Some people (like myself and other scientists/mathematicians), write software for specific fields so if you follow them you find it out what work they are putting out, and issues they find in other software etc.
Because conservatives don’t beat women? For everyone talking about the conservative male that dominates and controls his wife, there is a liberal one stoned on marijuana that needs to be babysat.
These are of course the stereotypes for each side, the reality is that there is a wide range of behaviours that has only weak correlation with political views. But everyone here is too severely brain-damaged to be able to determine causal links.
“is utterly insane” Asserting an opinion as objective fact. You have completely failed to argue that this is true. Also not only does an employer terminating coverage violate COBRA, in many cases it is also a violation of your employment contract.
“The reason I didn’t enunerate every option” You were never asked to enumerate every option, you were asked to not lie about how people don’t know what copays and deductibles are. That was the lie you made.
“The rich pay higher taxes… it’s immediately recovered”.
No it’s not. Unless you literally tax 100 percent of all money above a certain limit, the government will not get it back, only maybe 40 percent. You just threw away 60 percent of the funds.
“And making the rich use the same systems”
So what do rich people in countries with universal healthcare do? They use privatised services, just like in the US. So what incentive do these all powerful rich people have to improve the universal healthcare system that they don’t even use?
It’s unfortunate that you are selectively gullible to believe all the propaganda that brain-dead losers like Andrew Yang generate, but not actual factually-based critique.
“It’s literally an empirical fact” And an insufficient one. The fact that the US system is inefficient, does not mean that the end user pays more than they would in taxation. Private insurance is cheaper than Medicare for many people. I personally know dozens of low-income people who opt for private insurance.
“Facts don’t care about your feelings”
I hate Ben Shapiro, I think he has vacuous worthless opinions, the difference is that Ben Shapiro isn’t the one lying to people on this post right now.
“Further most of the regulations need to target corporations”
Guess what is also a way of targeting corporations? Market forces. If people aren’t buying your products/services, do you keep selling those products? The reason why boycotts generally fail is because people are spineless, not because the actual action wouldn’t cripple a business.
You so desperately want to prove the point that the only personal choice that matters is voting, that you are willing to deny reality.
“Then they probably save money”
Probably? Is that the strongest statement you can make? People who die younger don’t have lower healthcare costs (unless it’s an accident or homicide), because they are sicker throughout their end of life.
“Doesn’t effect you as much as people wanting to ban gay marriage”
Pretty, sure that more of my taxes go towards paying for emphysema treatment than are effected by the tiny amount of same-sex married couples (which incur costs how?).
“None of your business how other people spend there lives”
It’s everybody’s business. If this was true, then things like tobacco restrictions wouldn’t matter because healthcare costs are nobody’s business.
What happened to the good old socialists that recognised that if society has a responsibility to support you, you conversely have a responsibility to not be an unnecessary burden? Nowadays we just have libertarian-poisoned socialists who think that nothing you do matters.
“Nobody owes you attractiveness” They owe themselves attractiveness. It is an objective fact that obese people suffer socially, and that translates to societal problems.
“Not even to the degree as voting”
How many companies do you think have dedicated blocks of consumers amounting to 50 million people? A boycott of 50 million people would destroy most companies (if they even have that many customers). You are confusing the fact that most people don’t engage in personal action (because they are just like you), with asserting that personal action does nothing. The reason why political action works is simply because people do it in coordinated groups.
“Progressives are ending relationships based on taxes …”
Motte and Bailey argumentation. The topic was whether or not it is appropriate to end relationships solely on voting (but not personal habits), you explicitly argued that it was (because only voting actually matters) and are now narrowing it down to only “bigotry against marginalised groups”. When that was never the topic.
“You are deeply unpleasant yourself” Are you sure about that? Would you prefer a dishonest liar, who said “Oh my gawd. So true, sweetie.” to every nonsensical claim you made? (Obviously, yes you would, because posters like you are accustomed to sycophantic behaviour).
Did you miss the part where nearly all insurance people have is subsidised by either the government or their employer? People don’t actually pay these costs there employer does, usually as an employment incentive.
“But people in the US pay it too”
Insurance is optional in the US. So no they don’t necessarily pay it, infact it’s not uncommon to skip coverage to save some money. This would not be an option under a taxation system. And yet again, it’s primarily employer-subdised.
“People from countries with universal healthcare …,”
There are many different types of universal healthcare, the fact that you are making such a broad statement shows that you have no idea what you are talking about. Some countries implement it by forcing people to buy private insurance.
“All you have to do is allow poor people to have coverage too”
Okay, so you actually are too stupid to have this conversation. Lookup what Medicaid is, and additionally realise that needs-based programs are by definition not universal. In fact this is one of the biggest criticisms of Medicare for all and UBI, they involve giving money to a large percentage of the population that don’t need it. In fact universal systems literally tax the poor to pay the rich, it’s the epitome of a regressive policy.
