Jump to content

Trump is amazing!


ConorOberst

Recommended Posts

Well theres something I didnt know.  Interesting - thankyou.

p.s. That was genuine and not sarcasm :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CaptainYesterday said:

I'm referring to the Obama's Dear Colleague letter that lowered the standard of proof colleges need for sexual assault investigations to a preponderance of evidence ("at least a 50% chance of being true") rather than a reasonable doubt (which is what our court system uses). 

 

You don't understand much about law.  The standards for investigations do not need to be a "preponderance of evidence".  Investigations don't need any evidence to proceed -- they are INVESTIGATIONS, not trials.  And when the investigation leads to a criminal charge, the prosecution has the duty to prove guilt; the defense need not  prove anything.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Raven Luni said:

If youre going to make a statement like that, at least provide examples of these 'good points', otherwise it seems like youre taking the centre ground for the sake of it.

I was speaking in general terms, with undefined sides. It can apply to everything. 

 

Here is some general belief ideas. Whether it actually happens, is another question that both sides fail to meet expectations of. 

 

Republicans thinks its good to not raise taxes. This is a fair deal, no one likes taxes. 

Democrats want more funding for social programs like welfare and social security. I can see why people would like this, if they are reliant on it etc. 

 

Both things are inherently good. The problem lies in how.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Chihiro said:

ROFL. I first read it as "I'll be black" :lol:

I won't be surprised if he markets himself as black just to stay in power :P

 

That made me think of jokes I think someone had made before - something about "Orange is the New Black". :P 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Yato said:

Republicans thinks its good to not raise taxes. This is a fair deal, no one likes taxes. 

Democrats want more funding for social programs like welfare and social security. I can see why people would like this, if they are reliant on it etc. 

 

Both things are inherently good. The problem lies in how.

 

I think people are very much dependent on social programs especially in western society. And in a consumerist nation like US, the concept of "saving for future" is unpopular- I have seen people living paycheck to paycheck or spending on credit, despite having good well paying job. Asking people to 'manage your own healthcare and future, in return for tax cuts' is not easy, you will have to ask them to change their lifestyle and mindset. IMO, this is a lot more difficult than making Americans learn the metric system LOL

Link to post
Share on other sites
A mere monkey
20 hours ago, Chihiro said:

I think people are very much dependent on social programs especially in western society. And in a consumerist nation like US, the concept of "saving for future" is unpopular- I have seen people living paycheck to paycheck or spending on credit, despite having good well paying job. Asking people to 'manage your own healthcare and future, in return for tax cuts' is not easy, you will have to ask them to change their lifestyle and mindset. IMO, this is a lot more difficult than making Americans learn the metric system LOL

Well, I mean, they are adults. I don't see why that's a problem. If you suck at managing your money then of course you are going to have a hard time. You won't have to ask them to change, they will know when they realize they have been wasting and mismanaging their money.

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, A mere monkey said:

Well, I mean, they are adults. I don't see why that's a problem. If you suck at managing your money then of course you are going to have a hard time. You won't have to ask them to change, they will know when they realize they have been wasting and mismanaging their money.

Unfortunately, I don't think so. Just because you are an adult doesn't mean you can change your mindset and lifestyle easily. Otherwise old people would have become pro in current technologies. Religious people wouldn't be so conservative. In fact, its easy for children to change but not adults.

 

Let me present you an opposite scenario. For example, right now I am visiting India, where social security is a joke. But then the income tax rate is pretty low, only less than 1% of population pays income tax. So people manage their finances on their own, by spending only on the necessities and what they can afford and put the rest towards future emergencies and retirement. The 'saving' mindset is pretty much ingrained in the culture. Now what happens if they have social security and excess money?  Will they spend more on something unnecessary but fun or luxurious? In most cases, no. They are like 'Have more money than you need? Give it to children. Have even more? Reserve it for grand children. And then great grand children' LOL. Now you can't tell them they suck at spending money.

Link to post
Share on other sites
A mere monkey
31 minutes ago, Chihiro said:

Unfortunately, I don't think so. Just because you are an adult doesn't mean you can change your mindset and lifestyle easily. Otherwise old people would have become pro in current technologies. Religious people wouldn't be so conservative. In fact, its easy for children to change but not adults.

 

Let me present you an opposite scenario. For example, right now I am visiting India, where social security is a joke. But then the income tax rate is pretty low, only less than 1% of population pays income tax. So people manage their finances on their own, by spending only on the necessities and what they can afford and put the rest towards future emergencies and retirement. The 'saving' mindset is pretty much ingrained in the culture. Now what happens if they have social security and excess money?  Will they spend more on something unnecessary but fun or luxurious? In most cases, no. They are like 'Have more money than you need? Give it to children. Have even more? Reserve it for grand children. And then great grand children' LOL. Now you can't tell them they suck at spending money.

