|
Dang It Bhabhi! posted:drat that kid who stole the sign is still in jail getting tortured and doing hard labor holy gently caress. I remember when this happened and Facebook was full of people just absolutely making GBS threads on this kid, all but gleefully crowing that he deserved it and so on. Wonder how many of those same people are in this Twitter club...
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2017 12:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 05:07 |
|
|
Bulgogi Hoagie posted:i am glad these people exist, their continued efforts ensure marxism never gains traction in mainstream western politics Though it does leave one with the unpleasant present reality that capitalism has failed.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 03:49
|
|
|
The cute lady's reaction to her first bite of brisket is pretty much perfect. In fact, I think a reaction to brisket of that sincerity should automatically makes you an honorary Texan because I don't think I've ever seen anybody react to brisket with that much genuine delight.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 15:02
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:the United States is the richest nation in the history of the world ever and all the socialized programs work better with more participants so really that whole argument is a giant crock of poo poo Counterpoint: the U.S. government is a massive, bloated and complex network of incompetence attempting to sustain a population no system could calculate for, with population, climate, economic and geological diversity greater than just about any single nation in history. For decades and decades the federal government has taken on more and more responsibilities once left up to local municipalities and state governments. Now state governments have to wait for the glacial pace of federal agencies to get around to approving their local ordinances and provisions, which slows things down to an inordinate amount. This isn't just like, passing laws and stuff, it's developing economically. The nation's largest wind power project has taken over a decade just to get approval to begin construction because of how long environmental impact analysis takes and how many different agencies have to approve on any single project. Wind power, one of the vanguards of renewable energy and something the previous Presidential administration wanted to prioritize, is being crippled by the very same entity that encouraged its growth.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
Psycho Society posted:That's not a counterpoint to anything. Are you seriously trying to say that because bureaucracy has inertia we shouldn't... what? I'm arguing that socialized systems may not work in America because the people who support them seem to want to establish them at the federal level, which is the worst possible way to do so. If America is going to adopt effective social welfare, education and medical programs, they need to be established from the local level, from the state level, because entrusting them entirely to the monolithic federal entity is dooming them to failure based on...well, the past 40 years of U.S. history really.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
Psycho Society posted:You couldn't be more wrong. A patchwork system of resource-starved counties or states trying to implement a safety net for basic needs is a terrible loving idea. Jesus christ Who exactly are resource-starved, here? I mean, if you look at the energy market, more states than ever are entering the natural gas market thanks to the advent of fracking, adding hitherto unavailable economic options. There are poor states and there are rich states, but as such it's precisely why those states need to determine a system that works within their means, and can be supported, sustained and hopefully expanded over the years, just like any other good system. If you had inadequacies that were so dire that they could not be alleviated by simple good governance, that might be the opportunity for the federal government to offer support to ensure that not state flagrantly lags behind.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
Psycho Society posted:Access to food and medical care are basic rights for every country that wants to call itself civilized. A functional system to ensure this needs to be established on the national level to utilize our resources effectively and to help the greatest amount of people. Access is great and all, but the ACA was all about "access" and this translated to handing everybody off to some dumb health insurance marketplace system that gave people insurance, but did nothing to address the disgustingly high cost of medical care in the first place. I think the U.S.'s needs are too varied and too broad in scope to be benefit by single system to address that. Moridin920 posted:tbh we need to drag those Southern red states kicking and screaming into the future because they are poo poo and continue to be poo poo and elect poo poo politicians that turn it into even more poo poo First of all, Kansas is not the South, and second of all, terrible governance is just one of a shitload of problems Kansas faces, none of which are being adequately addressed on either the federal or state level. But poo poo trickles downhill at that. I'd be all for maintaining our current way of doing things, but it doesn't seem to be working, and we've had decades now to either work out the problems or reform the systems in place and after all that time, what's the return on investment? Neither Democratic nor Republican leaders have manage to address any of the holistic problems facing our nation. Something needs to give, and I think the most logical solution is to empower the states and local communities to create their own plans of action.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
