- Joined
- Jun 10, 2015
Well, that's promising. At least you're recognising where you were wrong. Something tells me you're just going to keep spouting nonsense though, so this is where our conversation ends. Ta-ta.
Universal healthcare - Yay or nay?
- Thread starter chimpburgers
- Start date
-
🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
-
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
Well, that's promising. At least you're recognising where you were wrong. Something tells me you're just going to keep spouting nonsense though, so this is where our conversation ends. Ta-ta.
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2014
Calm down. You are being riled up by an autistic weeb.
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2015
I'm calm now, no worries.
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2016
And yet, it doesn't seem to bother you in the slightest... That is the very definition of sociopathy, and there is a reason their are no sociopath communes out there. Something that is bad for society as a whole is, funnily enough, bad for society as a whole, and that includes all of the people in it. There is a reason we abandoned the feudal system, after all, and that's mostly because it had stopped working. I wonder how you think the rich will survive when there's no one to produce their food or heat their homes for them, since I doubt they're about to go do so themselves.
You mean Native Americans?
And yet you have such a poor understanding of it. You are not an outsider to society, you are part of society whether you like it or not, and unless you can show me a legitimate hate crime in your past I doubt society has treated you that badly. But for ridiculous facial hair and an overpriced, unpronounceable Starbucks coffee you sound like every pretentious hipster I have ever encountered. You are not going to get rich. There is very little social mobility in the United States. The 'American Dream' is a lie and it always has been. You are going to spend the rest of your life toiling in the mail room of some office, because you are far too autistic for anybody to tolerate, barely earning enough to keep the electric on and never enough to actually own your home. You'll maybe save up a little money, but one little bout of appendicitis and it'll completely wipe you out, leaving you with nothing but crippling debt, wondering where your universal healthcare went. And when that day comes I will point and laugh at you, because I am not a very nice man.
But if you still want flat tax and no healthcare so badly, move to Russia. Get back to me in six months, let me know how it goes for you.
Yes, universal healthcare is possible in the US, and no, it will not require a 70% tax rate. It will require an increasingly small percentage of the American populace to shut up and stop their bitching, and logistically speaking will need to be implicated by state as opposed to federally, as the US is a rather large country with huge diversity in terms of income, living conditions, quality of life and all that other fun stuff like 'likelihood of being caught in a mass shooting'. Universal healthcare also doesn't erase the market for private healthcare, but does force private healthcare bodies to provide a far superior service in order to maintain their profits, which if anything will aid innovation by forcing them to do everything sooner, faster and more effectively with fewer risks and drawbacks in order to maintain their customer base.
When the NHS was first implicated, some claimed that it would cripple the United Kingdom. It has done nothing of the sort; if anything, it has done the opposite. While there are certainly flaws in the NHS they are far less than are in the current American system, and as for what AutisticDragonKin is advocating... I'm sorry, but I fail to see how allowing people to die of minor, easily treatable conditions like appendicitis because they happen to not be rich is anything but one giant flaw; A flaw of economics, due to the amount of workforce you will lose, a flaw of national stability, for the riots and the protests it will a breed, and a flaw of ethics, because I really shouldn't have to tell any of you why leaving innocent people to die of treatable illnesses is unethical.
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2015
Robots can do all that stuff or the rich will need to pay larger amounts to get that labour. I don't understand why empathy is inherently necessary for a society to function as all of its functions that actually benefit the individual can be replaced with simple algorithms (and yes I benefit from having people I like get good stuff happen to them ant a simple function can model that)
Did you actually read my post? I was saying that the founders of a state (not the original inhabitants of an area) would discriminate against immigrants. We came over to north america and acted like we were allies to the Native Americans before exterminating them for the most part and I am advocating that we not let anyone else do the same to us. If the Native Americans could just kill everyone else in the land it probably would make them worse off now but if done earlier it would be a very wise decision
I can but that is off of the topic of the thread
I am not American. The American ruling class is among the best of the world for crushing those who try to challenge them. It is idiotic for me to want to be in a country with what I advocate in this thread and I am happy that I live in one that isn't like that. It is only if I am rich that I actually will want anything like what I described in this thread because it is only then that it will be in my rational interest (but still not the corrupt American healthcare system). I know very well that my chances of success are very slim but to say that they are nonexistant is nonsense
I do not believe this for a second. In this scenario the government is just another entrant to the market and is no different from another private competitor
As I said earlier in the thread if the Bourgeoise actually want the proletariat to keep on living then they should donate to charity. I think that in most cases this would be the case.
I do not understand why "ethics" as you always refer to is something that I should care about. You obviously know something that I do not know so please tell me it because I am yet to know the reason to act in accordance with "ethics"
You still do not understand my social contract argument which is entirely me being against government providing services that are not public goods. I still think that many rich people could benefit from universal healthcare but they would need to be the ones deciding to provide it rather than the 99% outvoting them because that is a violation of the fundamental principles of the social contract by providing something that is no longer mutually beneficial (through revealed preference)
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2016
We have not nearly created artificial intelligence yet to the point where it can be trusted to make intelligent decisions, and as such it will be a while before we can replace workers with them. A robot would run into some serious problems in my job, since we actually source from more expensive suppliers more often than you'd realise for a number of reasons, and a computer can't really make that call (all our computer systems do is determine which supplier is cheapest).