I can't tell they suck at spending money because it exemplifies exactly the opposite of what you said on the previous post. They are not the ones living paycheck to paycheck if they save most of it. Anyway, I never said that adults change easily. I said they were adults because they should be old enough to know the value of their own work, and that if they spend more than they earn they will find themselves at trouble. They shouldn't be asked to "change their lifestyle" because their current lifestyle is not sustainable. That way, when they realize they are spending more than they earn, they will change that or go broke. If they do run out of money, they are the only ones to blame. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/23/2017 at 10:52 AM, Chihiro said:

I think people are very much dependent on social programs especially in western society. And in a consumerist nation like US, the concept of "saving for future" is unpopular- I have seen people living paycheck to paycheck or spending on credit, despite having good well paying job. Asking people to 'manage your own healthcare and future, in return for tax cuts' is not easy, you will have to ask them to change their lifestyle and mindset. IMO, this is a lot more difficult than making Americans learn the metric system LOL

There's no way someone can manage their own healthcare.   Leukemia can't be treated by changing your "lifestyle and mindset".   

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sally said:

There's no way someone can manage their own healthcare.   Leukemia can't be treated by changing your "lifestyle and mindset".   

I was talking about money management when I referred to changing lifestyle and mindset (Coincidentally, doing that can lead to healthier life too). Also in many parts of the world, people manage their own healthcare and associated costs and they get 0 help from govt. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 25/11/2017 at 3:40 AM, Chihiro said:

I was talking about money management when I referred to changing lifestyle and mindset (Coincidentally, doing that can lead to healthier life too). Also in many parts of the world, people manage their own healthcare and associated costs and they get 0 help from govt. 

Edit: this post was mistaken, I determined that I should use spoiler tags to hide it to hide false information

 

Not in most of the world



l_z1a_efa66a1ad6bab858bedbdc6b69ef89f7

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Chihiro said:

 Also in many parts of the world, people manage their own healthcare and associated costs and they get 0 help from govt. 

Where?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sally said:

Where?

In America :P

 

I manage my own healthcare and dental out of pocket. 

 

Though I'm sure that is impossible for some.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Yato said:

Though I'm sure that is impossible for some.

I think it's impossible for most people, unless they don't need much medical care.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Member44496 said:

Not in most of the world

l_z1a_efa66a1ad6bab858bedbdc6b69ef89f7

 

This data doesn't tell much about what it means by 'some form of universal health care' and hence, your analysis is flawed.

Let me tell you an example of this flawed 'green' data. Something tragic happened when I visited India recently, so I was able to gather information on healthcare in that country.  Summary-

A. Everyone here pays out of pocket for any hospital/clinic visits. Without payment, no doctor will see you. So if you are unconscious or in bad state, better hope whoever brought you to hospital will pay in advance for your visit. I have heard of cases where patients involved in road accidents died because the hospitals refused to treat unpaid patients.

B. The government subsidizes healthcare only in state run hospitals. This is the only option to get cheap treatments. But corruption is rampant. The tragic incident which I mentioned happened in state run hospital- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4786116/Outrage-mounts-dozens-infant-deaths-India-hospital.html

C. Hence about 70% of population seek treatments in private hospitals. Healthcare in private hospitals is very expensive to Indians. Yet they manage it.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Yato said:

In America :P

 

I manage my own healthcare and dental out of pocket. 

 

Though I'm sure that is impossible for some.

Hats of to you! You should make a presentation on how you do it :P I don't get why Americans believe its impossible O_o

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Chihiro said:

Hats of to you! You should make a presentation on how you do it :P I don't get why Americans believe its impossible O_o

I don't see how they see it that way. All you gotta do is finance it and pay off the bill like you do your car etc. 

 

Ofc you can't have shit credit. But that's something you can work on. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Yato said:

I don't see how they see it that way. All you gotta do is finance it and pay off the bill like you do your car etc. 

 

Ofc you can't have shit credit. But that's something you can work on. 

While it is ok paying out of pocket for minor stuff like gp check ups, when it comes to cancer, the costs are very high which could come into hundreds of thousands.

 

https://www.drugwatch.com/2015/10/07/cost-of-cancer/

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, iff said:

While it is ok paying out of pocket for minor stuff like gp check ups, when it comes to cancer, the costs are very high which could come into hundreds of thousands.

 

https://www.drugwatch.com/2015/10/07/cost-of-cancer/

 

 

I'm not debating costs etc. Just making a point I pay out of pocket, in response to Chihiro's statement that some people pay their medical bills without help.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Terrible Travis
11 hours ago, Chihiro said:

I don't get why Americans believe its impossible O_o

Perhaps because most Americans live to paycheck to paycheck and the cost of "managing your own healthcare" is extremely expensive? I dunno, just a wild guess.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Terrible Travis said:

Perhaps because most Americans live to paycheck to paycheck and the cost of "managing your own healthcare" is extremely expensive? I dunno, just a wild guess.

Yup.  The cost of my cancer operation and subsequent care was $67,000+.   

