As to your first point, I addressed that in my post.
As to a fool proof system, you're not responding to the actual concept and neither are you aware of its failure statistics.
Look... can you TRY to contribute something of value. Because this is pitiful. You didn't read my post and you presumed to lecture me on a subject that... as little as I know... you obviously know dramatically less.
as to Corbyn, the Conservative party which you would likely label "right wing" is currently in power thus right wing is apparently okay as well...
If you want to come up with a definition of "right wing" that doesn't include the Conservative party... possibly use a more limited term.
What is more, there are factions of the left in the UK that are not mainstream. Should we marginalize them as well? Communists for example? A popular labor party does not mean an advocacy for communism anymore than an advocacy for the conservative party means an advocacy for nazis.
Are you prepared to allow your exclusion regime exclude fringe left wing extremists? Just curious if there is any integrity in your position. This is a pass/fail test.
As to sticking with the default, don't pull a Microsoft to set it to your version of Internet Explorer, bub. Or if you do, then it would be just as acceptable to bias it against you if you're going to bias it against others.
Again, no problem with you safe spacing yourself. But when you silence people according to your bias... just no.
As to you not liking bubbles, banning people from the site does that though. Just because they're off the site doesn't mean they don't exist. Its like telling people to leave a room and then pretending that those people don't exist. They're just in another room. If you want to interact with them then you have to allow them to interact. If you prevent them from communicating as they desire then you won't hear their communications.
As to regulation, who watches the watchmen? As to malicious actors... you also have cry bullies... people that cry to get their opposition censored etc. What happens if/when malicious actors get into the control scheme? The thing here is that we don't trust each other.
You can't over come that lack of trust absent a trust building process that would take a generation at this point. And before you judge my lack of trust, consider how much trust you would have in "me" running this system?
Look, do what you want. If I'm right, then this will be a shit show that won't accomplish anything besides making the promoters look foolish and powerless. If you're right then whatever you think is going to happen.
Naturally I wouldn't employ that solution in exactly the same way because we have better technology to facilitate the concept, but I would still enact the same concept.
The British system simply made it physically impossible for trains to enter a stretch of track unless the train in front of it or going the other way or whatever had turned in a key. The key was slotted into a signalling box which permitted other trains to enter that track. If the key was NOT turned in then further trains could not physically access that track. The switching station would literally not actuate.
Now, if you did it today, you'd use computers and sensors and encryption... etc... but the concept would be the same. If a train currently holds the "key" for a bit of track then you can't have that key and you can't access that track. You could have the trains automatically brake if they entered track that hadn't been vacated yet... you could turn off the third rail to make it extra fool proof... and you could have the brakes default to an ON state in the event that the third rail was disabled.
Yes yes... engineering problems with what I said. Engineering solutions always have problems... even good engineering solutions.
There are problems with a hydro electric dam and an automobile and a jet aeroplane. The trick is solving those without losing the utility of what you're attempting to do. Point is that this isn't actually that complicated.
The system I conceptualized is damn near foolproof if executed competently. You could have drunk, high, sleeping train operators, going down the track at whatever speed the track/trains can handle, without any crashes into other trains.
Ironically the "lameness filter" censored my post. I copied groups of paragraphs into the field to find the offensive phrase and it didn't trip but all of it together apparently violates some rule it won't specify. No idea what the problem is... but here you can see exactly what happens when one of these services does something like that... I just posted my response into pastebin and then linked to it here.
I read the article. You didn't. My argument is valid. If you have a problem with something I said, then offer an argument. But your first attempt of "you didn't read it" was bullshit. Try again, chump.
No, I do understand actually... but if they invade your room then you have moral and ethical right on your side to evict them.
If the space is common space and people are not given private space... then you don't have that authority as the space is no more yours than theirs. If you want restraints put on ideologies from pushing their shit in given areas then it must restrict YOU from doing the same thing. If you presume to restrict others but not yourself whilst as the same time offering no space for these other groups to push their ideas... then its just tyranny.
Many of the threads that were shut down on reddit such as the ones that made fun of fat people... were not invading other people's threads most of the time. Sure, trolls are a thing. But most groups have trolls. If for example, the "fat shaming" thread in reddit stayed to itself... why would you shut it down? It isn't as if that stopped or accomplished anything.
And sites like facebook and reddit etc marginalize such groups at their existential peril. Because why would we participate on a board where we'd be arbitarily shut down because someone elsewhere on the board had the bad feels about us?
The sites that ultimately steal market share away from and kill these sites will do so in part by arguing that they believe in leaving their users alone.
Facebook is on record that they are fearful for their future. The demographics look bad. Reddit already has a very bad censorship reputation which extends well beyond censoring politically incorrect content. The shadowbanning tactic that they employ for criticizing a product for example on a corporate reddit board is well known and has changed the way people perceive that site. People that say critical things in tweets... no profanity or obscenity are frequently banned from Twitter. A friend of mine was banned from Twitter for questioning the citations in a newspaper article.
You don't delete people from the planet when you ban them from a given social network. All you do is cause them to go somewhere else.
Best case, if you employ this concept you'll segregate the internet just as I proposed unintentionally. You'll turn X site into an echo chamber and those groups excised from the site will be elsewhere where you don't hear them. It will not have accomplished anything beyond that.
You are not deleting people when you ban people. You personally will just not hear them. You honestly might as well just block them on whatever site you are on. It accomplishes little beyond that.
As to Ad-Revenue... sure... Naturally advertisers should be given the tools to associate their products with whatever they want.
Keep in mind, the advertiser is not actually interested in the content generally but the USER. The USER is the CONSUMER... so generally what the advertiser wants is someone in their market, who has the money to buy their product, and who might be interested in their product.
Sure, given company might not want to be seen next to video X on youtube. However, you only see video X if you clicked on the link for video X. Its not like its forced on anyone. And what the company wants is to tell a consumer about their new product or service.
Companies are being shamed into caring under threat of being boycotted by political groups that are harassing companies that don't kowtow. However, the companies didn't care before and if/when the political shitshow subsides they'll go back to not caring. What they care about is the consumer.
Might a product that is advertised beside pornography reflect poorly on the company? Let us say that Tide detergent advertised on a porn site. Well, you're only going to see that Tide commercial on that site if you go to that site in the first place. If the content is objectionable then why are YOU there? Tide is just trying to sell you soap.
Let us be frank here, the idea is this "giants" project to harass companies into only advertising with politically correct content. The idea is to suppress certain political movements through marginalizing their laughable ad revenue sharing they get from where ever.
No one cared until that happened. This isn't a grass roots movement or issue. And it will go away just like so many of these fake protest movements whenever it gets its strings cut.
