You support the ACA and believe Medicare is sustainable with minor changes.
The ACA only required people to pay for the care the get.
That's patently false. You yourself made the argument that the ACA and single payer relies on "insurance pools" for solvency, pools that force healthy young people to pay more than they ought to.
Yeah, that 6 figure earning guy who couldn't or wouldn't get a policy because he could pay out of pocket, but can't work now or needs multi-million dollar care. He's a deadbeat.
That's a ridiculous strawman. First, multi-million dollar care is a symptom of our crony capitalist medical system, which is what you support. Second, that six figure guy may simply not have gotten insured because he doesn't want expensive medical procedures. Third, it's easy to deal with such cases: you require people to liquidate all their assets until they are indigent, and then you cover them with basic medical services like anybody else who is indigent. And "basic medical services" may simply mean: no expensive surgery and only cheap generic drugs, etc. You know, kind of like the Cuban medical system that you're so fond of.
We all have a responsibility to help each other, and sometimes that means planning for our future, with medical insurance, not socking money away for some sweet retirement so we can rub it in everyone's face when we retire at 50.
You don't help people "plan for the future" by stealing money from the young and spending it on keep decrepit old people alive a few more weeks and pay doctors multi-million dollar salaries.
By choice, actually. So, what shithole do you call home?
Just don't be shocked when most of the world is repulsed by you
I'm not shocked at all: Anti-Americanism is rampant among European intellectuals. I think it's a combination of ignorance, greed, and totalitarian beliefs.
Personally I don't think either is acceptable, and I would urge you to have a higher regard for how you are treated.
I urge you to have a higher regard for how you are treated: you seem to think that a job is a favor someone pays you.
I, on the other hand, think that if a company were to fire me/not hire me for being gay, that's their loss and punishment enough for them. That's because I think I'm actually valuable to the companies I work for.
I'm not saying the government has always made the correct choices when designing such laws, but I can guarantee you that rampant discrimination isn't a problem that solves itself. If anything, its self-reinforcing when people are left to their own devices.
Let me be crystal clear about this: your statement shows a profound ignorance of the history of gay rights and the struggle gay people had to go through to achieve legal rights. You are a jerk for even suggesting this.
Because at least their ability to treat you differently or make you feel a certain way due to their beliefs are drastically diminished, which is the real issue in a work place.
By making discrimination illegal, you make it impossible for me as a gay man to weed out homophobic asshole employers.
It's a lot easier for them to destroy your resume if they are allowed to carry on overtly.
I have no problem with being fired for being gay. I have a big problem with being fired for some fabricated reason.
If you live in a country where no-one will give you a job because of your gender, "voting with your feet" is kinda difficult.
And:
but the US is far from free of discrimination, whether its by race or sex or sexual orientation or any number of other factors.
Yes, lots of people discriminate in the US. That's not a problem. It doesn't mean "no-one will give you a job because of your gender".
And the idea that you can eliminate discrimination from any society is ludicrous. It's also intrinsically totalitarian. In a free society, people have a right to discriminate against, and even ostracize, people they don't like.
So you would say anything you want at the top of your voice in a movie theater while the movie is going? Or do you agree there are certain times you just can't say anything you want?
The right to free speech is a right vis-a-vis the government, not vis-a-vis private property owners.
So, the right to free speech means that the government cannot pass laws restricting me from "speaking at the top of my voice in a movie theater", just like the right to free speech means that the government cannot pass hate speech laws.
The theater owner, on the other hand, is free to make silence a condition of remaining on his private property.
I can only assume that you're a straight, white male as I imagine too many other groups of people who aren't thankful as balls that we have anti-discrimination laws.
You assume wrong. I'm a gay immigrant who grew up in a homophobic country.
but I can guarantee you that rampant discrimination isn't a problem that solves itself
I guarantee you that it does. Gay liberation happened when the Democrats (including Hillary Clinton) were still mostly homophobic assholes and busy defending laws hurting people like me.
We're talking about a society with a UBI, so people can support themselves without needing a job.
That kind of society doesn't meet the criteria of "no labor needed" for society; by definition, if there is a UBI, someone needs to generate that income.
Combine this with universal health care, like almost all the developed world has,
Bullshit.
and people can take risks in the job market, and overall become more productive.
Bullshit. People don't become more productive when the government gives them free crap.
A free society does not mean you can do anything you want. Those are two very different things.
I agree: free societies prohibit interference with free speech, freedom of association, the right to private property, the right to free movement, etc.
Anti-discrimination laws violate the right to free speech, freedom of association, and the right to private property. They are therefore not compatible with a free society.
It would be different if in the job interview they made a point of saying that they were a bunch of insensitive assholes so work here at your own risk, but they don't do that DO THEY?
They CAN'T DO THAT because they are prohibited by law from doing so. That's one of the problems with "anti-discrimination laws".
Now you expect people to keep looking for a job until they find one without assholes?
Passing anti-discrimination laws doesn't turn racists, homophobes, or misogynists into nice people, it simply means that they go from overt to covert discrimination. Instead of firing you for being gay, they fabricate some cause that looks a lot worse on your resume. How is that better?
