This sounds like a great way to begin to get rid of the console used game market.
There's no way getting rid of the blu-ray player in an xbox saves Microsoft $100. What it does do is create a level of consumer that can no longer engage in the used game market.
Or maybe you don't have ability to recognize the wide swaths of territory that have a "Cool-summer mediterranean climate". I'm sorry I don't have a super detailed map you can zoom in on for you but I really don't care that your "standards" are so high. I've effectively shown that other parts of the country and world have similar climates to San Francisco and that's all I set out to do.
You mean our Mediterranean climate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...? Just click that link and then click on the map in the upper right. All those spots labeled "Cool-summer mediterranean climate" are basically San Francisco in terms of climate.
As for government, thank you for your input but please don't come here as we're very happy being the fifth largest economy in the world and have no interest having an economy like a Red state's (even Texas'). Given Red states history of poor governance we can do without voters in favor of such stagnating disasters.
And if the country was just the red states we would be like Eastern Europe given the poor levels of economic prosperity they seem to be able to provide (aside from Texas of course).
Of course this is a free country so feel free to feel to be as passionate as you want over how you personally feel it would be worth it to get rid of blue state inspired regulations even if it meant shedding the most prosperous parts of the country. I mean, who knows, maybe you'll get your dream. Just don't wonder why your Southern/Bible Belt country doesn't have any money if that happens.
"Have you awakened to the understanding that you don't have the political power to magically transform the healthcare system into the precise system you wish for"
Of course I don't personally. What foolish thing to say.
" (because someone told you another country has it)?"...and that there is a mountain of data for and dozens of countries examples to go off of.
"Once you do, that leads away from fantasyland and toward focusing on changes someone might actually be able to enact."
By fantasy land do you mean the real world example that every other first world nations presents us? Or in other words, not fantasy land at all?
Just because you don't like something doesn't mean the mountain of evidence sitting in front of your face doesnt exist.
"Being mad that your fantasies aren’t magically coming true isn’t solving any problems with the healthcare system."
The only thing that's getting under my skin right now is your inability to look at the world around you for practical examples of systems that work very well.
"You can continue to call me nihilistic for not believing in Santa Claus though."
I called you a nihilist for acknowledging our system is broken and then suggesting, why fix it? Nice false analogy though.
Please tell me two things that you have claimed so far but have failed to explain in your posts.
Why is implementing some form of socialized medicine impossible in the US?
If socialized medicine isn't the answer to fix our system then what is?
"So it's not a problem. Relax. And be honest, virtually everything you'd want to watch that's made by Disney, as an adult, you'd rather buy anyway."
I was nodding along until this last point. I'm entertained enough to watch their comic movies once but not so much that I'd ever want to watch them again. Likewise with Star Wars (except for Rogue One).
In fact, aside from Rogue One I can't think of any Disney movies from the last decade that I'd want to watch more than once, thus justifying a blu ray purchase.
Fortunately there are alternate methods to obtaining movies outside outright purchase and streaming. I strongly suspect movie piracy rates will increase due to this Disney move.
"- Hospital rooms are bigger in the US. You plan to remodel all the hospitals? That won't be expensive?" That is an incredibly easily approachable problem.
"- Drugs are more expensive. Do you plan to completely change the pharma industry? That will take a huge amount of political power, to deliver a pharma industry that comes up with fewer drugs, but is a little cheaper." Socialized medicine means massive collective bargaining. If an economy the size of the US is collectively bargaining for drug prices there is absolutely no reason we can't get Euro prices.
"- There are costs associated with the insurance industry. Do you plan on eliminating that industry? That will take a huge amount of political power. You'll save a little money." That would probably be step two and yes it would take a huge amount of political power. Money saved though? Why do you think every single other first world nation has healthcare costs that are half of ours or less? A big part is the insurance cut.
- The US has lots more MRI machines and other expensive equipment that adds to costs. That equipment is already purchased. It can't be un-purchased. What in gods name are you trying to prove with this point?
"The fact remains that no country has ever gone from high-cost health care to low-cost health care. You don't have the political power to get it done, because no one does. No one ever did -- not in a Western-style democracy." That's because every other first world country had the proper sense to go with the cheaper angle to begin with. There is also no history of a first world country failing in this context.
"So the reason I'm saying we can't change to one of the lower cost systems is because it literally can't be accomplished. It's a fantasy." Right, so our health care is fucked so why try to emulate a system that actually works? Your conclusion is massively defeatist and pathetic.
Your entire post is puzzling to me. You seem to admit our healthcare system is broken but at the same time you seem to be saying "let's just give up" on the subject. That's not a solution, that's pathetic nihilism.
