🏳️🌈
🇳🇱
@louiscouture ok turns out mine was 8values not 9axis... attached.. ill do the 9axes when i get a chance
there is so much wrong/confusing about such a short statement
1) who said anything about redistributing wealth?
2) why would I be right?
3) authoritarian is top so why is that related to bottom right as you claim I am
4) one can be on one side of the compass and still adopt aspects from the other side, thats why it is a spectrum and not just left/right
Your just going to ignore my other points, namely that its a spectrum and im not at the extreme and of either. therefore I can and do incorporate elements from each side to varying degrees,
You are making no sense.. if someone is near the middle and not at eithe extreme it means they beleive in some level of control, but less than those who would be higher up.. you seem to be laboring under the delusion that the second you cross the line even if your close to the center any form of control to any degree is no longer valid.. which makes no sense.
saying complete nonsense that makes no sense when you explain it sounds just as ridiculous when scribble said nonsense on a diagram.
no im well aware that you need to "hold a gun" to peoples heads to pay for social programs, roads, snow removal on the highway, fire deartments, police, military, etc.. nor did I ever claim anything to the contrary... you dont see to bright as you completely ignored my entire counter argument and are going on some unrelated tangent... so probably not worth me discussing this with you.. your already having trouble following the conversation.
If America didn’t have fire departments and we tried to implement them now, people would cry at the socialism and shout “I don’t want my tax dollars to pay for someone else’s fire” some things are not meant to be privatized. Cough like prisons Cough.
Not sure i agree entierly. Most americans I think would have no problem supporting tax-payer paid fire departments. The Truth is the USA has some of the highest taxes in the world and we waste it on shit we dont need to (like the military)... there is good reason people are appalled by the democrats abusive spending and ever increasing taxes.
If the democrats actually **cut** spending (and there is more than enough to cut, like the military)and started spending our money responsibly there would be far less resistance to social programs.
@freemo @louiscouture @ew that is what I am trying to explain. It’s insane to privatize social programs because of the fear of socialism or authoritarianism.
Depends on the service. Some services dont make sense being privatized, but the vast majority do. It is healthy to have a fear of socialism and authoritarianism to the point that you want to lean towards privatization (which more oftne than not works better) but at the same time you dont want to be so extreme that you push to privatize things (like prisons) that dont really make sense to be privatized (in the case of prisons because it gives legal authority to subjugate inmates which is already legally messy)
@freemo @louiscouture @ew I agree. I’m speaking in context of me living in the United States where healthcare is privatized and doesn’t make sense for anyone. Why? The fear of socialism, the fear of becoming ‘venezuela’ (which we created the downfall of). Even the process of filing taxes is privatized and lobbied to keep it that way. The IRS wanted to create a system to make it easy and free for us to file taxes but intuit and other organizations lobbied and lobbied and now we have to pay a middle man to pay the government. Where in all of this does the private citizen benefit.
@ew @freemo @louiscouture really? It’s not because of a for profit system. If it wasn’t for affordable care act people with preexisting conditions wouldn’t even qualify for insurance. Insurance here practically would be survival of the fittest, maximizing profits only covering those who don’t need it at all
@ew @freemo @louiscouture educate me on the dumb regulations
@ew @freemo @louiscouture Hospitals are already charging hundreds of dollars for the most basic things from acetaminophen to band-aids, regardless of insurance status. Medical companies are already doing what you described! People getting covid test are getting bills, some for up to $2,000. You just made me realize maybe fully public is the way to go. Why would I want a private company to be responsible for paving potholes when they’ll just use the cheapest most capital saving method to do it so they can line their pockets and have to come back and redo it. Sure the potholes are gone, but they’ll have an incentive to leave the road banged up just enough to where we have to plead with them to come back more often. Giving everyone health insurance overall leads to healthier people and lower claims. Mexico which you claimed has lower drug prices, has public healthcare… why do we still go there to get our drugs? Its nonsensical to put the health of the people in the hands of companies who respond only to shareholders. Public healthcare is meant to be an investment not some financial game.
As someone who lived in the USA, as well as many other countries with public health care, as well as a data scientist who spent a lot of time researching it I can say pretty confidently that the last thing you should want is public health care.. not that what we have is ideal either, it needs to be fixed too, but the healthcare they have in canada and europe is pretty horrific and not really a step forward
The thing is, once you create a state run monopoly and eliminate choice and flexibility, quality goes down as there is no market pressure. healthcare doesnt work as a completely public system, but it also doesnt work as a completely free market privatized system either.. IMO the solutions for healthcare lie in co-op healthcare.
@freemo @louiscouture @ew i think we can agree on having public options available next to privatization. Even our weather service is tax funded but is repackaged and sold again to us through weather subscription. Look up why the NWS doesn’t have an app. Devil’s advocate, what happens when in a co-op system the private sector can no longer compete with the public option? Should there be a fear that the government can heavily subsidize healthcare to the point that private companies can’t afford to compete with the premiums.
if you have a public option that means people are forced to pay for it if they use it or not, so no, there should not be a public option of any kind.. there **should** be welfare that provides the welfare recpients with a budget they can use to buy the health insurance of their choosing to ensure those who cant afford it can still get health insurance. But no public health insurane is a utter failure by its very nature and should not be an option. If i dont want to use the public option istill have to pay taxes on it, so your basically telling people "you have to buy our insurance, but your free to not use it", that doesnt work.
keep in mind co-ops are neither privatized or public, not in the typical sense... they are customer owned entities, so the people being insured by any particular co-op are the owners of that co-op. So you get supply demand pressures but eliminate the greed aspect
@freemo @ew @louiscouture the united states’ today is socialist. It always has been. The difference is it’s the corporations who benefit from it not the people.
