|
Cerebral Bore posted:Pal, there's a bit of a difference between somebody being a douchebag at some point in their life and somebody who literally enslaved their own children. I'm not talking about just being a douchebag. I'm saying that there probably aren't many influential people in the world who haven't done some really hosed up poo poo during their lifetimes.
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 14:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 16:22 |
|
|
Lote posted:Looks kinda like John Oliver It is John Oliver. He ran a segment making fun of Scranton residents who were crying that a model train broke in a public building. Then, local news in Scranton ran segments where they interviewed people attacking John Oliver for using their pain and sadness from the model train stopping for his own entertainment. Now, John Oliver had a 16-foot tall model train commissioned for Scranton to be sent to replace the old model train to apologize. The local news has been running stories for the last 5 days about when the train Oliver made is getting there and there is now a local political controversy on the city council because the train is too big to fit in the old spot and people don't want to put Oliver's train in a new spot because it would be "disrespectful" to the tradition and memory of the old train.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 14:37
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:ACA is unsustainable garbage Sure, but so is a BCRA or AHCA world, and I'd say those are worse. At a time when Republicans are actively trying to tear down the ACA (and getting pretty loving close), the democrats absolutely need to put a lot of effort into defending it. Their powers are limited, but they can't just give up on it. They also need to campaign on the next step and make noise about it now. But I'd rather they spend a lot of their time in opposition to regression of healthcare, which is one of their duties as a minority party in congress.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 14:38
|
|
|
There Bias Two posted:I'm not talking about just being a douchebag. I'm saying that there probably aren't many influential people in the world who haven't done some really hosed up poo poo during their lifetimes. missteps? sure. hosed up on the level of literally owning slaves? i really don't think so. MLK cheated on his wife. that's not exactly a nice thing to do but doesn't even loving register on the nathan bedford forrest scale. what hosed up thing did harriet tubman ever do? i feel like saying "all influential people have dirty spots on their CV" trivializes how uniquely hosed-up slavery is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 14:42
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:It is John Oliver. He ran a segment making fun of Scranton residents who were crying that a model train broke in a public building. Then, local news in Scranton ran segments where they interviewed people attacking John Oliver for using their pain and sadness from the model train stopping for his own entertainment. That is hilarious. This is a plot line out of Parks and Rec.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
botany posted:missteps? sure. hosed up on the level of literally owning slaves? i really don't think so. MLK cheated on his wife. that's not exactly a nice thing to do but doesn't even loving register on the nathan bedford forrest scale. what hosed up thing did harriet tubman ever do? i feel like saying "all influential people have dirty spots on their CV" trivializes how uniquely hosed-up slavery is. well, and raping slaves. and then enslaving your rape babies and selling them i guess it's supposed to be excusable cause that's how things were back then? but then you have to ask yourself why a monument to lee, who was just doing things the way they were done "back then", is bad but a monument to jefferson is good? maybe they were both bad and we should have monuments to neither? 