That would make sense if doctor and nurses wages were the major driver of our over the top healthcare costs. As with all things, labor makes up a very small amount of overall costs.
The nail in the coffin for your overall claim though, is that doctors and nurses are still well paid people in every other first world country.
"No. No one ever went from high costs to substantially lower costs. All they did was keep costs from increasing over a long period of time. We can't do that, because costs are already high.
You understand that time moves forward, right? (This is honestly not that hard to understand.)"
What I understand is that right here and now there are systems in place that we can emulate that are half the cost of out current system. Please explain to me why my repeated claims on said front or not valid or stop bothering me.
Your back in time thing is completely baffling to me. Today, this very day, every other first world country has a medical system that is half the cost of our own shit hole private one. Why can these other countries systems not be emulated by us?
Wow, still pedaling your bullshit, just not responding to my post because you can't
"The exit is narrow like a turnstile in a subway station. Two people can't pass through it in opposite directions.
Here is a photo of the entrance/exit [medium.com].
If you pass through (in either direction) without scanning your phone, the cameras will see it and sound an alarm, and possibly call the police."
So how would that work with cash registers without some one watching? Honor system?
"Of course you can run in, grab stuff, and run out with it, but you can already do that at any store. The staff is unlikely to physically confront you. The main difference at Amazon Go is that everything you do will be recorded, making it easier for you to be apprehended and prosecuted."
So people who shoplift from a 7-11 care about such things? Virtually all grocery stores have security cameras and yet their human powered security still have lively jobs.
"Most criminals have better things to do than stealing a bag of chips from a grocery store. Also most retail "shrinkage" comes from employee theft, not customer theft, so by reducing the number of employees, Amazon Go will likely have less of a theft problem than traditional shops."
Please site numbers because I do IT for a small local chain of grocery stores and can say from personal experience that that is simply not true. We catch multiple people weekly stealing in each store thanks to our security cameras and personnel and yet the number of employees fired for such offences are few and far between.
Many Americans are of the opinion that proper healthcare isn't something people should have to go bankrupt over. Only one party has even attempted to approach this issue in the last 2 decades that a majority of Americans very much care about. The other party simply wants to blindly move forward in a system that is clearly broken.
And by broken I mean spending twice or more per capita than any other first world country spends on its socialized medicine.
Sure what the Democrats have done so far is middling at best but it's still far better than business as usual for a failing system.
Every other first world country on the planet has a socialized medicine system that delivers first world medical care at half or less the over all cost of our own (both private and public costs).
What kind of idiot keeps on with such a massively unproductive system in the name of blind ideology? Communists maybe?
That's not to say anti socialized medicine types are communists mind you. Obviously they wouldn't be, It's that they are just as stupid in their blind ideology before easily observable fact.
There is a mountain of data that shows socialized medicine in first world countries provides great healthcare for half or less the overall cost of our own (both public and private expenditures). The people arguing against it are the same who claim to be economic conservatives but consistently do nothing to balance the budget. Health care for all has been shown to be far more affordable than our current system for decades, the problem is this country is full anti government paranoids and blindly partisan types.
Sure, once a system is in place that works most of these idiots will come around seeing the obvious results that every other first world country has shown but until then they will kick, scream, and flail their little hands. The challenge is getting a system in place that works over the heads of these ignorant masses.
How about imagining every time in human history a more advanced society came across a more primitive one?
Sure, let's send out a beacon and then hope that if another species that managed to survive the rigors of evolution and is able to come respond to it is some how not as violent as we are.
Wow, you sound really smart. Every grocery store self checkout I've been to has had a person whose singular job was to watch the customers self check. In fact, those same stores shut down their self checkout lines during odd store hours because it's not worth their money to have some one standing there watching the customers when they could be checking.
Multitasking that at an establishment that tends to locate itself to questionable neighborhoods and you have a recipe for amazing.
But I'm sure a classy person like you who is ready to talk shit at the drop of a dime has already thought that all through and has a solid rebuttal.
So the one guy running the entire store will be in charge of running the cash register and making sure those walking out the front door paid for their product? Yeah, this sounds like a great idea.
"But they didn't, and that's my point. Good to see we're both on the same argument."
"Thank you, and does the US have dominion over South Korea? Over The Philippines? No. Therefore, they are not, and have never been, part of any American Empire.
Thank you for acknowledging that territorial dominance is part of the requirement for an empire, and that other uses of the term empire or imperialism are propaganda for criticizing a nation's foreign policy.
It's been fun, take care."
