|
Fat Ogre, here's what you've been missing in this conversation: When discussing systemic problems, stepping in to talk about individual solutions is really loving dense. Especially in this case, where the systemic problems involve individuals not having the options they should have. You keep tossing out "I think we should have UHC, but..." and then you explain how people can get along just fine without UHC. Let me lay this down for you: Do you honestly think that people are capable of finding work and health care under the current system? Do you think that an inability to find work and health care is due to personal failing? The first one implies the second one. Do you think this system allows people who deserve/need income and healthcare to find it, if they take the proper course of action? Do you think this system is fine? The first one implies the second one. I'm really curious to see how you answer these four questions. If you say "no" to either of the second questions, I can't imagine how the hell you'd justify a "yes" to the corresponding first question. Ditocoaf fucked around with this message at 21:04 on May 9, 2014 |
#
¿
May 9, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 17:42 |
|
|
Fat Ogre posted:If your choice is not working and saying pity me or creating work, what have you got to lose at that point? What a horrible view you have of the unemployed. Lots of people are doing everything they should to find work and failing. This is why we say the system is broken and should be fixed. Ditocoaf fucked around with this message at 21:09 on May 9, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 9, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
Alright, that all seems fair enough, especially on the second half. Contrary to the impression you'd given in this thread, you're willing to acknowledge that there's a lot of bullshit that can keep even smart workers from what they need. But you missed the question that I think is key to 90% of the strife in this thread: Do you think that an inability to find work and health care reflects a personal failing? Because that is kind of implied by the advice you give on "how to do fine in the current system", and it is also kind of a jerk thing to believe. Ditocoaf fucked around with this message at 21:24 on May 9, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 9, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
Fat Ogre posted:Keep dodging what is being said because you're angry. Most people don't get primary care these days, because they can't afford it. They have to wait until emergencies to get healthcare, which ends up being more expensive in the long run but that's not the sort of decision you can make when you're barely managing to feed yourself. In an emergency, you usually don't know what you need until you're already in the hospital getting diagnosed. You and I can get preventative healthcare because we're relatively well-off and can afford to go to the doctor before something is an emergency. But (and this is a key thing to keep in mind for many political discussions:) I am not representative of an average person. I'm ridiculously unrepresentative. You are too. You'd be good to repeat that underlined statement back to yourself. It's an uncomfortable, unpleasant thing to think about, that your life is actually an outlier, on the good side. That doesn't mean your life is without difficulty, it doesn't mean you don't work hard, but it does mean that you are unequipped to give general advice to the world at large from your own life experiences.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
Nobody's saying we "should keep prices secret". We're saying that making prices public won't fix the actual problems, and that offering it up as a "more achievable" goal to work towards is counterproductive.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
Fat Ogre posted:They aren't forced to post prices before hand so they don't have to compete for your business. You literally cannot comparison shop so there is no competition. EDIT: the answer is the market isn't relevant to this kind of transaction Ditocoaf fucked around with this message at 20:40 on May 10, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 10, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
Yeah, Fat Ogre, it comes back to this: In a discussion about fixes to a systematic problem, it's lovely to jump in suggesting individual solutions. Or things like public hospital prices to enable individual solutions. Your ideas may be genuinely helpful to an individual case, but it's still gonna be callous to push those ideas in a context trying to discuss a more comprehensive solution. You've done this with health care and with education and with employment, and it's like... look at your NFL analogy. "Not everyone can get into the NFL, but it's still a thing where hard work and skill matter", or something like that. But if someone's life and livelihood depend on getting into the NFL, that would be a major problem! We would want to make their life and livelihood not depend on something so unlikely and elite. Giving them advice on how best to become a pro football player would be missing the point. Ditocoaf fucked around with this message at 21:14 on May 10, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 10, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
It's a question of whether you buy that ACA is better at adhering to scientific truth than Single Payer would be. If you don't make the case for that first, the argument is a non-sequitur. I'm not caught up with the midterms thread, so maybe De Nomolos made that case successfully, and AYC just left that part out when bringing the discussion here?
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 17:42 |
|
|
Ah okay, I just looked into the thread for context while you were making that post. So this is about the Greens supporting good stuff except for being anti-vaccine. Yeah then, that's dumb. I guess I would still be glad if the Greens helped push Single Payer through, because I assume their anti-vaccine nuttery wouldn't have much effect on the final legislation, because they'd be only one small part of the push. Ditocoaf fucked around with this message at 22:42 on May 13, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 13, 2014 22:40
|
|