybe the 'I was only following orders' excuse is completely valid then. Just follow the blame tree to the top branch...
It was one thing for Trump to call for the death penalty for the Central Park Five initially. But the guy stuck to his position even after they were exonerated by DNA evidence. What possible rational is there for still thinking people cleared of the crime by scientific evidence still deserve to be executed?? It's like the people who still think to this day the West Memphis 3 are guilty, as if it wasn't obvious from the start that there was no way in hell 3 teenagers would have been able to murder 3 children without leaving a single piece of blood or DNA evidence at the supposed crime scene. I mean, to this day everyone with half a brain knows OJ killed his wife and Ron Goldman because DNA evidence told us that there was no way in hell it could have been anyone else's blood at the crime scene, in his car, and at his home.
Hitler wasn't the author of the 'Final Solution' it was Himmler and Heydrich. Does that mean Hitler isn't to blame for the slaughter? Or maybe he's solely to blame even though he didn't come up with it. Are Himmler and Heydrich blameless then because they were under Hitler's 'spell'? Maybe the 'I was only following orders' excuse is completely valid then. Just follow the blame tree to the top branch...
Didnt we have a trial over this? Well, technically, there were dozens of trials.. and they were kind of a sham (Soviet Union had massacred Poles and Jews during the war too, but were allowed to sit and pass judgement on the Nazis). Obviously those following orders bear some responsibility in the acts they commit. The person who incites them to that is also to blame. There's no mathematical formula, though.
Btw: I think the embargo against Cuba is pretty much bullshit at this point. I know the Cubans here in the US vote Republican but they're never going to get their land back no matter how long the embargo lasts. Let me buy some f'ing Cuban cigars for God's sake. It's the same damned thing with Taiwan. Guess what China? They never really belonged to you. Japan occupied it last, not you. Get over it!
Slight historical quibble here: That's not exactly true. Taiwan was occupied by the Japanese, but it was handed back over to the Republic of China after Japan surrendered. Once the RoC lost the civil war with Mao's Communist China, they (and Chiang Kai Chek) fled to Taiwan. So for about 4 years, the Island was controlled by the RoC. (Edit - I guess that's a poorly worded statement. It's still controlled by the RoC. It's the one place that wasnt taken by Communist China. I was just saying that it was in Chinese hands for 4ish years before the Civil War ended).
I take your point though, and I do agree. Lift the embargo. The people of Cuba suffer hardships due to the embargo, and I dont see the value in forcing that upon them. Especially now that the Cold War is over (well, I say that, but we've kindof got a new one. Just not one where Cuba will be involved).
I think hate speech laws would actually need to be somewhat vague, simply because each situation is unique and a judge would need to make, well, a judgment call. "Hate speech" is a fuzzy concept more or less by definition, so you would want the text of the law to be open to interpretation. Naturally, it would have to be phrased so only blatantly dangerous and inciting speech would be punishment; borderline cases shouldn't warrant legal action.
If we were to have a net, it should not be a very broad one. Good criteria could involve requirements that the speech have an unambiguous motive, that it contribute to a real act of violence or attempted violence, and that it have no legitimate value otherwise.
I'm not sure if hate speech laws would be a good idea. The benefits would be small and the opposition would be severe.
Hitler wasn't the author of the 'Final Solution' it was Himmler and Heydrich. Does that mean Hitler isn't to blame for the slaughter? Or maybe he's solely to blame even though he didn't come up with it. Are Himmler and Heydrich blameless then because they were under Hitler's 'spell'? Maybe the 'I was only following orders' excuse is completely valid then. Just follow the blame tree to the top branch...
Would they have done so had Hitler not started everything? And they should be held responsible for those deaths as well. But Hitler is the one most responsible for "Hate Speech" here. Yes, people who actually do the killing should be held accountable, as well as those who order it. But the one who started the chain also deserves a good deal of the blame.
On hate speech the Victorian philosopher John Stuart Mill argued that it was hard to restrain intemperate language by law, and that such laws would likely be turned against minorities. (He was in favour of free speech but made an exception for cases of direct harm like falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre.)