Are you this much of a troll or just this stupid? As I have said multiple times now, each of those 6 definitions have a portion that justifies that parent's usage. That's all that is needed to show that they used the term correctly as all parts of a definition are correct, that's why they are there. The fact that direct domination of territories is also part of these definitions is completely irrelevant to what we are talking about. The fact that direct domination of territory is part of the word's definition does not invalidate that indirect domination of territory is also part of the modern definition.
Anyways, I'm done now. All you're doing now is repeating yourself by spitting out points I have already clearly refuted. You're either an avid troll or too dumb to grasp what I have repeatedly explained to you and that you have not been able to refute even in the slightest. If you're the prior, well done sir. If you're the later, I really just feel bad for you.
"And you're acting like the classic definition is no longer used, like the term second world. That's not true. The classic definition of imperialism is still a valid definition. If you'd like proof, kindly refer to the M-W link that you and I have both cited and read the definition on the top again."
You're changing the topic from an objection to how the parent used the term imperialism to how you are personally using the word. The parent used the term correctly, that has been my core point. Yes, territorial dominance is still part of the definition (I have not said otherwise in any of my posts, you're making this up) but you were objecting to how the parent used it in a context that did not involve the direct conquest of territory. I clearly illustrated that you were wrong with a half dozen definitions that illustrated that the term had broadened. All your posts since I pointed out that you can't pick and chose from definitions in a context like this but have to take them as a whole have seemed like you have become lost in the woods.
"Good lord, I realize that people on Slashdot like to argue for no reason, but how long can it go? Will this be archived and comments closed before you finally decide to give up fighting over whether or not a classic-but-still-used definition applies?"
Well part of the problem is when people realize they have no idea what they're talking about and compensate for it by changing the subject rather than accept that they don't know what they're talking about. Maybe that's you here or maybe you just forgot what we were actually talking about, I certainly have no way of knowing but I certainly have a hunch.
Slashdot Mirror
This sounds like a great way to begin to get rid of the console used game market.
There's no way getting rid of the blu-ray player in an xbox saves Microsoft $100. What it does do is create a level of consumer that can no longer engage in the used game market.
"Apparently my standards are higher than yours."
Or maybe you don't have ability to recognize the wide swaths of territory that have a "Cool-summer mediterranean climate". I'm sorry I don't have a super detailed map you can zoom in on for you but I really don't care that your "standards" are so high. I've effectively shown that other parts of the country and world have similar climates to San Francisco and that's all I set out to do.
You mean our Mediterranean climate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...? Just click that link and then click on the map in the upper right. All those spots labeled "Cool-summer mediterranean climate" are basically San Francisco in terms of climate.
As for government, thank you for your input but please don't come here as we're very happy being the fifth largest economy in the world and have no interest having an economy like a Red state's (even Texas'). Given Red states history of poor governance we can do without voters in favor of such stagnating disasters.
And if the country was just the red states we would be like Eastern Europe given the poor levels of economic prosperity they seem to be able to provide (aside from Texas of course).
Of course this is a free country so feel free to feel to be as passionate as you want over how you personally feel it would be worth it to get rid of blue state inspired regulations even if it meant shedding the most prosperous parts of the country. I mean, who knows, maybe you'll get your dream. Just don't wonder why your Southern/Bible Belt country doesn't have any money if that happens.
"Have you awakened to the understanding that you don't have the political power to magically transform the healthcare system into the precise system you wish for"
Of course I don't personally. What foolish thing to say.
" (because someone told you another country has it)?" ...and that there is a mountain of data for and dozens of countries examples to go off of.
"Once you do, that leads away from fantasyland and toward focusing on changes someone might actually be able to enact."
By fantasy land do you mean the real world example that every other first world nations presents us? Or in other words, not fantasy land at all?
Just because you don't like something doesn't mean the mountain of evidence sitting in front of your face doesnt exist.
"Being mad that your fantasies aren’t magically coming true isn’t solving any problems with the healthcare system."
The only thing that's getting under my skin right now is your inability to look at the world around you for practical examples of systems that work very well.
"You can continue to call me nihilistic for not believing in Santa Claus though."
I called you a nihilist for acknowledging our system is broken and then suggesting, why fix it? Nice false analogy though.
Please tell me two things that you have claimed so far but have failed to explain in your posts.
Why is implementing some form of socialized medicine impossible in the US?
If socialized medicine isn't the answer to fix our system then what is?
"So it's not a problem. Relax. And be honest, virtually everything you'd want to watch that's made by Disney, as an adult, you'd rather buy anyway."
I was nodding along until this last point. I'm entertained enough to watch their comic movies once but not so much that I'd ever want to watch them again. Likewise with Star Wars (except for Rogue One).