Even the most ardent libertarian wants a police force, which explains why they have no moved to Somalia.
I think the real question we should be asking is why Brits like you feel compelled to keep weighing in on US domestic matters. I mean, feel free to turn your own country into your collectivist utopia if you like and demonstrate by example. As an immigrant, I found the UK to be a rather unattractive destination compared to the US, and more hate crime, hate speech, and anti-discrimination laws weren't going to make it any more attractive.
If you live in a country where no-one will give you a job because of your gender, "voting with your feet" is kinda difficult.
Well, I'm sorry that's your experience in your country. That kind of systemic discrimination is a hallmark of statism. It's not a problem in the US or in societies based on free markets.
Anyone who wants to be an engineer should have the opportunity to be an engineer, without barriers due to gender or race or sexual orientation.
Yes, and if people don't conform to your vision of society, you'll send in the jackbooted government goons to force them to comply at gunpoint; you don't tolerate dissent.
Have I not said that often enough?
Indeed, you have been quite clear about your fascist conception of society.
You still haven't told me why the US can't do what everyone else can.
You mean switch to a two-tiered privately run insurance system with strict government-imposed cost controls and limited benefits, like Germany or Switzerland? We can't do that because people like you are shills or dopes for big corporations and special interests and keep opposing it.
I"m surprised to see people defending this behavior. If talking about sexual exploits at work is considered acceptable then society is truly going down the toilet.
Of course, it's not "acceptable". But the way a free society deals with "not acceptable" behavior is by people voting with their feet, not by calling in the STASI.
What a great new America you are building there.
No, it is absolutely not "great" or even "acceptable" that the federal government gets involved in questions of whether men are behaving nicely towards women at work; that's totalitarian.
According to progressives, men and women are equal and interchangeable, and people shouldn't be so hung up about sex.
So, instead of complaining about "sexual harassment and gender discrimination" when men are discussing their sexual exploits and watch pornography at work, shouldn't women just join in?
There you go spouting crazy again. There's no way SS and Medicare will collapse.
You need to face reality: these programs are a financially unsustainable wealth transfer from young people to old people. About half of Americans believe that Social Security won't be able to pay them any benefits when they retire.
Medicaid might, in states with too much cronyism, it would be due to sabotage, like the ACA.
ACA was broken from the start. You yourself said it "the ACA was a poor compromise". Even its architects admitted that it needed repeated passage of new legislation to work, legislation that would have never gotten passed initially. For Republicans to refuse to participate in that tinkering is not "sabotaging".
It works in the rest of the world, it will work here.
Obviously, you are resistant to facts and just love to repeat this Democratic lie. Learn something about how "the rest of the world" actually works, instead of behaving like a typical self-righteous, greedy, entitled American middle-class prick.
Well, why don't you start off by defining what you mean by "a society in which nobody is forced to work".
I mean, if you enter solitary confinement in prison or a mental institution, you can live until you die a natural death with society taking care of all your feeding and clothing. Is that what you mean?
Alternatively, if you're a free US citizen, nobody is forcing you to work as far as I can tell. Is that what you mean?
What specifically is this "goal" that you and King Neckbeard want to achieve?
Indeed. United and coordinated opposition to power of capital holders has become damned near impossible
Yes, that's what happens under progressive and socialist governments: power and capital gets increasingly concentrated under people close to the state, and the state then also punishes dissent. The simple antidote to that is free markets.
They are BUYING the mechanisms which used to deter them
Yeah, like WaPo, NYT, MSNBC, Slate, HuffPo, Twitter, Facebook, Google, plus most major US colleges and universities.
Here's reality for you: no business is going to seriously invest in anything that has a longer time horizon than 50 years, because guess what? The investors are all going to be dead by then. Who cares if it makes a trillion dollars in 2100?
Hey, cool! This guy has just refuted capitalism in three short sentences.
Slashdot Mirror
You support the ACA and believe Medicare is sustainable with minor changes.
That's patently false. You yourself made the argument that the ACA and single payer relies on "insurance pools" for solvency, pools that force healthy young people to pay more than they ought to.
That's a ridiculous strawman. First, multi-million dollar care is a symptom of our crony capitalist medical system, which is what you support. Second, that six figure guy may simply not have gotten insured because he doesn't want expensive medical procedures. Third, it's easy to deal with such cases: you require people to liquidate all their assets until they are indigent, and then you cover them with basic medical services like anybody else who is indigent. And "basic medical services" may simply mean: no expensive surgery and only cheap generic drugs, etc. You know, kind of like the Cuban medical system that you're so fond of.
You don't help people "plan for the future" by stealing money from the young and spending it on keep decrepit old people alive a few more weeks and pay doctors multi-million dollar salaries.
By choice, actually. So, what shithole do you call home?
I'm not shocked at all: Anti-Americanism is rampant among European intellectuals. I think it's a combination of ignorance, greed, and totalitarian beliefs.
I urge you to have a higher regard for how you are treated: you seem to think that a job is a favor someone pays you.
I, on the other hand, think that if a company were to fire me/not hire me for being gay, that's their loss and punishment enough for them. That's because I think I'm actually valuable to the companies I work for.
