(December 7, 2024 at 1:45 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(December 7, 2024 at 1:40 am)AFTT47 Wrote: Yeah, the older I get, the more convinced I become that this is morally wrong.

Yes, there are practical considerations. The money to pay for someone's health care has to come from somewhere. At this point in time, we are not a post-scarcity civilization. At some point, we run up against limits and hard choices have to be made. We can't draw blood out of a stone. But currently, we have these corporations profiting off of dying, desperate people.

Profit is not a dirty word. I believe in capitalism. It is a powerful engine that has given us great power and prosperity but there is a time and place for it. Nobody should be profiting off the financing of healthcare because they are at odds!  Capitalization of research and development of healthcare tech is fine because such R & D might never take place without monetary incentive. But financing of patient health care is directly at odds with profit. The more an insurance company pays out in order to facilitate patient care, the poorer is their bottom line. And their bottom line is their first priority! So insurance companies should not be in the loop! As long as they are, they are public enemies who the populace at large will cheer on when one of their execs runs afoul of some heavy metal poisoning.

Deciding who lives and who dies because patient A's treatment is more soluble than patient B's in terms of ducats is understandable when you're running a business, much less so if you actually care about people.

The American electorate seems to have decided already that they value 401k investments over, you know, Grandma and Grandpa.

But yet, there is the current internet rising massively in favor of the assassin who wasted the evil CEO. I don't get it. It doesn't square with the election results - at least not in a way I can make sense of.

It's almost like maybe, just maybe....*cues conspiracy music*

(December 6, 2024 at 9:09 pm)Sheldon Wrote:

(December 6, 2024 at 8:10 pm)TheWhiteMarten Wrote: A society denied the education of morals will struggle when the time arises to hold them.

It's no wonder revenge porn like this appeals to American youth.

Empty rhetoric...

A society that values human life does not cheer when a man is gunned down in the streets - that is a direct result of lack of morals, the rhetoric could not be more blunt.

Quote:A country duped into believing endemic private gun ownership is not just an alienable right, but essential to personal safety, is bound to suffer the consequences.

Back to back world war champions, knocked out the Soviet Union, has the Russian military hampered by sending 5% of it's 50 year old equipment to Ukraine, world leading economy, world leading social power, the ability to defend myself on my property instead of waiting 45 minutes to an hour and a half for police to reach me... I know it rubs the rest of the world wrong, but we will keep doing what got us here, thanks.

The only gun problem America has is in inner cities, with cartel members, and with those individuals who commit suicide - which means it's not a gun problem but a social problem.

(December 7, 2024 at 1:57 am)AFTT47 Wrote: But yet, there is the current internet rising massively in favor of the assassin who wasted the evil CEO. I don't get it. It doesn't square with the election results - at least not in a way I can make sense of.

It makes sense if you think about many people's perception of Trump vs. the Democrats. 

NOTE: I am not saying that people's perception of him is correct. I am not a fan of Trump. I did not vote for Trump. I am not excusing him. I am DESCRIBING what other people say.

Both parties work for the corporations. The US is not a democracy in the sense that the will of the people makes any difference. 

https://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/idr.pdf

Until recently, the Democrats might hold up shiny objects to get people to vote for them -- reasonable health insurance, that kind of thing. But it's been obvious for a while now that they're not serious. Early in Obama's term he had Dem majorities in both the House and Senate. He had won partly because he said he'd do something about health care. He didn't try to institute single payer, he went with Mitt Romney's plan which is better than nothing but still enriches insurance companies more than it guarantees care for citizens. 

Hillary is on video saying "Single payer will never happen." 

In the election just past, Harris didn't even bother with promises. She was clearly chosen by the elite to serve their interests. That's why old-fashioned mainstream Republicans, like Dick Cheney, endorsed her. She serves the same masters. 

Trump enrages these old-fashioned Republicans because he may not serve the corporations obediently enough. In fact it's almost certain that he'll end up doing the corporations' bidding, but that's not how he talks on the campaign trail. Many people were persuaded that he will be something other than business as usual, that he will break the monopolies that rich people have over government policy. (And I'm sure everyone else here will be more than willing to explain why that perception is false.) 

Though better-informed people will disagree, voting for Trump, for many people, had the same emotional punch as shooting a CEO. It's about sticking it to the Establishment. It's about doing something transgressive to show that you've had enough with business as usual. 

In US elections, perceptions are more important than fact, and that's what many people perceived.

It's just Trump in disguise. All is fine.