In fact, aside from Rogue One I can't think of any Disney movies from the last decade that I'd want to watch more than once, thus justifying a blu ray purchase.
Fortunately there are alternate methods to obtaining movies outside outright purchase and streaming. I strongly suspect movie piracy rates will increase due to this Disney move.
"- Hospital rooms are bigger in the US. You plan to remodel all the hospitals? That won't be expensive?"
That is an incredibly easily approachable problem.
"- Drugs are more expensive. Do you plan to completely change the pharma industry? That will take a huge amount of political power, to deliver a pharma industry that comes up with fewer drugs, but is a little cheaper."
Socialized medicine means massive collective bargaining. If an economy the size of the US is collectively bargaining for drug prices there is absolutely no reason we can't get Euro prices.
"- There are costs associated with the insurance industry. Do you plan on eliminating that industry? That will take a huge amount of political power. You'll save a little money."
That would probably be step two and yes it would take a huge amount of political power. Money saved though? Why do you think every single other first world nation has healthcare costs that are half of ours or less? A big part is the insurance cut.
- The US has lots more MRI machines and other expensive equipment that adds to costs. That equipment is already purchased. It can't be un-purchased.
What in gods name are you trying to prove with this point?
"The fact remains that no country has ever gone from high-cost health care to low-cost health care. You don't have the political power to get it done, because no one does. No one ever did -- not in a Western-style democracy."
That's because every other first world country had the proper sense to go with the cheaper angle to begin with. There is also no history of a first world country failing in this context.
"So the reason I'm saying we can't change to one of the lower cost systems is because it literally can't be accomplished. It's a fantasy."
Right, so our health care is fucked so why try to emulate a system that actually works? Your conclusion is massively defeatist and pathetic.
Your entire post is puzzling to me. You seem to admit our healthcare system is broken but at the same time you seem to be saying "let's just give up" on the subject. That's not a solution, that's pathetic nihilism.
That would make sense if doctor and nurses wages were the major driver of our over the top healthcare costs. As with all things, labor makes up a very small amount of overall costs.
The nail in the coffin for your overall claim though, is that doctors and nurses are still well paid people in every other first world country.
"No. No one ever went from high costs to substantially lower costs. All they did was keep costs from increasing over a long period of time. We can't do that, because costs are already high.
You understand that time moves forward, right? (This is honestly not that hard to understand.)"
What I understand is that right here and now there are systems in place that we can emulate that are half the cost of out current system. Please explain to me why my repeated claims on said front or not valid or stop bothering me.
Your back in time thing is completely baffling to me. Today, this very day, every other first world country has a medical system that is half the cost of our own shit hole private one. Why can these other countries systems not be emulated by us?
Wow, still pedaling your bullshit, just not responding to my post because you can't
"The exit is narrow like a turnstile in a subway station. Two people can't pass through it in opposite directions.
Here is a photo of the entrance/exit [medium.com].
If you pass through (in either direction) without scanning your phone, the cameras will see it and sound an alarm, and possibly call the police."
So how would that work with cash registers without some one watching? Honor system?
"Of course you can run in, grab stuff, and run out with it, but you can already do that at any store. The staff is unlikely to physically confront you. The main difference at Amazon Go is that everything you do will be recorded, making it easier for you to be apprehended and prosecuted."
So people who shoplift from a 7-11 care about such things? Virtually all grocery stores have security cameras and yet their human powered security still have lively jobs.
"Most criminals have better things to do than stealing a bag of chips from a grocery store. Also most retail "shrinkage" comes from employee theft, not customer theft, so by reducing the number of employees, Amazon Go will likely have less of a theft problem than traditional shops."
Please site numbers because I do IT for a small local chain of grocery stores and can say from personal experience that that is simply not true. We catch multiple people weekly stealing in each store thanks to our security cameras and personnel and yet the number of employees fired for such offences are few and far between.
"Lowering costs by a large amount has never been accomplished by anyone anywhere."
Except by every other first world country on the planet relative to our own system you mean, right?
"If you have a time machine, you can go back in time and keep costs from increasing to current levels though."
No need. We have plenty of modern examples to go off of in keeping healthcare costs down.
How would that be worse under medicare for all?
What is this? It's "stuff that matters"
Many Americans are of the opinion that proper healthcare isn't something people should have to go bankrupt over. Only one party has even attempted to approach this issue in the last 2 decades that a majority of Americans very much care about. The other party simply wants to blindly move forward in a system that is clearly broken.
And by broken I mean spending twice or more per capita than any other first world country spends on its socialized medicine.