Let me be crystal clear about this: your statement shows a profound ignorance of the history of gay rights and the struggle gay people had to go through to achieve legal rights. You are a jerk for even suggesting this.
By making discrimination illegal, you make it impossible for me as a gay man to weed out homophobic asshole employers.
I have no problem with being fired for being gay. I have a big problem with being fired for some fabricated reason.
Having huge banks of memory and passing them through a "single computer" bottleneck is a colossal waste.
There is a big difference between:
And:
Yes, lots of people discriminate in the US. That's not a problem. It doesn't mean "no-one will give you a job because of your gender".
And the idea that you can eliminate discrimination from any society is ludicrous. It's also intrinsically totalitarian. In a free society, people have a right to discriminate against, and even ostracize, people they don't like.
The right to free speech is a right vis-a-vis the government, not vis-a-vis private property owners.
So, the right to free speech means that the government cannot pass laws restricting me from "speaking at the top of my voice in a movie theater", just like the right to free speech means that the government cannot pass hate speech laws.
The theater owner, on the other hand, is free to make silence a condition of remaining on his private property.
You assume wrong. I'm a gay immigrant who grew up in a homophobic country.
I guarantee you that it does. Gay liberation happened when the Democrats (including Hillary Clinton) were still mostly homophobic assholes and busy defending laws hurting people like me.
That kind of society doesn't meet the criteria of "no labor needed" for society; by definition, if there is a UBI, someone needs to generate that income.
Bullshit.
Bullshit. People don't become more productive when the government gives them free crap.
I agree: free societies prohibit interference with free speech, freedom of association, the right to private property, the right to free movement, etc.
Anti-discrimination laws violate the right to free speech, freedom of association, and the right to private property. They are therefore not compatible with a free society.
Cost controls like those found in Europe. Those are necessary in order to have a European-style single payer system.
What the ACA did was to expand insurance coverage to ridiculous level while raising taxes.
They CAN'T DO THAT because they are prohibited by law from doing so. That's one of the problems with "anti-discrimination laws".
Passing anti-discrimination laws doesn't turn racists, homophobes, or misogynists into nice people, it simply means that they go from overt to covert discrimination. Instead of firing you for being gay, they fabricate some cause that looks a lot worse on your resume. How is that better?
I think the real question we should be asking is why Brits like you feel compelled to keep weighing in on US domestic matters. I mean, feel free to turn your own country into your collectivist utopia if you like and demonstrate by example. As an immigrant, I found the UK to be a rather unattractive destination compared to the US, and more hate crime, hate speech, and anti-discrimination laws weren't going to make it any more attractive.
Well, I'm sorry that's your experience in your country. That kind of systemic discrimination is a hallmark of statism. It's not a problem in the US or in societies based on free markets.
Yes, and if people don't conform to your vision of society, you'll send in the jackbooted government goons to force them to comply at gunpoint; you don't tolerate dissent.
Indeed, you have been quite clear about your fascist conception of society.
You mean switch to a two-tiered privately run insurance system with strict government-imposed cost controls and limited benefits, like Germany or Switzerland? We can't do that because people like you are shills or dopes for big corporations and special interests and keep opposing it.
And talking openly about sex is bad... why?
You mean like Hillary and Bill Clinton?
Of course, it's not "acceptable". But the way a free society deals with "not acceptable" behavior is by people voting with their feet, not by calling in the STASI.
No, it is absolutely not "great" or even "acceptable" that the federal government gets involved in questions of whether men are behaving nicely towards women at work; that's totalitarian.
According to progressives, men and women are equal and interchangeable, and people shouldn't be so hung up about sex.
So, instead of complaining about "sexual harassment and gender discrimination" when men are discussing their sexual exploits and watch pornography at work, shouldn't women just join in?
You need to face reality: these programs are a financially unsustainable wealth transfer from young people to old people. About half of Americans believe that Social Security won't be able to pay them any benefits when they retire.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/184...
ACA was broken from the start. You yourself said it "the ACA was a poor compromise". Even its architects admitted that it needed repeated passage of new legislation to work, legislation that would have never gotten passed initially. For Republicans to refuse to participate in that tinkering is not "sabotaging".
Obviously, you are resistant to facts and just love to repeat this Democratic lie. Learn something about how "the rest of the world" actually works, instead of behaving like a typical self-righteous, greedy, entitled American middle-class prick.
Well, why don't you start off by defining what you mean by "a society in which nobody is forced to work".
I mean, if you enter solitary confinement in prison or a mental institution, you can live until you die a natural death with society taking care of all your feeding and clothing. Is that what you mean?
Alternatively, if you're a free US citizen, nobody is forcing you to work as far as I can tell. Is that what you mean?
What specifically is this "goal" that you and King Neckbeard want to achieve?
Yes, that's what happens under progressive and socialist governments: power and capital gets increasingly concentrated under people close to the state, and the state then also punishes dissent. The simple antidote to that is free markets.
Yeah, like WaPo, NYT, MSNBC, Slate, HuffPo, Twitter, Facebook, Google, plus most major US colleges and universities.
You're just repeating Marxist/fascist claptrap. Grow up.
A testament to economic ignorance.