Condiv fucked around with this message at 14:48 on Sep 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 14:46
|
|
|
Lote posted:That is hilarious. This is a plot line out of Parks and Rec. People from Scranton are very passionate about trains. Ask Joe Biden.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 14:48
|
|
|
Condiv posted:well, and raping slaves. and then enslaving your rape babies and selling them The Founding Fathers were the subject of a rap-musical that liberals love, so they're immune from criticism. Also, they were played by black people, so clearly they can't be racist.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 14:58
|
|
|
OtherworldlyInvader posted:I don't feel threatened walking past a statue of Jefferson, I do feel threatened (for good reason) walking past a confederate memorial. This is why confederate statues should be torn down. Almost without exception every historical figure was racist. What is is important is what causes people today hold them up to rally around. The Confederacy existed to perpetuate slavery and white supremacy, and the mass produced confederate statues of today exist to keep that legacy alive. I don't see Jefferson used in the same way. I guess this was always the point I was trying to express. Confederate statues and symbols are mostly used as an expression of hate, or at best, rebellion. People don't go out buying period-specific American flags and lauding Jefferson as a great person with fine ideas that were just misunderstood. I imagine it's partly the fact that (generally) nobody really knows in depth what a terrible person he was and/or that the things he is despised for are so intensely, inscrutably racist and wrong that people have a hard time finding a way of presenting it in anything resembling a positive or even neutral light (the entire point of dog-whistling). Inescapable Duck posted:Give it time. While I kind of agree with this, it's just a hard sell to go from removing symbols of racism and hate to getting rid of statues and memorials of a president because he was an awful human being. If he starts getting traction as such, I say sure, go for it. Even if it would be a heck of a fight trying to get rid of things like a Washington DC monument.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 15:01
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:Believe it or not, most politicians don't actually like to campaign on stuff they're never going to accomplish, and voters don't like when politicians cop out behind "hey it was aspirational, I was never planning to do it." "Let's improve the ACA" is actually a great example of the "10% of a specific proposal, we'll figure it out later but definitely include this stuff that may or may not be workable" that you advise against.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 15:07
|
|
|
i never understood the "but it's part of our history" argument, or rather i never understood why the counter to it wasn't "okay, then let's just replace them with monuments that accurately portrait that history". i mean, we have holocaust monuments in germany, they just don't, you know, celebrate that the holocaust happened. it's part of our history, it's important to remember, but for the right reasons please. therefore these monuments are somber places, with inscriptions or short movies that inform visitors about what happened. there, best of both worlds. the US still has monuments, but ones that don't celebrate slavery. has this ever been proposed?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 15:07
|
|
|
Single-Payer is also not the end-all, be-all of health care. Only a few countries (2?) actually have it while most of the others with UHC have other means of achieving it. Any of them would probably be an improvement over what we have now, and would unquestionably be better than the 'Worse than before the ACA' that the GOP is pushing for.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
It astounds me when people are unwilling to pay a 2-5% tax on their income to have the healthcare of everyone in the nation guaranteed. My HSA payments and insurance premiums along are over 10% of every check and my company probably pays over 20% of my check for their portion of my premiums.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 15:23
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:Single-Payer is also not the end-all, be-all of health care. Only a few countries (2?) actually have it while most of the others with UHC have other means of achieving it. i mean i'm fine with that. france has single payer for 70% of expenses and 30% covered by private insurance that's like 200 euro a year. and medicine and doctors that cost as much without insurance as a typical american pays in copays. moving to something like that would be a massive improvement over what we've got now. unfortunately, we've got 3 directions in this country right now: single payer, status quo with obamacare and shoveling more money into the insurance companies, or total deregulation. and only the first option is a sane path
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 15:23
|
|
|
i am genuinely skeptical that single payer is politically feasible in a system where the health insurance companies have that much political pull. i think it's still fine to push for it openly and as hard as possible, but the more likely outcome is that you'll end up with a public option as a compromise. which, hey, is still great!