This is ephemeral. Do you see the Giants campaign being alive and well 10 years from now? No. It could fade into nothing any day just like Code Pink... or Occupy etc. It will be and then be gone.
I'm trying to offer a good faith and evenly applied system that would allow all groups the ability to express themselves as they see fit within social networks that are made up of like minded people.
If people are breaking the law, then charge them as such. If they're not then you're just participating in a shit show that will spin its wheels until it ultimately runs out of gas and is forgotten.
As you will. My two cents is that we do something productive. Not everyone sees eye to eye with that notion.
You're missing the point. Your desired political ideology ALSO has no claim to the mainstream. Or at least no more claim to it.
Leave the political scree to the places people want to hear that. So just as the Nazis would go somewhere else so would the Communists.
Let people define their associations.
Consider the new aggregation system that Facebook was setting up.
The problem with it is that it wasn't customized news but rather arbitrarily filtered news that the user had no control over.
What I am suggesting is that you let the various groups define how the filters and algorithms that control how they see the site work.
So for example, if you don't like certain news sources then you would instruct the system to suppress links from that publication. Or if you really liked certain publications you would instruct the system to prioritize links from that source.
Likewise, you would have networks of associations and tags which held tribal factional information that is important to you.
You don't like the "right wing"... okay... why not simply suppress "right wing" users and sources so you never see them?
It is true that OTHER people will see them if they CHOOSE to see them. But that is THEIR choice and you have no right to dictate that. That applies to people that want to pull down anything that is legal.
You have no right to control what people believe. This notion that you do is part of the problem and it will fail. We can all read and associate with whomever we want. Even in China people are able to bypass pervasive government censorship if they want to.
So you have no chance or hope of controlling politics through censorship given these technologies.
What you can do is aliviate anxitety by allowing people their own spaces where they can say what they want unmolested by contrary elements. You can also create neutral spaces where factional issues will be taboo and only issues that everyone agrees upon will be accepted. You can also create free for all zones where people can fight about whatever but people also cannot complain that people are saying things they don't like to hear.
Part of the problem from what I've seen on these issues is that some people think they have the right to speak and to silence at the same time... arbitrarily. That's just tyranny. And it will be taken for nothing less.
Rules must be applied evenly and in good faith.
What I am suggesting here is that you simply let people break into their little groups and do what they want. If you presume to stop people from speaking as a means of marginalizing political views you don't like... that's just tyranny unless you can make a legal argument in a court of law that they're violating the law. Obviously you won't pull that off with nearly any of your complaints. Just being realistic.
Its a free country, friendo. And if you say "but the internet encompasses the world"... okay... pass a law in whatever country wants to control speech and see what happens. Its failed in China. That is an example so clear that I am really surprised that any substantial number of people didn't figure it out. I have no problem with you trying. You might as well try to destroy the sun by gripping stones in your hand and throwing them at the sun in the sky. It will be about as effective.
Ideally people should be more tolerant and have good faith with the "marketplace of ideas" concept. But if people don't want to do that, then the next best option is to let people segregate. That is also functional and realistic.
The idea of shutting down contrary viewpoints through censorship though... At best you'll make whomever buys into the idea waste money and look inept as they fail. Worst case you'll also fail but the collateral damage will be more substantial that making some foolish people look appropriately foolish.
Regardless, do as you will. The Sun fears not your thrown stones.
As to what I meant to say, I think I was very clear and there's no need for your elaboration on that point.
As to you taking issue with someone that has a traceable name on this server that has disagreed with you in the past... whilst you are posting under an AC tag... your own hypocrisy in this matter as usual annihilates your credibility.
Posting your salty little whines at me while remaining under an AC blankie merely makes you look weak, offended, dishonorable, and stupid.
That you continue to not realize this further validates the point.
... No... I'm merely saying that various groups don't get along with each other. Some people like Christians and some don't. Some people like ideology X and some don't.
You find that all over the internet, dude. Most of it is because people are fucking stupid as regards protecting their information.
Its a little like the poor people that keep getting sick because they poop in their drinking water and then get diseases.
I feel badly for them but we've known how to avoid contaminating our drinking water for THOUSANDS of years. If some group of people haven't gotten the memo on that one then its mostly death by stupidity. I know... I'm a heartless SOB... I'm also not wrong. Stop putting your real ID on facebook and then crying DOX when someone goes to your facebook and pages through to get your personal information. IF you do that, you're an idiot. It needs to go away.
As to reddit and pizzagate... ban them there and they'll go elsewhere. And then there will be other groups you'll have to monitor there of all sorts of different political persuasions.
Frankly, I think its a free country. If people want to share conspiracies about pedophiles or whatever that doesn't break the law. Doxing also generally doesn't break the law.
If you don't like them, great... But not liking someone doesn't mean what they're doing should be stopped by force. Break the groups up.
They are going to do that SOMEWHERE. knocking them off reddit stopped nothing. All that happened is that you don't see it. Which is what I'm offering you anyway. Letting the groups isolate from each other so they don't bother each other.
1. I can take the most permissive system and use that. So, the US freedom of speech laws are generally the most permissive. If the speech doesn't violate US speech law, then that would be the code.
2. I can take the LEAST permissive system and use that. So, North Korea or something. If anything violates the terms of North Korean law or the general principles of that system, then it would be banned everywhere.
3. I can create sovereign bubbles with German facebook and Italian facebook etc... The codes would be specific to those regions and the conduct in them would be under those rules.
As it stands, we generally have option 1 because it is generally US companies setting up the social networks that anyone else wants to join.
Option 2 if implemented would push everyone to the darkweb or something so it would invalidate any kind of control.
Option 3 is my favorite mostly because it would let people vote with their feet on the internet. So, if you are german but you join US facebook... you're under US law and the germans can't apply their speech laws to the US social network. What you'd find is that anyone that wanted to violate the laws would gravitate out of the systems where they were not allowed to speak. This would leave the often politically motivated censors impotent.
Option 1 is what we have right now and those that want censorship will fail. Anyone that understands the internet understands the censorship is doomed.
But, because they're stupid, I'm happy to give them a scenario where their idiocy is highlighted for everyone to appreciate. I want them to control internet ghost towns. I want them to be abandoned. I want everyone to have the freedom to choose where they want to go... and when the censors set up their programs they'll just be abandoned if they do anything more than keep the child porn out etc. And even then the pedophiles will continue to go somewhere else to share kiddy diddling picts.
As to groups wanting to push their shit where they're ACTUALLY not wanted... by all means evict people from your space. But if your space is collective space then it isn't your space.
What I want to do is give everyone THEIR space. And in that space they can control who is in or out. But the collective space is just that. And naturally you'll also want sub-factional collective space which will operate under various rules.
As regards advertisers they'll decide which sub factions and cultures they want to market to and which they don't.