Psycho Society posted:We're not arguing for the ACA, although it did do alot of good. We're arguing for universal healthcare through a single payer system. The US doesn't have varied needs. Our people don't. Here are our needs: affordable healthcare. That's it, and wringing your hands about how many people we have, how slow government can be, or "fracking" (wtf?) isn't going to change that. I agree we need affordable healthcare, but is a single payer system going to provide that? Will it provide it without the pretty serious problems that impact other systems? What if the system works well in some states and not others? I'm saying that it doesn't seem like the federal government of the U.S. has demonstrated that it's very good at running the systems it already attempts to, I fail to see why it wouldn't be much more efficient for states to maintain and design their own systems, with the feds providing a vague set of guidelines to ensure a reasonable base quality of care. EDIT: Consider that the people who run Washington, and thus the Federal government, are a literal aristocracy that previous propped up Hillary Clinton as their front woman. These are the people, the interests, who would be in charge of any universal health care system. Do you see how that might be a grave concern?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:how would it work well in state A but not state B? Certain populations have certain medical needs. The Deep South, for instance, has a lot of heart disease, obesity and the like. Places like New Mexico and Arizona have sunstroke, dehydration, water shortages. Wyoming and Montana have huuuuge distances between hospitals and medical centers, and low populations spread out across these vast spaces. Those all require different resources with different costs: medicine and surgery for the South, clean water access for the arid desert, and gas for the transportation of patients in the larger, less populated states. Obtaining these resources reliably and at a responsible level of cost is a major challenge, and one I think that local governments could address easier, since they could attempt to stimulate their own economies by obtaining as much of these resources from agencies close at hand. Now, a very well-crafted system could address this, but it'd take a long long time to possibly add in as much flexible language as to provide for all the states' individual needs while not being so worded that the system is prone to abuse or mismanagement; again, developed on the state level I think many programs would be assembled much more quickly and be much more effective sooner to those states' individual needs.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
Psycho Society posted:A federal system would help the greatest amount of people the quickest. Once again, no amount of wringing your hands will make it any less immoral to deny even a single person the access to basic rights that would certainly come with such a patchwork system. The fact that you're framing this as a moral issue strikes me as a touch manipulative. There are a lot of failings that come out of national healthcare systems, enough so to warrant a careful approach should we wish to establish our own. Be realistic as well: you'd have a much easier time selling this concept to red states than you would selling the notion that some guy in Maryland is going to determine how best to address the problems of a woman in Utah. Moridin920 posted:Why would a healthcare system need to worry about water access or gas? That's something totally separate isn't it? Just pay for ambulances surely that's not some onerous burden. You really underestimate how much transportation costs in general contribute to just about any department that would utilize them. The state of Wyoming pays around $300 million in transportation costs alone for schools, a fifth of its entire education budget. Only relatively recently has it been cost efficient for more than one hospital to get an air ambulance or helicopter to help deal with the hundreds of miles of distance. In places like Massachusetts or New York, which are small, transportation and gas costs wouldn't be major factors, but larger states, especially rural states, absolutely would. In places where water access is difficult, it may costs way more for water access than in places where freshwater is plentiful. Some people may not even consider these unique factors when designing this system, which sort of makes my point for me.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:We're talking about healthcare specifically, what does water access have to do with it? If the local people need better water for the hospital then the hospital can get better water and the bill goes up the chain and it is handled. I mean, you're talking about these things like hospital overhead is not a big part of healthcare costs, because it absolutely is. It's not the biggest, there's a lot of things that dip into every dollar spent in a hospital, but transportation gets really expensive when you're fueling helicopters and flying out hundreds of miles to transport a patient. Healthcare costs aren't just limited to purchasing scalpels and medicines or paying doctor salaries or doctor lawyers. also gently caress North Korea
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:Call a rural ambulance right now: bill for thousands of dollars Yyyess, but this isn't as easy a solution as you put it out to be. Some folks may object to being subsidized, some may not be able to afford it on top of other costs, or the subsidies may hit one state harder than others due to all sorts of possibilities, tax codes or poo poo like that. You can have subsidized single-payer healthcare, I'm saying that it should be done on a state level so as to be the most effective. The country is simply too loving big for any other approach to work without major problems. EDIT: I mean gently caress, look at the European examples. Britain is so much smaller than the U.S. that it's sort of absurd to try to assume the same approach would work here. 8-Bit Scholar fucked around with this message at 18:45 on Mar 26, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