The current US system is inefficient sure, it’s not as inefficient as widely claimed and arguing that universalising it makes it cheaper for the user is simply false.
Because they have higher tax rates. Some people argue that the tax rates are actually equivalent to the US, but that only factors in income tax and ignores VAT (which the US doesn’t have at a federal level).
The claim was that a mere 100 billion would pay for it, proving that claim false does not affect the fact that other countries have it.
“The universal healthcare model is cheaper than the US model”
By about 10 percent. The problem with a lot of analysis of Medicare for all plans is that they assume that it would be able to run at the same cost ratio as it does now. But Medicare currently does not pay for the full cost of services, it’s essentially subsidised by the private insurers. Replacing private insurance would require increasing the Medicare payout percentage or else hospitals would lose money, and have to cut services.
Additionally if you actually poll the public, they do not want to pay the additional taxes to fund this universal healthcare. The US is in a weird position were a chunk of the population has government insurance, but the bulk is pushed onto employers and that’s basically the best place to put it if you want to minimise the burden on the public.
“This is such utter nonsense” So you don’t think that people choose to be wasteful?
Laws and personal decisions both cause systemic changes. And guess what, laws do not pass if people do not already engage in personal habits that the laws encourage. The tobacco restrictions would never have passed if it weren’t for personal decisions that lowered the rate of tobacco use.
“You strangely are more concerned about the one with negligible impact”
No, they both have consequences. I’m pointing out that the distinction being made that somehow political views have special considerations over all the other personal actions is worthless. (Remember what the actual topic was?)
Additionally do you realise how completely insane your argument is? A single voter does not determine laws, groups of voters do. Just like how a single smoker does not burden the healthcare system, millions of them do.
“Someone being overweight isn’t going to on measurably affect your life”
It is. Here’s the hard facts, overweight people are less happy, they have worse socialisation, they are unattractive ( which as much as people want to pretend like attractiveness doesn’t matter, it absolutely does when it comes to casual interaction), they have shorter, less productive lives, they increase health care costs. All of these effect society as a whole and the individual.
“And downplaying the actual effect of conservatives criminalising my healthcare”
I have no idea what you are talking about, I never downplayed any laws, you’re just fabricating that so you can justify your whining.
Look, I’m not a conservative but more importantly I’m not someone who conjures nonsensical arguments to justify some vague gut feeling I developed while eating poisonous mushrooms.
Citation? I can’t find anything to support this, just vague gesturing by organisations with no hard data. The only rigorous data I can find is a study from France which is irrelevant because France bans late-term abortions except for medical reasons. In fact I suspect that this is the cause of this belief, third trimester abortions are primarily medical, because most states in the US and countries in the world ban them except for health reasons. So of course the studies that address them are all going to be covering medically indicated abortions, and then journalists take this to the presses.
There is Kimport’s paper which doesn’t support your claim, but I find it quite shoddy regardless.
Weird I’m not seeing any links to metaethics, semniotics or ontology. Is that because you fundamentally don’t understand the topic?
Let’s pop that hubristic little bubble of yours.
If fetuses are infact little clumps of cells, then how do we differentiate them from other little clumps of cells? Clearly there must be some additional property that lets us differentiate them, and if an additional property exists then it has a possibility of moral relevance. In other words, the mere fact that we can distinguish fetal tissue from other tissue means that we can ascribe moral value, rendering your assertion that it must be morally equal false. Even more dumbed down for you, if A does not equal B then Moral value of A does not have to equal the moral value of B.
So completely contrary to your claim, the reasoning does not actually follow, because fetuses and cancer cells can be easily determined to be different and ascribed different moral value.
Edit: Oh my science! I accidentally steel-manned you. I’m so sorry. You’re not saying that fetuses are inherently morally equal to cancer cells, you are saying that self-awareness is the criteria for moral worth (it’s not) and that ascribing moral value to a fetus requires asserting that it is self-aware. Possibly even stupider than denying classification theory.
This is false, every law has medical exceptions. Journalists wildly reported that doctors would be too hesitant to perform medically indicated abortions, but this is simply malpractice not any requirement by the law.
That is absolutely not the Pro-choice position. Pro-choice literally means desire is the only criteria that needs to be met (the pro-life position is that desire is necessary but not sufficient). If it actually was as you described, then no one would have had a problem with any of the post-Dobbs laws.
You seem to have this bizarre interpretation of what a conservative means. It’s not the 1950s anymore, literally nobody lives like that and hasn’t since your grandmother.
“Slash a 100$ billion off … military budget and healthcare has all the funding it needs.”
Pretty misleading. That 100 billion isn’t enough, you’d have to raise taxes as well.
The actual cost is on the order of 3 trillion or higher per year. Larger than the entire US federal budget.
If you simply had looked at the cost of Medicare you would have seen how preposterous the 100 billion dollar estimate is. Medicare is not completely free for users and only covers around 18 percent of the population, has expenditures in excess of 700 billion.