Just break it down and let all the little groups do their thing.
Do bikers mix with the cocktail crowd when they go out for dinner on the town? They do not.
Do teenage girls go to the same concerts as 80 year old women? They do not.
We are defined not merely by what we are but what we are not. Various ideologies are defined in part by their opposition to other ideologies. Given world views conflict.
The mistake of the social networking people is putting everyone in the same room. That was the error.
Nazis are going to exist. Jihadis are going to exist. Communists are going to exist. Evangelical Christians are going to exist.
Etc etc etc... You don't put them all in the same social network. You segregate.
You can have common areas for mainstream groups but keep places open for fringe groups to go or they'll intrude into the mainstream space given no alternative.
Also do not presume to control who believes what by controlling the flow of information.
As the man said: "The internet views censorship as damage and routes around it."
Savvy?
Provide space for NON-ILLEGAL fringe groups to congregate and leave them unmolested in those spaces. Do not censor people.
These are the mistakes. Fix them and the issue goes away.
Prices under the ACA went up. That is a fact. According to Obama administration estimates they should have gone down. They did not.
The models you are basing your logic on failed to model reality. They failed. They are bad models. Your doubling down on validating failure is bias on your part.
We can talk about arriving at a solution you like. But we cannot make any rational plans about anything if you start with false premises and will not correct your positions when contradicted by reality.
Look, we can all just say things that aren't so and pretend.
Santa clause will do it... hide the eggs for the easter bunny and so on.
Your "competitive market" has suppliers fleeing it left right and center. To the point where there are many people that have only ONE licensed supplier in their area. And in some places... NONE.
So that's a fantasy. If your market were competitive then it would be healthy. It is a forced system that operates contrary to market forces in almost all ways and pays the price for that in that it is dysfunctional. This is merely a fact.
You want to go through statistics on this? Because it would be a bit like daring me to find someone who's name begins with the letter "A" in the phone book.
As to not handing consumers money, that's effectively what medicaid does and the passive subsidies to insurance companies that participate in the market do the same thing... its just the consumer never sees that money.
In fact, that is one of the many things that violates the market principle... PRICE DISCOVERY doesn't happen in medical practice between the consumer and service provider.
For example, do you see hospitals and doctors bidding against each other for the business of sick people? Not so much. Do you see hospitals bragging about how affordable their care is? Not so much. You often don't even see upfront pricing.
The only place you tend to see proper market forces operating is in plastic surgery and in a lot of dental practices. Which are both the most healthy private sector medical providers.
We're seeing private practice doctors shut down across the country since the ACA. They can't handle the paperwork. They are shutting down their offices and just becoming doctors in hospitals where fees are higher to the patient or they're retiring which reduces supply and increases costs.
Look, if you want your socialized system... Great. I'm not standing in the way of that. But you have to be realistic about it and interact with "this universe". Otherwise you're going to have a system built on "hope" which is more or less what Venezuela banked on.
And look at the people in Venezuela... they still haven't learned. That's how bad it can get without anyone learning... because it has gotten that bad there and they still haven't learned.
I don't want that for my country. If you want to do socialism then you have to "this universe" socialism such as exists in Sweden.
They have for example a balanced budget law that requires the government of Sweden to cut spending or raise taxes... either one so long as the budget balances. And if it doesn't balance then automatic deep systemic cuts happen. This is a law that was proposed in the US by Richard Nixon. THAT is what keeps Swedish socialism stable.
Now... If the idea is make up theories, ignore that they don't work, ignore empirical contradictions to your perspective on reality, and persue what seems to me an ideological concept with no practical benefit to the public... You don't get my vote.
Maybe you take this as non-constructive or mean or trolling... I don't know... From my perspective you're a very biased, factually disinterested, evangelist for a failed concept. My perspective. You keep talking about the ACA like its a free market or something. You talk about how the costs go down because of it... Anyone that examines the facts would give your assessment of the matter an "F". The marks the kid gets for not reading the book he was supposed to do a book report on.
I feel like I'd be getting farther debating the foreign policy of the kingdom of Oz.
As to the argument that subsidizing demand by handing everyone a fixed amount will lower prices.
We can see emperically that that didn't happen.
Beyond that, you're not employing market forces to drive competition because the government is setting a base level subsidy that suppliers will not go below because they don't have to go below it.
What is more, the government raises this subsidy basically whenever suppliers say they want more. This means prices will continue to go up.
Given regulations and other market barriers you have artificially restricted supply with inflated demand.
Your prices can only go up in that environment. This is textbook.
And even your cartoon is calling bullshit on you here. The punch line in the cartoon is "why can a plane fly upside down"... that is, empirical evidence contradicts the simplified theory.
Well, empirical evidence agrees with me and disagrees with you.
Again, if you want to lower prices, you have to remove barriers to entry into the market, increase consumer choices by allowing consumers to choose the products they desire instead of dictating which products they must buy.
The Bronze, Silver, Gold concept is infantile in its simplicity and offers the consumer very few options to mitigate aspects of the industry that are inefficient, ill advised, and need to be starved of funding to kill them off.
This is exactly what the market does with products and services it finds to be non-competitive. It starves them of resources.
You've misread market choices. Many people don't buy health insurance because they are not attracted to the product.
As to providing subsides for the very poor... medicaid is fine. But that's for the very poor... not everyone. If you want it for everyone, then just advocate full socialization. I think a good hybrid system is having some government hospitals that have government doctors... You will only be able to attract substandard doctors if you pay below market rate unless you entirely monopolize the market. At that point, doctors will either leave the country to get better jobs elsewhere or accept artificially restricted prices in your monopolized system.
Look, empirical reality is very sticky. We are seeing several products all inflate radically in price.
Healthcare Education Housing
They all share ONE thing in common. Heavy government demand side subsidies.
Very clever people said it wouldn't happen. They had all the accreditation and titles.
It happened.
Consider the shaman that cuts open a chicken's entrails to foretell the future. Considered to be smart by his society... he talks to God... the King trusts him.
But its all bullshit.
And that's what all those accreditation turn into when you can't actually model reality accurately. It all turns to horseshit. Emperor with no cloths on.
If your model were right, prices wouldn't be inflating after the ACA.
You can say "give it time" but the projections for the ACA held that prices would have been lower ALREADY. So, its a goalpost move. We can go over the projections that were laid out for the ACA. They've not come true.
They were wrong. Exactly why should your models retain credibility when they fail to model reality?
As to prices going down when demand increases, that is contrary to econ 101.
Price is set by Supply AND Demand. If there is high demand for hand made Italian super cars, then you don't suddenly get a dramatic fall in Italian super cars. The Supply is limited. As demand increases, costs generally go up.