Dang It Bhabhi! posted:lol as in "states can help poor people but they won't" kind of individual state decision? So have a guideline. The state must ensure that everyone is insured or whatever you'd like. But let the state decide how it'll meet that guideline. This way, if it's crappy, it's also easier to change, and it is local legislators, not distant federal ones, who have to answer to their voters.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:Under a single payer system, instead of premiums people just have a much smaller payment (such as your medicare payroll tax) to make via taxes. Since all this money goes to one central fund (like medicare) you get one risk pool. Which mathematically is more efficient than all the numerous risk pools we have now, even if we ignore the bit about how insurance companies need to make a profit on top of that and a single payer system doesn't. Again, I don't think it's prudent to entrust that single risk pool to safeguard everyone's medical care. It sounds like putting all of your eggs in one basket. If anything, that sort of fund would be better used to serve as a safety net in case any of the state-run plans fucks up super bad and needs emergency money, which would also help serve as a means of providing emergency reform to a poorly designed system. I especially do not have enough faith in the federal government as it is run now, by whom it is run now, to safeguard these monies responsibly. Until such a time as the power structure of the Washington elite has shifted, I'm not particularly willing to trust their intentions. My local legislators are much more accessible; I can call up my local senator and talk to him directly. What happens to his community affects him far more directly than it does his federal counterpart. It is in this way you may also create a system better than any currently existing, because you'd have an opening for experimentation. Not every system would be equal, but every system would be far more democratically designed, which seems like the most appropriate way to do it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
I think the fear is largely that when North Korea finally implodes, it'll go out with a bang.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 21:10
|
|
|
Piss de Bundy posted:*extremely dumb american voice* well I HEARD IN NORTH KOREA Babies are delicious and North Koreans are starving checks out
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
Let us English posted:Your songbun is obviously hostile and you will be sent to a labor camp. Well you're the one who brought it up again, but I'm not sure it's a bold claim to say "Montana is big" and that things in this region are pretty spread out, although it's not as bad as Wyoming to my understanding. You still have more space than population, and as such you'd probably also have fairly high transportation costs. Secular Humanist posted:Did you know that the number of people killed by communism in history is way over inflated? It's only like several million people, so, my point being, feel the bern. Capitalism doesn't kill you directly, it just lets you rent the abbatoir you'll rot in. A post-currency world is the only answer.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2017 14:36
|
|
|
Android Blues posted:Individual branches of a federalised system can still have autonomy in handling practise and dividing funds You say that like the federal government isn't just as capable or willing to politicize medical treatment. You and Moridin both seem keen to handwave any potential problems as "it'd just take hard work" because I do not think laziness is the core root of problems in other socialized medicines. Thing is, you gotta give people the choice. Trying to insist upon a health system to work for everybody is not really the American way, loathe as I am to use the phrase. Empowering agencies to build their own, sustainable and locally-focused program would result in better efficiency while attaining the exact same goal. And if Texas starts making it lovely for women to get healthcare, and suddenly finds itself in a situation where more Texas women are moving to Utah to take advantage of their more comprehensive systems, then Texas has reason to keep updating their program. See, when you start having the central authority dictating to everybody how to live and keeping them reliant on your teat for sustenance, you create the sort of unhealthy situation like what exists in North Korea.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2017 14:55
|
|
|
The far sadder factoid I took from it is that the people of South Korea apparently stigmatize the people of the North. Not the government or the ideology of the North, but the actual people themselves. Comparatively speaking it's probably like paradise, but I guess even paradise has its vipers.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2017 15:06
|
|
|
HAT FETISH posted:Pyongyang has a doggie section at their zoo And on their cafe menu
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 05:07 |
|
|
Secular Humanist posted:Did you know the US did a bad thing once? I think the flagrant hypocrisy present in being gifted a country to make up for atrocities and oppression being committed to you, only to then turn around and commit atrocities and oppress the people who were already living in that same country, tends to be a bit of a sticking point for some.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 21:40
|
|