Silencing people's speech because you disagree with them? Sounds kind of tankie to me
It's so fucking funny seeing some lib who didn't know what hexbear was until like a week ago screeching about evil tankies in response to a relatively innocuous shitpost
Safe to assume they know what tankies are because they're fresh from
https://lemmygrad.ml/post/1120052 seems the tankies don't sound like "tankies"?
I remember when I used to act like this online when I thought I was cool, it still hurts to think about
Just get an NHS, oh wait Americans don't want taxes and would rather get fleeced when they stub their toe.
As far as I’m aware, they already have a buttload of taxes capable of paying a healthcare service. Why don’t they have one already? Lobbies.
Actually, with less money going to healthcare profiteers, they would be able to spend more money on bombs.
Actually, the painter wrote a 6. They were commissioned to write a 6.
Fuck your perspective, people should consider the original intent and research rather than just argue about it. Calling it "free speech" doesnt make it right or moral.
Replace "original intent" with "context" and I agree 100% with you.
I think that this is important to point out because we don't really have access to each other's "intention" (whatever this means); at most what they say and do, and specially for politics there's often a big mismatch between the alleged intentions of a policy vs. what the policy achieves.
Or, playing along the pic: if that random scribble is between a "5" and a "7", then it means six, no matter if the author claims "actually it's a nine".
(NB: I'm discussing this on general grounds, based on the image. I'm not from USA nor discussing its healthcare.)
In this thread: People that oppose healthcare already proven all over the world screaming and crying about strawmen.
Sure is easy to win an argument when you're arguing with a strawman of your own making. Let me try!
9: Society can only be maintained so long as individuals contribute at least as much as they get.
6: Gibs munny
Why's universal health care bad for poor people? Please educate me.
It's an edit. The original has one guy saying 6, the other saying 9, because the creator naively thought "oh the political divide is really just down to people not understanding each other". This is a fairly common opinion of dipshit american centrists.
The edited version points out how this is incorrect, and that in reality different people have entirely different political views which cannot be reconciled. The example used is that rich people (the same ones that make up the US government and receive bribes from health insurance companies, for instance) want to keep making money from predatory health insurance and so oppose universal healthcare, while the average citizen supports universal healthcare.
It isn't just fucking poor people. It's paying out the ass to fuck poor people. Are they so committed to their principles that they wouldn't want to save a ton of money?
The actual rich who control our society aren't paying out the ass, they're the ones being paid.
Rank and file "working class" conservatives are deliberately poorly educated and fed endless propaganda to get them to vote against their interests and in favor of the rich.
Conservatives of moderate wealth, the "middle class" of small business tyrants and boat salesmen, live in constant abject terror of losing what they have. They know that if wealth were distributed equally, their quality of life would go down. As a result, they fight against any change towards redistribution of wealth, even if it would be beneficial.
Yeah, doesn't the US congress have one of the best healthcare plan available to an American citizen? Really makes you think
Ah, thank you very much. So, that's the actual meaning of the post.
One side simply wants you to be well. The other side wants you to die. We are not the same.
I'm actually not really. Here's at least a logical arguments one could make.
Healthcare is a scarce resource like all things. Making it universal doesn't exempt it from that fact. Removing it from a competitive market will likely make it more expensive and prevent innovations which will keep it affordable. Competitive markets drive efficiency.
Government provided healthcare rations service availability based on criteria they set. A private system rations availability based on the indivual's ability to afford the service. If people can afford the service additional capacity can be created with that money. Under a government system extremely long wait times are the norm .. With health this may mean late diagnosis of cancer and other suboptimal outcomes.
People are generally more wealthy in the later years of their lives and also in need of more care. Under a public system the costs associated with an aging population will be disproportionately placed on younger people who still pay taxes in their prime earning years. With the number of working people constantly decreasing when compared to the number of retired baby boomers this is unsustainable under a public system.
At the end of the day I think free markets apply poorly to healthcare because you have no ability to comparison shop during a medical emergency. Also US seems to have the worst mix of regulated private healthcare which has kept costs the highest of any country. I do think most social democratic countries are basically screwed over the next 20 years with the demographics being what they are.
#blm"