You see the same thing with Gasoline etc.
If you want me to cite wikipedia or something then I can do that. But you're basically saying 1+1=5.
That's incorrect. I suggest not doubling down on that error.
As to Time and labor etc, I'm not advocating socializing the system. I'm merely saying that ""IF"" you subsidize Demand, prices go up. If you want to avoid that, you have to either take total control over the market or do Supply side subsidies.
Subsidize Supply and prices go down. Subsidize Demand and prices go up. That's pretty basic.
As to regulations being important because otherwise we'll all be killed by poisoned drugs. I think we can accept uniform drug standards from other countries that have reasonable standards. What is more, if your regulations are causing phrama companies to go out of business and costs to spiral out of control... consider that on a cost benefit analysis you might be going too far. Consider the whole issue. We need not only safe drugs but we need affordable and abundant drugs as well... we need innovative drugs... we need a dynamic market. If the regulations are making the drugs affordable, creating shortages, stifling innovation, and crushing a dynamic market place... then clearly the regulations need to be made more manageable to take into consideration other priorities.
As to going to the best people to solve the problem. Those are the same people that crafted the existing shit show. It isn't enough to have a big shiny hat that says God talks to you or any other honor credited to an individual by an institution. Its all ad hominem. Who you are doesn't make 1+1=5. 1+1=2 because of the inherent definitions of those symbols and the underlying logic they represent. Who writes it doesn't matter. It is what it is. Anyone who has the solution of shutting off their brain and listening and believing to the first person that comes along with a title is the very definition of the sort of person that shouldn't be involved in the solution.
If you care and you're serious... then you'll actually think about it. If the fix is "find some guy with a title and do what he says"... that's a peasant strategy. Get a noble or a clergyman and do what they tell me.
We've done that... it clearly isn't working. Try something else.
Actually I asked a simple question and you proved me right by not answering it.
As to a reasonable person, you attack me and I respond. You are asking me to ignore your attack because I'm unreasonable if I defend myself.
This is the argument of a coward. You want to be able to attack and not suffer a rebut.
We can see why you operate under the AC tag. You are an intellectual coward. You are afraid and even offended by the very notion that any of your idiotic arguments would be questioned or that you would be held to ANY standard what so ever.
As to dictating prices, you have to take control of supply when you do that otherwise the market will respond with shortages.
Which means full socialization. Medicare for all will require that or you'll get a Venezuela/Weimar response from the market.
As to solutions, I'd point out that most of the "problem" is increasing costs. If we compare the cost of a broken arm 50 years ago to what it costs to set a broken arm today... we find that it is dramatically more expensive despite the procedure used to set broken bone being the same. Costs are between 5 to 10 times higher after accounting for inflation.
This is a common trend across most treatments.
We can look at where costs have gone up. Doctors are not paid more than they were in the 1960s. In fact, in most cases, doctors were paid MORE in the 1960s.
People will often say "its the insurance" but go to a hospital without insurance and you'll see that your costs are if anything higher. That is, insurance is demonstrably either of no relevant to the cost increase or is actually actively holding it down through collective bargaining through the insurance company.
If its not doctors and its not insurance companies... what?
I can go through changes in bureaucracy, medication costs, regulations of medical devices through the FDA etc, but there is a lot of blame to be laid at the feet of government for actively increasing the cost of healthcare in the US.
As such, solving the problem by socializing the industry. I'd be more accepting of that as a notion if at the same time we also liberalized the industry from most of the restrictions put upon it over the last 50 years.
The top three floors of the hospital didn't used to be an office with people doing insurance and compliance paper work. Remove that as a requirement.
Allow shift nurses to dictate who gets treatment and when just like they used to do it. That includes for example letting shift nurses send people AWAY from the emergency room if they deem them to not have an emergency and instead send them to urgent care or whatever. I've seen people abuse the emergency room to get flu shots. That's unacceptable.
My general impression is that a lot of the dysfunction in the system was either the result of foolisly implimented altruism with more than a little cynically introduced sabotage to further certain political interests.
I feel that socializing the system under these circumstances would effectively allow failed policy to FAIL UP... and also reward anti social players that have manipulated the system to encourage precisely this result.
The incuriosity in policy makers as to what actually increased in price and why to me demonstrates that the policy makers are either incompetent or complicit.
If people ACTUALLY want to solve the problem, first determine what is the problem. They literally blamed the health insurance companies to justify the ACA. A concept which makes no logical sense given that absent the insurance companies costs to patents are HIGHER or the same. Thus removing the relevance of the insurance companies right there. Added to that, we can look at the profit margins of the insurance companies... NON-PROFIT insurance companies were charging about the same as FOR-PROFIT insurance companies demonstrating that the margins the for profit companies were subsisting on were very thin. We can validate this further by going over their balance sheets. They're rarely flush.
It was on this justification the ACA was based... it at best a confession of stupidity given that even a basic examination of the evidence would invalidate the argument.
Again, I'm very interested in fixing the American healthcare system. But IF it is to be fixed, it will be fixed by people that ACTUALLY want to fix it and that ACTUALLY have the patience to examine the issue seriously.
Absent good faith or patience any agent that presumes to dictate policy will likely do more harm than good. I'd just assume go back to what we had before the ACA until the interested parties want to try again with more seriousness and integrity than they did the first time.
Except that what you cited fell into one or more of the following categories:
youtube videos that were not of the appropriate time frame to support your claim
youtube videos that did not actually support your claim at all
incoherent blog gibberish by someone of - at best - questionable credibility
So in other words, you did not cite anything that actually supported your argument.
I also showed I was happy to go through my argument and counter another person's argument
Except you didn't. You kept moving the goal posts, never once actually providing any remotely credible source that supported your claim. You then held people of opposing viewpoints to much higher standards than yourself. That is pretty much the definition of moving the goalposts.
You're saying that I can't ask how I am moving goal posts.
And now you're just making shit up. It was laid plainly at your feet how you were moving the goalposts. This is not a new philosophical concept either, you could look this up if you wanted to."""
What facts am I brushing off? I addressed everything in this...
You say I changed the burden of proof... Cite my first criteria of proof and then cite my changed criteria.
IF you are correct, this should be easy. IF you can't do it then I'm going to conclude that you're merely incorrect.
Slashdot Mirror
As to your first point, I addressed that in my post.
As to a fool proof system, you're not responding to the actual concept and neither are you aware of its failure statistics.
Look... can you TRY to contribute something of value. Because this is pitiful. You didn't read my post and you presumed to lecture me on a subject that... as little as I know... you obviously know dramatically less.
Guess this explains why you post AC. *shrugs*
as to Corbyn, the Conservative party which you would likely label "right wing" is currently in power thus right wing is apparently okay as well...