Sure what the Democrats have done so far is middling at best but it's still far better than business as usual for a failing system.
Why not?
Every other first world country on the planet has a socialized medicine system that delivers first world medical care at half or less the over all cost of our own (both private and public costs).
What kind of idiot keeps on with such a massively unproductive system in the name of blind ideology? Communists maybe?
That's not to say anti socialized medicine types are communists mind you. Obviously they wouldn't be, It's that they are just as stupid in their blind ideology before easily observable fact.
There is a mountain of data that shows socialized medicine in first world countries provides great healthcare for half or less the overall cost of our own (both public and private expenditures). The people arguing against it are the same who claim to be economic conservatives but consistently do nothing to balance the budget. Health care for all has been shown to be far more affordable than our current system for decades, the problem is this country is full anti government paranoids and blindly partisan types.
Sure, once a system is in place that works most of these idiots will come around seeing the obvious results that every other first world country has shown but until then they will kick, scream, and flail their little hands. The challenge is getting a system in place that works over the heads of these ignorant masses.
How about imagining every time in human history a more advanced society came across a more primitive one?
Sure, let's send out a beacon and then hope that if another species that managed to survive the rigors of evolution and is able to come respond to it is some how not as violent as we are.
Yeah, right...
Wow, you sound really smart. Every grocery store self checkout I've been to has had a person whose singular job was to watch the customers self check. In fact, those same stores shut down their self checkout lines during odd store hours because it's not worth their money to have some one standing there watching the customers when they could be checking.
Multitasking that at an establishment that tends to locate itself to questionable neighborhoods and you have a recipe for amazing.
But I'm sure a classy person like you who is ready to talk shit at the drop of a dime has already thought that all through and has a solid rebuttal.
So the one guy running the entire store will be in charge of running the cash register and making sure those walking out the front door paid for their product? Yeah, this sounds like a great idea.
Written text is a notoriously poor medium for sarcasm as so much of truly good sarcasm it tied up in tonal or physical posturing.
Be happy I basically got your poor use of the medium.
That's sarcasm I hope?
So everyone in America should speak English because you don't like not being able to eaves drop on other's conversations?
"But they didn't, and that's my point. Good to see we're both on the same argument."
"Thank you, and does the US have dominion over South Korea? Over The Philippines? No. Therefore, they are not, and have never been, part of any American Empire.
Thank you for acknowledging that territorial dominance is part of the requirement for an empire, and that other uses of the term empire or imperialism are propaganda for criticizing a nation's foreign policy.
It's been fun, take care."
Are you this much of a troll or just this stupid? As I have said multiple times now, each of those 6 definitions have a portion that justifies that parent's usage. That's all that is needed to show that they used the term correctly as all parts of a definition are correct, that's why they are there. The fact that direct domination of territories is also part of these definitions is completely irrelevant to what we are talking about. The fact that direct domination of territory is part of the word's definition does not invalidate that indirect domination of territory is also part of the modern definition.
Anyways, I'm done now. All you're doing now is repeating yourself by spitting out points I have already clearly refuted. You're either an avid troll or too dumb to grasp what I have repeatedly explained to you and that you have not been able to refute even in the slightest. If you're the prior, well done sir. If you're the later, I really just feel bad for you.
"And you're acting like the classic definition is no longer used, like the term second world. That's not true. The classic definition of imperialism is still a valid definition. If you'd like proof, kindly refer to the M-W link that you and I have both cited and read the definition on the top again."
You're changing the topic from an objection to how the parent used the term imperialism to how you are personally using the word. The parent used the term correctly, that has been my core point. Yes, territorial dominance is still part of the definition (I have not said otherwise in any of my posts, you're making this up) but you were objecting to how the parent used it in a context that did not involve the direct conquest of territory. I clearly illustrated that you were wrong with a half dozen definitions that illustrated that the term had broadened. All your posts since I pointed out that you can't pick and chose from definitions in a context like this but have to take them as a whole have seemed like you have become lost in the woods.
"Good lord, I realize that people on Slashdot like to argue for no reason, but how long can it go? Will this be archived and comments closed before you finally decide to give up fighting over whether or not a classic-but-still-used definition applies?"
Well part of the problem is when people realize they have no idea what they're talking about and compensate for it by changing the subject rather than accept that they don't know what they're talking about. Maybe that's you here or maybe you just forgot what we were actually talking about, I certainly have no way of knowing but I certainly have a hunch.
Way to install your values onto a term that has no involvment in what we're talking about.
Is Trump's move also "common sense"?
Oops, the story is Beowulf, Grendel is the monster in it. The shit hole Hollywood adaptation by the name of Grendel still throws me off.