Undoubtedly the manner of asserting an opinion, even though it be a true one, may be very objectionable, and may justly incur severe censure. But the principal offences of the kind are such as it is mostly impossible, unless by accidental self-betrayal, to bring home to conviction. The gravest of them is, to argue sophistically, to suppress facts or arguments, to misstate the elements of the case, or misrepresent the opposite opinion. But all this, even to the most aggravated degree, is so continually done in perfect good faith, by persons who are not considered, and in many other respects may not deserve to be considered, ignorant or incompetent, that it is rarely possible on adequate grounds conscientiously to stamp the misrepresentation as morally culpable; and still less could law presume to interfere with this kind of controversial misconduct. With regard to what is commonly meant by intemperate discussion, namely invective, sarcasm, personality, and the like, the denunciation of these weapons would deserve more sympathy if it were ever proposed to interdict them equally to both sides; but it is only desired to restrain the employment of them against the prevailing opinion: against the unprevailing they may not only be used without general disapproval, but will be likely to obtain for him who uses them the praise of honest zeal and righteous indignation. Yet whatever mischief arises from their use, is greatest when they are employed against the comparatively defenceless; and whatever unfair advantage can be derived by any opinion from this mode of asserting it, accrues almost exclusively to received opinions. The worst offence of this kind which can be committed by a polemic, is to stigmatise those who hold the contrary opinion as bad and immoral men. To calumny of this sort, those who hold any unpopular opinion are peculiarly exposed, because they are in general few and uninfluential, and nobody but themselves feel much interest in seeing justice done them; but this weapon is, from the nature of the case, denied to those who attack a prevailing opinion: they can neither use it with safety to themselves, nor, if they could, would it do anything but recoil on their own cause. In general, opinions contrary to those commonly received can only obtain a hearing by studied moderation of language, and the most cautious avoidance of unnecessary offence, from which they hardly ever deviate even in a slight degree without losing ground: while unmeasured vituperation employed on the side of the prevailing opinion, really does deter people from professing contrary opinions, and from listening to those who profess them. For the interest, therefore, of truth and justice, it is far more important to restrain this employment of vituperative language than the other; and, for example, if it were necessary to choose, there would be much more need to discourage offensive attacks on infidelity, than on religion. It is, however, obvious that law and authority have no business with restraining either, while opinion ought, in every instance, to determine its verdict by the circumstances of the individual case; condemning every one, on whichever side of the argument he places himself, in whose mode of advocacy either want of candour, or malignity, bigotry, or intolerance of feeling manifest themselves; but not inferring these vices from the side which a person takes, though it be the contrary side of the question to our own: and giving merited honour to every one, whatever opinion he may hold, who has calmness to see and honesty to state what his opponents and their opinions really are, exaggerating nothing to their discredit, keeping nothing back which tells, or can be supposed to tell, in their favour. This is the real morality of public discussion; and if often violated, I am happy to think that there are many controversialists who to a great extent observe it, and a still greater number who conscientiously strive towards it.
Dear Lord, it is the Jordan Petterson of the 1800th (or whatever) century, covering up a lack of substance with fancy words, overly convoluted sentences and an aura of smugness.
Id rather it be solved before it becomes law rather than 'oh, we'll fix it later'. Later never comes when government is involved.
Ideally it would roll out perfectly but of course there will be growing pains.
Nothing that hasn't been done before is perfect out of the gate. For one thing Republicans would want to see it fail like they have done with Obamacare. The best hope there is for people to see it work and not want them to mess with it like Social Security and Medicare now that it is politically suicide for Republicans to attack these socialist programs*.
At any rate it will be an ongoing program like social security and Medicare that will need to be maintained and kept current. There was just a guy mentioning the NHS in the UK was considering reforms after years of service.
*(even though they claim to want to get rid of American socialist programs that is more of a long term strategy of trying to turn public opinion against the programs. Someday if they have enough cover they think they might be able to privatize these programs so their donors can gamble around with your money in the stock market directly. That would be a mistake when older voters see lower or no checks there will be hell to pay but they want to do it anyway because they get massive bribes err donations to try and do that).
It depends on our priorities. The current White House wants to “substantially” cut federal spending without touching Social Security, Medicare, or (presumably) defense spending. Interest on the national debt is off limits too, of course. So what’s left? This isn’t worth a lot of work, so I just grabbed someone else’s pie chart of federal spending off the web. This happens to be for 2015, but nothing much has changed since then:
So basically if we adjust our priorities we can afford it without raising taxes. Cut defense for one. Invest in American people not tanks and bombs to use on others. Only the rich benefit from that.