If you want to come up with a definition of "right wing" that doesn't include the Conservative party... possibly use a more limited term.
What is more, there are factions of the left in the UK that are not mainstream. Should we marginalize them as well? Communists for example? A popular labor party does not mean an advocacy for communism anymore than an advocacy for the conservative party means an advocacy for nazis.
Are you prepared to allow your exclusion regime exclude fringe left wing extremists? Just curious if there is any integrity in your position. This is a pass/fail test.
As to sticking with the default, don't pull a Microsoft to set it to your version of Internet Explorer, bub. Or if you do, then it would be just as acceptable to bias it against you if you're going to bias it against others.
Again, no problem with you safe spacing yourself. But when you silence people according to your bias... just no.
As to you not liking bubbles, banning people from the site does that though. Just because they're off the site doesn't mean they don't exist. Its like telling people to leave a room and then pretending that those people don't exist. They're just in another room. If you want to interact with them then you have to allow them to interact. If you prevent them from communicating as they desire then you won't hear their communications.
As to regulation, who watches the watchmen? As to malicious actors... you also have cry bullies... people that cry to get their opposition censored etc. What happens if/when malicious actors get into the control scheme? The thing here is that we don't trust each other.
You can't over come that lack of trust absent a trust building process that would take a generation at this point. And before you judge my lack of trust, consider how much trust you would have in "me" running this system?
Look, do what you want. If I'm right, then this will be a shit show that won't accomplish anything besides making the promoters look foolish and powerless. If you're right then whatever you think is going to happen.
I'm happy to let time judge.
I'm not sure what that comment adds to this discussion.
Doubtless funding will be cited as the reason this isn't implemented. But I tend to find retrograde systems cost more over time.
... in the 1800s.
Naturally I wouldn't employ that solution in exactly the same way because we have better technology to facilitate the concept, but I would still enact the same concept.
The British system simply made it physically impossible for trains to enter a stretch of track unless the train in front of it or going the other way or whatever had turned in a key. The key was slotted into a signalling box which permitted other trains to enter that track. If the key was NOT turned in then further trains could not physically access that track. The switching station would literally not actuate.
Now, if you did it today, you'd use computers and sensors and encryption... etc... but the concept would be the same. If a train currently holds the "key" for a bit of track then you can't have that key and you can't access that track. You could have the trains automatically brake if they entered track that hadn't been vacated yet... you could turn off the third rail to make it extra fool proof... and you could have the brakes default to an ON state in the event that the third rail was disabled.
Yes yes... engineering problems with what I said. Engineering solutions always have problems... even good engineering solutions.
There are problems with a hydro electric dam and an automobile and a jet aeroplane. The trick is solving those without losing the utility of what you're attempting to do. Point is that this isn't actually that complicated.
The system I conceptualized is damn near foolproof if executed competently. You could have drunk, high, sleeping train operators, going down the track at whatever speed the track/trains can handle, without any crashes into other trains.
Its possible. We can do it.
Ironically the "lameness filter" censored my post. I copied groups of paragraphs into the field to find the offensive phrase and it didn't trip but all of it together apparently violates some rule it won't specify. No idea what the problem is... but here you can see exactly what happens when one of these services does something like that... I just posted my response into pastebin and then linked to it here.
See? It does nothing. Totally god damn pointless.
https://pastebin.com/VLuYzBNe
I read the article. You didn't. My argument is valid. If you have a problem with something I said, then offer an argument. But your first attempt of "you didn't read it" was bullshit. Try again, chump.
No, I do understand actually... but if they invade your room then you have moral and ethical right on your side to evict them.
If the space is common space and people are not given private space... then you don't have that authority as the space is no more yours than theirs. If you want restraints put on ideologies from pushing their shit in given areas then it must restrict YOU from doing the same thing. If you presume to restrict others but not yourself whilst as the same time offering no space for these other groups to push their ideas... then its just tyranny.
Many of the threads that were shut down on reddit such as the ones that made fun of fat people... were not invading other people's threads most of the time. Sure, trolls are a thing. But most groups have trolls. If for example, the "fat shaming" thread in reddit stayed to itself... why would you shut it down? It isn't as if that stopped or accomplished anything.
And sites like facebook and reddit etc marginalize such groups at their existential peril. Because why would we participate on a board where we'd be arbitarily shut down because someone elsewhere on the board had the bad feels about us?
The sites that ultimately steal market share away from and kill these sites will do so in part by arguing that they believe in leaving their users alone.
Facebook is on record that they are fearful for their future. The demographics look bad. Reddit already has a very bad censorship reputation which extends well beyond censoring politically incorrect content. The shadowbanning tactic that they employ for criticizing a product for example on a corporate reddit board is well known and has changed the way people perceive that site. People that say critical things in tweets... no profanity or obscenity are frequently banned from Twitter. A friend of mine was banned from Twitter for questioning the citations in a newspaper article.
You don't delete people from the planet when you ban them from a given social network. All you do is cause them to go somewhere else.
Best case, if you employ this concept you'll segregate the internet just as I proposed unintentionally. You'll turn X site into an echo chamber and those groups excised from the site will be elsewhere where you don't hear them. It will not have accomplished anything beyond that.
You are not deleting people when you ban people. You personally will just not hear them. You honestly might as well just block them on whatever site you are on. It accomplishes little beyond that.
As to Ad-Revenue... sure... Naturally advertisers should be given the tools to associate their products with whatever they want.
Keep in mind, the advertiser is not actually interested in the content generally but the USER. The USER is the CONSUMER... so generally what the advertiser wants is someone in their market, who has the money to buy their product, and who might be interested in their product.
Sure, given company might not want to be seen next to video X on youtube. However, you only see video X if you clicked on the link for video X. Its not like its forced on anyone. And what the company wants is to tell a consumer about their new product or service.
Companies are being shamed into caring under threat of being boycotted by political groups that are harassing companies that don't kowtow. However, the companies didn't care before and if/when the political shitshow subsides they'll go back to not caring. What they care about is the consumer.
Might a product that is advertised beside pornography reflect poorly on the company? Let us say that Tide detergent advertised on a porn site. Well, you're only going to see that Tide commercial on that site if you go to that site in the first place. If the content is objectionable then why are YOU there? Tide is just trying to sell you soap.
Let us be frank here, the idea is this "giants" project to harass companies into only advertising with politically correct content. The idea is to suppress certain political movements through marginalizing their laughable ad revenue sharing they get from where ever.
No one cared until that happened. This isn't a grass roots movement or issue. And it will go away just like so many of these fake protest movements whenever it gets its strings cut.
This is ephemeral. Do you see the Giants campaign being alive and well 10 years from now? No. It could fade into nothing any day just like Code Pink... or Occupy etc. It will be and then be gone.