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 15:25
|
|
|
No Butt Stuff posted:It astounds me when people are unwilling to pay a 2-5% tax on their income to have the healthcare of everyone in the nation guaranteed. A lot of this country is conditioned to believe that TAXES = BAD. 10% taken out for your insurance? That's for YOUR insurance, so it's important. 5% taken out instead for everyone's insurance? That's the evil Gubmint taking YOUR hard earned monies and giving it to THOSE freeloaders.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 15:26
|
|
|
botany posted:i am genuinely skeptical that single payer is politically feasible in a system where the health insurance companies have that much political pull. i think it's still fine to push for it openly and as hard as possible, but the more likely outcome is that you'll end up with a public option as a compromise. which, hey, is still great! if we had a public option i think the aca would be doing a lot better. without it, the insurance companies have no incentive to be honest, and companies really don't care about collusion laws anymore nowadays so free market competition doesn't really exist there public option would've given us a good benchmark, and not including it was extremely idiotic and doomed the aca to its current state
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 15:30
|
|
|
No Butt Stuff posted:It astounds me when people are unwilling to pay a 2-5% tax on their income to have the healthcare of everyone in the nation guaranteed. Because the tax would be much higher than 2-5%. You're already paying 2.9% for Medicare alone if you count payroll and income tax. Half that if you ignore payroll tax. Healthcare if about 15% of the economy. If you expect the government to be the only one paying for it you should expect them to tax your income about that rate. There would be some savings, but there would also be an increased demand with a single payer system. To what extend they would offset is anyone's guess. But expect that the tax would be in the neighborhood of 15%.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 15:31
|
|
|
botany posted:i am genuinely skeptical that single payer is politically feasible in a system where the health insurance companies have that much political pull. i think it's still fine to push for it openly and as hard as possible, but the more likely outcome is that you'll end up with a public option as a compromise. which, hey, is still great! I think you really need the far left to play "bad cop" and terrify the insurance companies with the thought of single--payer so that the moderate left can compromise with either a public option or a stronger version of Obamacare. Otherwise Obamacare ends up being the scary socialist option that ordinary people can be easily manipulated into being scared of. It's like offering a toddler a choice between carrot sticks and apple slices, rather than carrot sticks and donuts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 15:32
|
|
|
Xae posted:Because the tax would be much higher than 2-5%. fica could be less if it wasn't capped at $127,500
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 15:33
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:A lot of this country is conditioned to believe that TAXES = BAD. That position is much harder to sell when every single voter is getting a clear and direct benefit out of the deal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:Single-Payer is also not the end-all, be-all of health care. Only a few countries (2?) actually have it while most of the others with UHC have other means of achieving it. And even the actual single payer countries still have private components and are less generous than what Sanders' new bill provides for. The US has an undoubtedly worse healthcare system than many other nations, but I think sometimes we take that too far and get an idealized vision of how those other countries do healthcare. In the short term, I'd at least like to see things like stricter price controls, more generous subsidies, and expanded eligibility of Medicare and Medicaid. Related, anyone know if the actual text of Sanders' bill has been released? I'm pretty sure it's supposed to be introduced today.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 15:35
|
|
|
Xae posted:Because the tax would be much higher than 2-5%. Right, but you would expect that companies would be shouldering a portion of that tax just like they currently do with FICA. I pay 200 bucks for premiums biweekly. My company pays 700 or so. There wouldn't be much if any impact to their bottom line except maybe a profit. But yeah, these are rough numbers and I'm not sure if anyone knows what the actual impact would be.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 15:37
|
|
|
Equifax and how that plays out could set a strong precedent for companies that don't act in the public interest, so while it may not seem connected at all, raise helll with your representatives and senators and Make.Them. Pay. This is Citizens United moment.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 15:40
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Equifax and how that plays out could set a strong precedent for companies that don't act in the public interest, so while it may not seem connected at all, raise help with your representatives and senators and Make.Them. Pay. would be awesome to see equifax get the corporate guillotine
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
Condiv posted:would be awesome to see equifax get the corporate guillotine Would be better to see Equifax corporates get the guillotine
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 15:42
|
|
|
Sorry we can't do anything about Equifax think of the lost jobs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 15:44
|
|
|
BlueberryCanary posted:Would be better to see Equifax corporates get the guillotine Imagine the effect on the remaining companies if Equifax was ended.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 15:45