Comments
-----
The UN General Assembly voted 189 to 2 today on a resolution to end the United States‑led embargo against Cuba. The two against were the United States and Israel.
Also today Fox news personality and National Security Adviser John Bolton gave a "Axis of Evil” type speech about Latin America saying the US will now go after a so-called “Troika of Tyranny”: Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. Brazil is down with toppling Venezuela.
https://www.vox.com/world/2018/11/1/18052338/bolton-cuba-venezuela-nicaragua-speech-troika-tyranny
For another, no one likes waiting at the doctor, but I don't see how that is the fault of a mother with four kids. If she didn't have the appointment, someone else would. And the poor do have skin in the game. They pay sales tax, they pay Social Security, Medicare and payroll taxes. In relation to their income, it's quite a bit more than "skin in the game". If you participate in the economy on any level, you are contributing money.
Maybe we should start by discussing how to fix our educational system because that would help a lot.
I'm not sure we have to do anything with Venezuela. They're pretty much taking themselves out of the equation. I already stated my opinion of Cuba. The only interesting thing with Cuba is that they were actually ABLE to extend their influence beyond their borders at one time. Kudos to them but that influence is pretty much gone. Nicaragua? I doubt they could endanger Costa Rica, let alone the US. Laughable...
@LadyRhian At what point am I inciting violence though? What is the hard line where it stops being a crapp opinion and becomes dangerous? How do you prove that I somehow incited violence? What is to stop someone from calling out any random person as pushing them to violence? Marilyn Manson was the scapegoat for Columibine even though the shooters didn't even listen to him (some people still insist its his fault). Do you think he would have gotten a fair shake in the emotionally charged aftermath? Again, how do you enforce this? Should I be jailed even though I did not order anyone to go out and commit violence? Do I share capital punishment? What does enforcing this and punishment look like? Because every scenario I can think of is disturbingly familiar to how many dictatorships handle dissenters.
If the only reason people aren't checking in with their doctor is because they can't afford it, that seems like a much, much worse problem. If someone is sick but can't afford treatment, I think the better outcome is them getting treatment. I don't think that's really debatable.
As for paying for it: healthcare costs less when it's not subject to free market forces. The whole reason healthcare is so expensive in a free market system is because you can't bargain over the price of a procedure that you need to live. In Europe, however, healthcare overall costs less, because the government has control over the prices it pays. A single payer healthcare system would involve the government directly negotiating prices for treatment to keep expenses low, just like they do with Medicare.
If like to think that as a county we'd focus on medical training and education more than we have been to meet increased access and demand. The access component is solvable.
Edit: Actually now that I think about it, I believe some pneumonias may be viral too.
Edit: Also, I wasn't really talking about hospital visits but visits to the clinic/primary care physician.
Undoubtedly the manner of asserting an opinion, even though it be a true one, may be very objectionable, and may justly incur severe censure. But the principal offences of the kind are such as it is mostly impossible, unless by accidental self-betrayal, to bring home to conviction. The gravest of them is, to argue sophistically, to suppress facts or arguments, to misstate the elements of the case, or misrepresent the opposite opinion. But all this, even to the most aggravated degree, is so continually done in perfect good faith, by persons who are not considered, and in many other respects may not deserve to be considered, ignorant or incompetent, that it is rarely possible on adequate grounds conscientiously to stamp the misrepresentation as morally culpable; and still less could law presume to interfere with this kind of controversial misconduct. With regard to what is commonly meant by intemperate discussion, namely invective, sarcasm, personality, and the like, the denunciation of these weapons would deserve more sympathy if it were ever proposed to interdict them equally to both sides; but it is only desired to restrain the employment of them against the prevailing opinion: against the unprevailing they may not only be used without general disapproval, but will be likely to obtain for him who uses them the praise of honest zeal and righteous indignation. Yet whatever mischief arises from their use, is greatest when they are employed against the comparatively defenceless; and whatever unfair advantage can be derived by any opinion from this mode of asserting it, accrues almost exclusively to received opinions. The worst offence of this kind which can be committed by a polemic, is to stigmatise those who hold the contrary opinion as bad and immoral men. To calumny of this sort, those who hold any unpopular opinion are peculiarly exposed, because they are in general few and uninfluential, and nobody but themselves feel much interest in seeing justice done them; but this weapon is, from the nature of the case, denied