I'm trying to offer a good faith and evenly applied system that would allow all groups the ability to express themselves as they see fit within social networks that are made up of like minded people.
If people are breaking the law, then charge them as such. If they're not then you're just participating in a shit show that will spin its wheels until it ultimately runs out of gas and is forgotten.
As you will. My two cents is that we do something productive. Not everyone sees eye to eye with that notion.
statistically irrelevant.
You're missing the point. Your desired political ideology ALSO has no claim to the mainstream. Or at least no more claim to it.
Leave the political scree to the places people want to hear that. So just as the Nazis would go somewhere else so would the Communists.
Let people define their associations.
Consider the new aggregation system that Facebook was setting up.
The problem with it is that it wasn't customized news but rather arbitrarily filtered news that the user had no control over.
What I am suggesting is that you let the various groups define how the filters and algorithms that control how they see the site work.
So for example, if you don't like certain news sources then you would instruct the system to suppress links from that publication. Or if you really liked certain publications you would instruct the system to prioritize links from that source.
Likewise, you would have networks of associations and tags which held tribal factional information that is important to you.
You don't like the "right wing"... okay... why not simply suppress "right wing" users and sources so you never see them?
It is true that OTHER people will see them if they CHOOSE to see them. But that is THEIR choice and you have no right to dictate that. That applies to people that want to pull down anything that is legal.
You have no right to control what people believe. This notion that you do is part of the problem and it will fail. We can all read and associate with whomever we want. Even in China people are able to bypass pervasive government censorship if they want to.
So you have no chance or hope of controlling politics through censorship given these technologies.
What you can do is aliviate anxitety by allowing people their own spaces where they can say what they want unmolested by contrary elements. You can also create neutral spaces where factional issues will be taboo and only issues that everyone agrees upon will be accepted. You can also create free for all zones where people can fight about whatever but people also cannot complain that people are saying things they don't like to hear.
Part of the problem from what I've seen on these issues is that some people think they have the right to speak and to silence at the same time... arbitrarily. That's just tyranny. And it will be taken for nothing less.
Rules must be applied evenly and in good faith.
What I am suggesting here is that you simply let people break into their little groups and do what they want. If you presume to stop people from speaking as a means of marginalizing political views you don't like... that's just tyranny unless you can make a legal argument in a court of law that they're violating the law. Obviously you won't pull that off with nearly any of your complaints. Just being realistic.
Its a free country, friendo. And if you say "but the internet encompasses the world"... okay... pass a law in whatever country wants to control speech and see what happens. Its failed in China. That is an example so clear that I am really surprised that any substantial number of people didn't figure it out. I have no problem with you trying. You might as well try to destroy the sun by gripping stones in your hand and throwing them at the sun in the sky. It will be about as effective.
Ideally people should be more tolerant and have good faith with the "marketplace of ideas" concept. But if people don't want to do that, then the next best option is to let people segregate. That is also functional and realistic.
The idea of shutting down contrary viewpoints through censorship though... At best you'll make whomever buys into the idea waste money and look inept as they fail. Worst case you'll also fail but the collateral damage will be more substantial that making some foolish people look appropriately foolish.
Regardless, do as you will. The Sun fears not your thrown stones.
As to what I meant to say, I think I was very clear and there's no need for your elaboration on that point.
As to you taking issue with someone that has a traceable name on this server that has disagreed with you in the past... whilst you are posting under an AC tag... your own hypocrisy in this matter as usual annihilates your credibility.
Posting your salty little whines at me while remaining under an AC blankie merely makes you look weak, offended, dishonorable, and stupid.
That you continue to not realize this further validates the point.
Be a better person. I believe you can if you try.
glad someone saw that... :D
... No... I'm merely saying that various groups don't get along with each other. Some people like Christians and some don't. Some people like ideology X and some don't.
Let the groups break down and ignore each other.
You find that all over the internet, dude. Most of it is because people are fucking stupid as regards protecting their information.
Its a little like the poor people that keep getting sick because they poop in their drinking water and then get diseases.
I feel badly for them but we've known how to avoid contaminating our drinking water for THOUSANDS of years. If some group of people haven't gotten the memo on that one then its mostly death by stupidity. I know... I'm a heartless SOB... I'm also not wrong. Stop putting your real ID on facebook and then crying DOX when someone goes to your facebook and pages through to get your personal information. IF you do that, you're an idiot. It needs to go away.
As to reddit and pizzagate... ban them there and they'll go elsewhere. And then there will be other groups you'll have to monitor there of all sorts of different political persuasions.
Frankly, I think its a free country. If people want to share conspiracies about pedophiles or whatever that doesn't break the law. Doxing also generally doesn't break the law.
If you don't like them, great... But not liking someone doesn't mean what they're doing should be stopped by force. Break the groups up.
They are going to do that SOMEWHERE. knocking them off reddit stopped nothing. All that happened is that you don't see it. Which is what I'm offering you anyway. Letting the groups isolate from each other so they don't bother each other.
I can do it three ways.
1. I can take the most permissive system and use that. So, the US freedom of speech laws are generally the most permissive. If the speech doesn't violate US speech law, then that would be the code.
2. I can take the LEAST permissive system and use that. So, North Korea or something. If anything violates the terms of North Korean law or the general principles of that system, then it would be banned everywhere.
3. I can create sovereign bubbles with German facebook and Italian facebook etc... The codes would be specific to those regions and the conduct in them would be under those rules.
As it stands, we generally have option 1 because it is generally US companies setting up the social networks that anyone else wants to join.
Option 2 if implemented would push everyone to the darkweb or something so it would invalidate any kind of control.
Option 3 is my favorite mostly because it would let people vote with their feet on the internet. So, if you are german but you join US facebook... you're under US law and the germans can't apply their speech laws to the US social network. What you'd find is that anyone that wanted to violate the laws would gravitate out of the systems where they were not allowed to speak. This would leave the often politically motivated censors impotent.
Option 1 is what we have right now and those that want censorship will fail. Anyone that understands the internet understands the censorship is doomed.
But, because they're stupid, I'm happy to give them a scenario where their idiocy is highlighted for everyone to appreciate. I want them to control internet ghost towns. I want them to be abandoned. I want everyone to have the freedom to choose where they want to go... and when the censors set up their programs they'll just be abandoned if they do anything more than keep the child porn out etc. And even then the pedophiles will continue to go somewhere else to share kiddy diddling picts.
As to groups wanting to push their shit where they're ACTUALLY not wanted... by all means evict people from your space. But if your space is collective space then it isn't your space.
What I want to do is give everyone THEIR space. And in that space they can control who is in or out. But the collective space is just that. And naturally you'll also want sub-factional collective space which will operate under various rules.