(December 7, 2024 at 2:30 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(December 7, 2024 at 1:57 am)AFTT47 Wrote: But yet, there is the current internet rising massively in favor of the assassin who wasted the evil CEO. I don't get it. It doesn't square with the election results - at least not in a way I can make sense of.

It makes sense if you think about many people's perception of Trump vs. the Democrats. 

NOTE: I am not saying that people's perception of him is correct. I am not a fan of Trump. I did not vote for Trump. I am not excusing him. I am DESCRIBING what other people say.

Both parties work for the corporations. The US is not a democracy in the sense that the will of the people makes any difference. 

https://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/idr.pdf

Until recently, the Democrats might hold up shiny objects to get people to vote for them -- reasonable health insurance, that kind of thing. But it's been obvious for a while now that they're not serious. Early in Obama's term he had Dem majorities in both the House and Senate. He had won partly because he said he'd do something about health care. He didn't try to institute single payer, he went with Mitt Romney's plan which is better than nothing but still enriches insurance companies more than it guarantees care for citizens. 

Hillary is on video saying "Single payer will never happen." 

In the election just past, Harris didn't even bother with promises. She was clearly chosen by the elite to serve their interests. That's why old-fashioned mainstream Republicans, like Dick Cheney, endorsed her. She serves the same masters. 

Trump enrages these old-fashioned Republicans because he may not serve the corporations obediently enough. In fact it's almost certain that he'll end up doing the corporations' bidding, but that's not how he talks on the campaign trail. Many people were persuaded that he will be something other than business as usual, that he will break the monopolies that rich people have over government policy. (And I'm sure everyone else here will be more than willing to explain why that perception is false.) 

Though better-informed people will disagree, voting for Trump, for many people, had the same emotional punch as shooting a CEO. It's about sticking it to the Establishment. It's about doing something transgressive to show that you've had enough with business as usual. 

In US elections, perceptions are more important than fact, and that's what many people perceived.

*Bravo*

Head on nail.

Belacqua Wrote:Though better-informed people will disagree, voting for Trump, for many people, had the same emotional punch as shooting a CEO.

Not just better-informed people but anyone with even a minute sense of logic will laugh at your claim that voting for a CEO is the same as shooting a CEO.

Those people rather voted for Trump because they were misinformed that voting for anyone who will regulate billionaires is a communist.

Thus the most anti-government people are billionaires and CEOs. The government exists to protect people from billionaires.

The problem is that in the UK health care is a service, in the USA health care is a business.
How can it be fair when the simple act of getting sick or injured can leave you bankrupt?

(December 7, 2024 at 4:20 am)zebo-the-fat Wrote: The problem is that in the UK health care is a service, in the USA health care is a business.
 How can it be fair when the simple act of getting sick or injured can leave you bankrupt?

Japan's system works well because they have separated health insurance from health care. 

Everyone in the country has single-payer insurance through the government. This is good at any clinic or hospital in the country. 

By far the majority of small clinics are privately owned by the doctor in charge. Though prices are set by the government, good doctors are rewarded because their patients like them and go back. This gives the doctors a capitalist incentive to do a good job, and keep their patients happy and alive. Though the insurance is socialized, the health care is more free-market than elsewhere. 

Neighborhood gossip makes it clear what each clinic is like -- this doctor is good with kids, and that one with old people, and this one prescribes a lot of medicine, while that one is reluctant. Customer/patients can make informed choices, and there's never an issue with needing to stay "in network" or going to a place that your insurance selects for you.

Quote:A society that values human life does not cheer when a man is gunned down in the streets - that is a direct result of lack of morals, the rhetoric could not be more blunt.

A society that values human life  does cheer the death of  a man who callously profited off denying others life. It shows excellent morals to do so.

Quote:Back to back world war champions, knocked out the Soviet Union, has the Russian military hampered by sending 5% of it's 50 year old equipment to Ukraine, world leading economy, world leading social power, the ability to defend myself on my property instead of waiting 45 minutes to an hour and a half for police to reach me... I know it rubs the rest of the world wrong, but we will keep doing what got us here, thanks.

Guns aren't what got America were its is and just ignore all the stuff America falls woefully behind on. But hey you can shoot some kids who kicked a ball onto you lawn because you "Felt threatened" Also nah your populous will get tired of your antiquated gun policies and will embrace sane ones.  

Quote:The only gun problem America has is in inner cities, with cartel members, and with those individuals who commit suicide - which means it's not a gun problem but a social problem.

Well this statement is utter bullshit

Quote:*Bravo*

Head on nail.

Wrong in every way it could be.