to those who attack a prevailing opinion: they can neither use it with safety to themselves, nor, if they could, would it do anything but recoil on their own cause. In general, opinions contrary to those commonly received can only obtain a hearing by studied moderation of language, and the most cautious avoidance of unnecessary offence, from which they hardly ever deviate even in a slight degree without losing ground: while unmeasured vituperation employed on the side of the prevailing opinion, really does deter people from professing contrary opinions, and from listening to those who profess them. For the interest, therefore, of truth and justice, it is far more important to restrain this employment of vituperative language than the other; and, for example, if it were necessary to choose, there would be much more need to discourage offensive attacks on infidelity, than on religion. It is, however, obvious that law and authority have no business with restraining either, while opinion ought, in every instance, to determine its verdict by the circumstances of the individual case; condemning every one, on whichever side of the argument he places himself, in whose mode of advocacy either want of candour, or malignity, bigotry, or intolerance of feeling manifest themselves; but not inferring these vices from the side which a person takes, though it be the contrary side of the question to our own: and giving merited honour to every one, whatever opinion he may hold, who has calmness to see and honesty to state what his opponents and their opinions really are, exaggerating nothing to their discredit, keeping nothing back which tells, or can be supposed to tell, in their favour. This is the real morality of public discussion; and if often violated, I am happy to think that there are many controversialists who to a great extent observe it, and a still greater number who conscientiously strive towards it.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/34901/34901-h/34901-h.htm
Why can't you answer the questions I asked? Why do I have to keep answering when you don't? But in this case, when the violence becomes actual. Both these people made it obvious what incited their hateful acts. You can scapegoat anyone. President Trump has done that as well, The so-called "Central Park rapists" were scapegoated for the crime that happened. Trump also called for their deaths. And here, FOX News and the President informed the responses of the Pipe Bomber and the Pittsburgh shooter. are we supposed to give them a pass for this?
Should Hitler not be blamed for the deaths of the Jews in WWII? He's the one who kept blaming them for the state of Germany before WWII, and he's the one who decided to put them into internment camps. Does he somehow escape blame for that simply because he didn't kill any of them with his own two hands? As for punishment, I would suggest the inciter pay a fine- the more massive the more people were killed as a result of their words. And some kind of restitution in other ways.
Now, I will answer no more questions until you decide to answer mine.
I take your point though, and I do agree. Lift the embargo. The people of Cuba suffer hardships due to the embargo, and I dont see the value in forcing that upon them. Especially now that the Cold War is over (well, I say that, but we've kindof got a new one. Just not one where Cuba will be involved).
If we were to have a net, it should not be a very broad one. Good criteria could involve requirements that the speech have an unambiguous motive, that it contribute to a real act of violence or attempted violence, and that it have no legitimate value otherwise.
I'm not sure if hate speech laws would be a good idea. The benefits would be small and the opposition would be severe.
Nothing that hasn't been done before is perfect out of the gate. For one thing Republicans would want to see it fail like they have done with Obamacare. The best hope there is for people to see it work and not want them to mess with it like Social Security and Medicare now that it is politically suicide for Republicans to attack these socialist programs*.
At any rate it will be an ongoing program like social security and Medicare that will need to be maintained and kept current. There was just a guy mentioning the NHS in the UK was considering reforms after years of service.
*(even though they claim to want to get rid of American socialist programs that is more of a long term strategy of trying to turn public opinion against the programs. Someday if they have enough cover they think they might be able to privatize these programs so their donors can gamble around with your money in the stock market directly. That would be a mistake when older voters see lower or no checks there will be hell to pay but they want to do it anyway because they get massive bribes err donations to try and do that).
It depends on our priorities. The current White House wants to “substantially” cut federal spending without touching Social Security, Medicare, or (presumably) defense spending. Interest on the national debt is off limits too, of course. So what’s left? This isn’t worth a lot of work, so I just grabbed someone else’s pie chart of federal spending off the web. This happens to be for 2015, but nothing much has changed since then:
So basically if we adjust our priorities we can afford it without raising taxes. Cut defense for one. Invest in American people not tanks and bombs to use on others. Only the rich benefit from that.