As regards advertisers they'll decide which sub factions and cultures they want to market to and which they don't.
Just break it down and let all the little groups do their thing.
Do bikers mix with the cocktail crowd when they go out for dinner on the town? They do not.
Do teenage girls go to the same concerts as 80 year old women? They do not.
We are defined not merely by what we are but what we are not. Various ideologies are defined in part by their opposition to other ideologies. Given world views conflict.
The mistake of the social networking people is putting everyone in the same room. That was the error.
Nazis are going to exist.
Jihadis are going to exist.
Communists are going to exist.
Evangelical Christians are going to exist.
Etc etc etc... You don't put them all in the same social network. You segregate.
You can have common areas for mainstream groups but keep places open for fringe groups to go or they'll intrude into the mainstream space given no alternative.
Also do not presume to control who believes what by controlling the flow of information.
As the man said: "The internet views censorship as damage and routes around it."
Savvy?
Provide space for NON-ILLEGAL fringe groups to congregate and leave them unmolested in those spaces. Do not censor people.
These are the mistakes. Fix them and the issue goes away.
No, what I am doing is not denying reality.
Prices under the ACA went up. That is a fact. According to Obama administration estimates they should have gone down. They did not.
The models you are basing your logic on failed to model reality. They failed.
They are bad models.
Your doubling down on validating failure is bias on your part.
We can talk about arriving at a solution you like. But we cannot make any rational plans about anything if you start with false premises and will not correct your positions when contradicted by reality.
Look, we can all just say things that aren't so and pretend.
Santa clause will do it... hide the eggs for the easter bunny and so on.
Your "competitive market" has suppliers fleeing it left right and center. To the point where there are many people that have only ONE licensed supplier in their area. And in some places... NONE.
So that's a fantasy. If your market were competitive then it would be healthy. It is a forced system that operates contrary to market forces in almost all ways and pays the price for that in that it is dysfunctional. This is merely a fact.
You want to go through statistics on this? Because it would be a bit like daring me to find someone who's name begins with the letter "A" in the phone book.
As to not handing consumers money, that's effectively what medicaid does and the passive subsidies to insurance companies that participate in the market do the same thing... its just the consumer never sees that money.
In fact, that is one of the many things that violates the market principle... PRICE DISCOVERY doesn't happen in medical practice between the consumer and service provider.
For example, do you see hospitals and doctors bidding against each other for the business of sick people? Not so much. Do you see hospitals bragging about how affordable their care is? Not so much. You often don't even see upfront pricing.
The only place you tend to see proper market forces operating is in plastic surgery and in a lot of dental practices. Which are both the most healthy private sector medical providers.
We're seeing private practice doctors shut down across the country since the ACA. They can't handle the paperwork. They are shutting down their offices and just becoming doctors in hospitals where fees are higher to the patient or they're retiring which reduces supply and increases costs.
Look, if you want your socialized system... Great. I'm not standing in the way of that. But you have to be realistic about it and interact with "this universe". Otherwise you're going to have a system built on "hope" which is more or less what Venezuela banked on.
And look at the people in Venezuela... they still haven't learned. That's how bad it can get without anyone learning... because it has gotten that bad there and they still haven't learned.
I don't want that for my country. If you want to do socialism then you have to "this universe" socialism such as exists in Sweden.
They have for example a balanced budget law that requires the government of Sweden to cut spending or raise taxes... either one so long as the budget balances. And if it doesn't balance then automatic deep systemic cuts happen. This is a law that was proposed in the US by Richard Nixon. THAT is what keeps Swedish socialism stable.
Now... If the idea is make up theories, ignore that they don't work, ignore empirical contradictions to your perspective on reality, and persue what seems to me an ideological concept with no practical benefit to the public... You don't get my vote.
Maybe you take this as non-constructive or mean or trolling... I don't know... From my perspective you're a very biased, factually disinterested, evangelist for a failed concept. My perspective. You keep talking about the ACA like its a free market or something. You talk about how the costs go down because of it... Anyone that examines the facts would give your assessment of the matter an "F". The marks the kid gets for not reading the book he was supposed to do a book report on.
I feel like I'd be getting farther debating the foreign policy of the kingdom of Oz.
Indeed. And you're an AC despite being able to get a logged though still anonymous tag. Go figure.
But please, prove yet again the social and psychological effects of that letting people comment without even using a screen name.
We have 4chan and people like you here.
Data is pretty consistent.
As to the argument that subsidizing demand by handing everyone a fixed amount will lower prices.
We can see emperically that that didn't happen.
Beyond that, you're not employing market forces to drive competition because the government is setting a base level subsidy that suppliers will not go below because they don't have to go below it.
What is more, the government raises this subsidy basically whenever suppliers say they want more. This means prices will continue to go up.
Given regulations and other market barriers you have artificially restricted supply with inflated demand.
Your prices can only go up in that environment. This is textbook.
And even your cartoon is calling bullshit on you here. The punch line in the cartoon is "why can a plane fly upside down"... that is, empirical evidence contradicts the simplified theory.
Well, empirical evidence agrees with me and disagrees with you.
Again, if you want to lower prices, you have to remove barriers to entry into the market, increase consumer choices by allowing consumers to choose the products they desire instead of dictating which products they must buy.
The Bronze, Silver, Gold concept is infantile in its simplicity and offers the consumer very few options to mitigate aspects of the industry that are inefficient, ill advised, and need to be starved of funding to kill them off.
This is exactly what the market does with products and services it finds to be non-competitive. It starves them of resources.
You've misread market choices. Many people don't buy health insurance because they are not attracted to the product.
As to providing subsides for the very poor... medicaid is fine. But that's for the very poor... not everyone. If you want it for everyone, then just advocate full socialization. I think a good hybrid system is having some government hospitals that have government doctors... You will only be able to attract substandard doctors if you pay below market rate unless you entirely monopolize the market. At that point, doctors will either leave the country to get better jobs elsewhere or accept artificially restricted prices in your monopolized system.
Look, empirical reality is very sticky. We are seeing several products all inflate radically in price.
Healthcare
Education
Housing
They all share ONE thing in common. Heavy government demand side subsidies.
Very clever people said it wouldn't happen. They had all the accreditation and titles.
It happened.
Consider the shaman that cuts open a chicken's entrails to foretell the future. Considered to be smart by his society... he talks to God... the King trusts him.
But its all bullshit.
And that's what all those accreditation turn into when you can't actually model reality accurately. It all turns to horseshit. Emperor with no cloths on.
If your model were right, prices wouldn't be inflating after the ACA.
You can say "give it time" but the projections for the ACA held that prices would have been lower ALREADY. So, its a goalpost move. We can go over the projections that were laid out for the ACA. They've not come true.