 

Yato, I assume you haven't had a serious illness or a chronic condition -- yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chihiro, the map you posted above is in error re the US.  We do NOT have universal health care in transition.  In fact, if the Trump administration is successful, we will have less health care than we had two years ago under Obama, because Congress wants to dump the provision in Obama's legislation that helps poor people get health care.  

 

And we -- the people -- do not think universal health care is impossible.  It would be very possible if Congressmembers didn't get paid so much by the insurance companies to keep us out of it.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies, that map was accidentally misleading, I'll avoid picking up maps that I don't know the context of next time

1280px-Universal_health_care.svg.png

The 58 countries with universal health care as of 2009.

Green =  Countries with legislation mandating universal health care, along with > 90% health insurance coverage, and > 90% skilled birth attendance

(so, countries that have successfully implemented it)

the map is out of date because apparently sri lanka has it now and I don't know if any others changed, this is from 2009...

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Chihiro said:

This data doesn't tell much about what it means by 'some form of universal health care' and hence, your analysis is flawed.

Let me tell you an example of this flawed 'green' data. Something tragic happened when I visited India recently, so I was able to gather information on healthcare in that country.  Summary-

A. Everyone here pays out of pocket for any hospital/clinic visits. Without payment, no doctor will see you. So if you are unconscious or in bad state, better hope whoever brought you to hospital will pay in advance for your visit. I have heard of cases where patients involved in road accidents died because the hospitals refused to treat unpaid patients.

B. The government subsidizes healthcare only in state run hospitals. This is the only option to get cheap treatments. But corruption is rampant. The tragic incident which I mentioned happened in state run hospital- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4786116/Outrage-mounts-dozens-infant-deaths-India-hospital.html

C. Hence about 70% of population seek treatments in private hospitals. Healthcare in private hospitals is very expensive to Indians. Yet they manage it.

 

What you said seems to be accurate however there is apparently free healthcare for those in poverty, although the healthcare situation doesn't seem to be good: 

 

Quote

India's healthcare system is dominated by the private sector, although there are various public healthcare systems like Rajiv Gandhi Jeevandayee Arogya Yojana in Maharashtrathat provides free healthcare to those below the poverty line. Currently, the majority of Indian citizens do not have health insurance, and must pay out of pocket for treatment. There are government hospitals that provide treatment at taxpayer expense. Some essential drugs are offered free of charge in these hospitals.

the quality thing for poor is an issue

Quote

 The government-run healthcare suffers from a lack of hygiene; the rich avoid the government hospitals and go to private hospitals. With the advent of privatized healthcare, this situation has changed. India now has medical tourism for people from other countries while its own poor find high-quality healthcare either inaccessible or unaffordable.

Then there's this plan

  The current Indian government is planning to unveil a national universal healthcare system called the National Health Assurance Mission, which will provide all Indian citizens with insurance coverage for serious illnesses, and free drugs and diagnostic treatments.

 

Ps. the Daily Mail is a very bigoted right wing paper and therefore any article linked to on it will be ignored ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Sally said:

Yato, I assume you haven't had a serious illness or a chronic condition -- yet.

^ not denying this. But you would agree that I should not have to pay everyone else's bills thought right? Which is one of the reasons I am against socialized health care. But a system like CY was explaining, would be very difficult to make as well. 

 

They should decrease the cost of general health care/physicals/annual check ups and screening, and keep this bit out of pocket. Then socialize the advanced care, and keep it as a opt-in tax, that doubles as insurance. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Yato said:

^ not denying this. But you would agree that I should not have to pay everyone else's bills thought right? Which is one of the reasons I am against socialized health care.

That's not how it works, the taxes would pay for your treatment too which you wouldn't be paying upfront for anymore.

 

Also I do believe that those who are in need should be helped unconditionally regardless.

 "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Yato said:

^ not denying this. But you would agree that I should not have to pay everyone else's bills thought right?

No, I wouldn't agree.  I think a tax-funded healthcare system, with the government as the insurer, is the best system.

 

Do you fund your  own roads?  Your own water system?  Your own fire department?  I think you probably pay tax which combined with everyone else's taxes provide those systems to the community at large.   Since healthcare entails infrastructure -- hospitals, physician education, clinics, medication production, etc. -- why should that be different?  

 

Unless, of course, you go to a private witch doctor for your health care who uses none of that.  In which case, good luck.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sally said:

No, I wouldn't agree.  I think a tax-funded healthcare system, with the government as the insurer, is the best system.

 

Do you fund your  own roads?  Your own water system?  Your own fire department?  I think you probably pay tax which combined with everyone else's taxes provide those systems to the community at large.   Since healthcare entails infrastructure -- hospitals, physician education, clinics, medication production, etc. -- why should that be different?  

 

Unless, of course, you go to a private witch doctor for your health care who uses none of that.  In which case, good luck.  

I don't use any of those tbh. I pay taxes to the city and state for everything else.

 

I am my own witch doctor :ph34r:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...