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:A lot of this country is conditioned to believe that TAXES = BAD. Same bullshit for retirement. Then you get those loving Liberty Mutual commercials where they have people write up lists of things they want to do on balloons and pop half of them because they didn't have the self control to "save enough money". EDIT: With regards to Equifax, why aren't massive databases of personal information treated like attractive nuisances? Solkanar512 fucked around with this message at 16:02 on Sep 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 15:46
|
|
|
No Butt Stuff posted:Right, but you would expect that companies would be shouldering a portion of that tax just like they currently do with FICA. Payroll taxes are dumb and should be done away with. They just hide the cost of the program. It is still part of the cost of employing someone and employers just take it out of your salary anyway. Skip the accounting bullshit and just take it normally. Also: drat, your plan is expensive. Like 3x more than mine. RuanGacho posted:Imagine the effect on the remaining companies if Equifax was ended. At this point in the history of the Interwebs if you are a financial company running unpatched servers exposed to the internet your company is criminally negligent.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 15:47
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:That position is much harder to sell when every single voter is getting a clear and direct benefit out of the deal. I think you're greatly overestimating the typical voter crab.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 15:47
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Imagine the effect on the remaining companies if Equifax was ended. If there is any situation where a "corporate death penalty" is both entirely appropriate and would probably be effective at preventing similar incidents in the future, it's this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 15:48
|
|
|
botany posted:i am genuinely skeptical that single payer is politically feasible in a system where the health insurance companies have that much political pull. i think it's still fine to push for it openly and as hard as possible, but the more likely outcome is that you'll end up with a public option as a compromise. which, hey, is still great! Yeah, its just that libs and dems as a political block are typically so focused on immediately getting that compromise right off the bat or so assured that they won't get the big shiny thing that they don't try/go middle to low and get even lower as a result.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 15:51
|
|
|
Condiv posted:if we had a public option i think the aca would be doing a lot better. without it, the insurance companies have no incentive to be honest, and companies really don't care about collusion laws anymore nowadays so free market competition doesn't really exist there it was included though? the house version that pelosi drummed through had a public option. it lost it in the senate. BarbarianElephant posted:I think you really need the far left to play "bad cop" and terrify the insurance companies with the thought of single--payer so that the moderate left can compromise with either a public option or a stronger version of Obamacare. Otherwise Obamacare ends up being the scary socialist option that ordinary people can be easily manipulated into being scared of. It's like offering a toddler a choice between carrot sticks and apple slices, rather than carrot sticks and donuts. yeah, that's basically how i feel about it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:The key difference between someone like Lee and Jefferson is that Jefferson, though he was a slaveowner and a tremendous hypocrite, had many accomplishments outside of that-and no matter how he failed to live up to his own words, the core truth of "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness," was incredibly revolutionary and influential, inspiring independence movements across the globe and men as diverse as Simon Bolivar and Ho Chi Minh. Lee's accomplishments, meanwhile, are entirely wrapped around his actions during the Civil War, and have little-to-no context outside of that. If you see a statue of Thomas Jefferson, it could have been put up for a number of reasons in a number of places-hell, there's even one in the Smithsonian's Museum of African American History and Culture. Meanwhile, if you walk past a statue of Lee, if you're not on an actual Civil War battlefield (And even then...) there's a guaranteed chance it was put up by white supremacists/Confederacy apologists. There's just nothing else. I completely agree. You stated it better than I was last night.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
Radish posted:Sorry we can't do anything about Equifax think of the lost jobs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
botany posted:it was included though? the house version that pelosi drummed through had a public option. it lost it in the senate. i meant not including it in the final legislation
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 16:03
|
|
|
Inferior Third Season posted:"Medicare-for-all" is pretty much the same thing in this context as "affordable universal health care", and could realistically be accomplished if Democrats gain power and they want to do it. No, the people who want to improve the ACA have specific plans to improve it, it describes a specific and complete plan. I'm not aware of any particular plan for Medicare-for-all that describes what that means. There are lots of ways to achieve universal care besides the Medicare model, as evidenced by other developed countries. It's not at all clear that Medicare is the best model for the US, so why should that be the litmus test?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 16:04
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ForecasterEnten/status/907981513144315904
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 16:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 16:22 |
|
|
The fact that Jefferson wrote that pretty bullshit and brutalized humans that he owned makes him worse imo. He inspired people as an accident in his quest to keep all slaveowners rich and powerful for as long as possible.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 16:06
|
|