They were wrong. Exactly why should your models retain credibility when they fail to model reality?
As to prices going down when demand increases, that is contrary to econ 101.
Price is set by Supply AND Demand. If there is high demand for hand made Italian super cars, then you don't suddenly get a dramatic fall in Italian super cars. The Supply is limited. As demand increases, costs generally go up.
You see the same thing with Gasoline etc.
If you want me to cite wikipedia or something then I can do that. But you're basically saying 1+1=5.
That's incorrect. I suggest not doubling down on that error.
As to Time and labor etc, I'm not advocating socializing the system. I'm merely saying that ""IF"" you subsidize Demand, prices go up. If you want to avoid that, you have to either take total control over the market or do Supply side subsidies.
Subsidize Supply and prices go down. Subsidize Demand and prices go up. That's pretty basic.
As to regulations being important because otherwise we'll all be killed by poisoned drugs. I think we can accept uniform drug standards from other countries that have reasonable standards. What is more, if your regulations are causing phrama companies to go out of business and costs to spiral out of control... consider that on a cost benefit analysis you might be going too far. Consider the whole issue. We need not only safe drugs but we need affordable and abundant drugs as well... we need innovative drugs... we need a dynamic market. If the regulations are making the drugs affordable, creating shortages, stifling innovation, and crushing a dynamic market place... then clearly the regulations need to be made more manageable to take into consideration other priorities.
As to going to the best people to solve the problem. Those are the same people that crafted the existing shit show. It isn't enough to have a big shiny hat that says God talks to you or any other honor credited to an individual by an institution. Its all ad hominem. Who you are doesn't make 1+1=5. 1+1=2 because of the inherent definitions of those symbols and the underlying logic they represent. Who writes it doesn't matter. It is what it is. Anyone who has the solution of shutting off their brain and listening and believing to the first person that comes along with a title is the very definition of the sort of person that shouldn't be involved in the solution.
If you care and you're serious... then you'll actually think about it. If the fix is "find some guy with a title and do what he says"... that's a peasant strategy. Get a noble or a clergyman and do what they tell me.
We've done that... it clearly isn't working. Try something else.
Actually I asked a simple question and you proved me right by not answering it.
As to a reasonable person, you attack me and I respond. You are asking me to ignore your attack because I'm unreasonable if I defend myself.
This is the argument of a coward. You want to be able to attack and not suffer a rebut.
We can see why you operate under the AC tag. You are an intellectual coward. You are afraid and even offended by the very notion that any of your idiotic arguments would be questioned or that you would be held to ANY standard what so ever.
You're garbage.
As to dictating prices, you have to take control of supply when you do that otherwise the market will respond with shortages.
Which means full socialization. Medicare for all will require that or you'll get a Venezuela/Weimar response from the market.
As to solutions, I'd point out that most of the "problem" is increasing costs. If we compare the cost of a broken arm 50 years ago to what it costs to set a broken arm today... we find that it is dramatically more expensive despite the procedure used to set broken bone being the same. Costs are between 5 to 10 times higher after accounting for inflation.
This is a common trend across most treatments.
We can look at where costs have gone up. Doctors are not paid more than they were in the 1960s. In fact, in most cases, doctors were paid MORE in the 1960s.
People will often say "its the insurance" but go to a hospital without insurance and you'll see that your costs are if anything higher. That is, insurance is demonstrably either of no relevant to the cost increase or is actually actively holding it down through collective bargaining through the insurance company.
If its not doctors and its not insurance companies... what?
I can go through changes in bureaucracy, medication costs, regulations of medical devices through the FDA etc, but there is a lot of blame to be laid at the feet of government for actively increasing the cost of healthcare in the US.
As such, solving the problem by socializing the industry. I'd be more accepting of that as a notion if at the same time we also liberalized the industry from most of the restrictions put upon it over the last 50 years.
The top three floors of the hospital didn't used to be an office with people doing insurance and compliance paper work. Remove that as a requirement.
Allow shift nurses to dictate who gets treatment and when just like they used to do it. That includes for example letting shift nurses send people AWAY from the emergency room if they deem them to not have an emergency and instead send them to urgent care or whatever. I've seen people abuse the emergency room to get flu shots. That's unacceptable.
My general impression is that a lot of the dysfunction in the system was either the result of foolisly implimented altruism with more than a little cynically introduced sabotage to further certain political interests.
I feel that socializing the system under these circumstances would effectively allow failed policy to FAIL UP... and also reward anti social players that have manipulated the system to encourage precisely this result.
The incuriosity in policy makers as to what actually increased in price and why to me demonstrates that the policy makers are either incompetent or complicit.
If people ACTUALLY want to solve the problem, first determine what is the problem. They literally blamed the health insurance companies to justify the ACA. A concept which makes no logical sense given that absent the insurance companies costs to patents are HIGHER or the same. Thus removing the relevance of the insurance companies right there. Added to that, we can look at the profit margins of the insurance companies... NON-PROFIT insurance companies were charging about the same as FOR-PROFIT insurance companies demonstrating that the margins the for profit companies were subsisting on were very thin. We can validate this further by going over their balance sheets. They're rarely flush.
It was on this justification the ACA was based... it at best a confession of stupidity given that even a basic examination of the evidence would invalidate the argument.
Again, I'm very interested in fixing the American healthcare system. But IF it is to be fixed, it will be fixed by people that ACTUALLY want to fix it and that ACTUALLY have the patience to examine the issue seriously.
Absent good faith or patience any agent that presumes to dictate policy will likely do more harm than good. I'd just assume go back to what we had before the ACA until the interested parties want to try again with more seriousness and integrity than they did the first time.
Another AC waster proving why the AC tag shouldn't even exist.
I'm not brushing off facts. He said this:
"""I actually cited things.
Except that what you cited fell into one or more of the following categories:
youtube videos that were not of the appropriate time frame to support your claim
youtube videos that did not actually support your claim at all
incoherent blog gibberish by someone of - at best - questionable credibility
So in other words, you did not cite anything that actually supported your argument.
I also showed I was happy to go through my argument and counter another person's argument
Except you didn't. You kept moving the goal posts, never once actually providing any remotely credible source that supported your claim. You then held people of opposing viewpoints to much higher standards than yourself. That is pretty much the definition of moving the goalposts.
You're saying that I can't ask how I am moving goal posts.
And now you're just making shit up. It was laid plainly at your feet how you were moving the goalposts. This is not a new philosophical concept either, you could look this up if you wanted to."""
What facts am I brushing off? I addressed everything in this...
You say I changed the burden of proof... Cite my first criteria of proof and then cite my changed criteria.
IF you are correct, this should be easy. IF you can't do it then I'm going to conclude that you're merely incorrect.