Empathy is inherently necessary for a society to function because it stops people from doing things that harm society as a whole just to benefit themselves. Humans are an inherently social animal - why do you think autism is as debilitating a condition as it is? - and have a very difficult time surviving alone. A human who, say, steals from his fellow humans will be ostracised from the group because the group don't want to be stolen from, and as a result will die. Why do you think humans evolved a sense of empathy to begin with?
You shouldn't measure all people by your own standards; all you do is show just how low your standards really are.
So what you're saying is, you would be willing to cripple society as a whole for your own benefit? Well thank God we aren't still living in trees and hunting down our dinner, because you would be pretty dead right now. Humans are communal animals, we cannot survive alone. If the society around you crumbles then believe me you will go down with it.
Yeah, basically. If I can my appendix removed for free at an NHS hospital then BUPA have to give me a fucking good reason to pay for one of theirs. And this is why medicine HAS NOT stopped developing even those most developed countries have some form of universal health care.
Charity is an extremely inefficient means of getting anything done, and a lot of money that goes to charities ends up falling through some serious cracks in their spending habits. The voluntary sector exists to patch up holes in the public sector, not to replace it. Come on, even the Victorians managed to figure that one out.
Humans evolved a sense of empathy and developed ethics for a reason. Humans cannot survive alone. If we all went around screwing over the community as a whole for our own benefit it would result in the collapse of society, and eventually our extinction. Lets say you got caught stealing. Your parents have kicked you out, you now have to get by on your own. You have a criminal record, so nobody is going to hire you as nobody trusts you not to steal from them, and nobody wants to be stolen from. You now have no money, no job and no home. You can either die on the street OR you can receive JSA or whatever benefits you are entitled to, in hope that at some point in the future you will find some way to contribute to society in such a way that it makes up for what you've cost us in tard bux.
Your social contract argument is bull and that is not how governments work. Yes, what the 99% want should be implicated over what the 1% want because, like it or not, they have you outnumbered. That isn't just how democracy works, it's how REALITY works. Last I checked Louis XVI wasn't running a democracy but screwing over the 99% on behalf of the 1% didn't end too well for him, either. As I said, you are outnumbered. Don't like it? Move to Russia. I'm sure they'll love you there.
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2015
That is a problem with the computer system. It could take into account the quality of the supplier and that wouldn't be that difficult to implement. AI is developing rapidly so it could replace many more jobs in the future and until that occurs your job could be filled by people who are payed very well for it while everyone else is unemployed
I think that humans developed a sense of empathy because it was a crude way that evolution put together kin selection and game theory. We have mathematical models for both of those now. We can know not to steal through game theoretical models. It is very inefficient to use empathy for everything (I do not advocate completely eliminating it because it still works very well for kin selection but I think that we need to look critically at who we empathize with and only empathize with family)
I do not understand how your argument seems to go but I think it is something like this
There were fitness benefits of having empathy in prehistoric times-> empathy is good-> we should do fitness reducing things now because of empathy
Something that was also fitness increasing was collectivism and placing the ingroup over the outgroup and it continues to be something fitness increasing. I think that the rich could significantly increase their fitness by not caring about the poor outgroup when it doesn't benefit them
But I don't have low standards. Quite to the contrary I have quite high standards for myself and others but they just happen to be ones that you find repulsive
I do not intend to survive alone. As I made very clear I intend on doing this with several other people and creating a society based on legitimate altruism in the future through political marriages
Again why do you think that under the conditions where we specifically take precautions to preserve everything that benefits us both directly and indirectly this would happen?
I take back my statement I think you are right on this issue now that you more thoroughly explained it
I realized that generally the medical field is so uncompetitive due to medical licenses that probably government should wither have public healthcare or get rid of medical licenses to make the market more competitive
That is because the free market favours sentimental charities over the more practical type that I am talking about. If we actually cared to donate to effective charities they would come into existence.
That isn't an argument for ethics it is just an argument for game theory. An argument for morality would have to provide how someone should do something even when it conflicts with their rational self interest. An example would be finding a dead person on the road in Iraq with valuable possessions and not taking them
Being outnumbered doesn't mean that you will lose if the 99% have no or near no bargaining power. I am more criticizing the notion of democracy when I say this and seeing it as a power conflict in which not everyone is equal. I think it is a breach of the rule of law to do anything other than the original purpose of the state (providing public goods) but there are very frequent breaches anyways. I consider breaches to be bad because they make it so that people are unable to properly plan their actions but they still are inevitable. I consider rule of law to actually be possible whereas democracy is not though
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2016
Yes, it is a problem with the computer system, but it's a problem that technology has mot developed to the point where it can be fixed. That is why we hire people, and get people to do all the fun stuff. Because people, most people, have more ability to make complex decisions than a computer, and that WON'T change any time soon.
A functional human being cannot just turn off its sense of empathy, this is something that is ingrained in our species. Not having a sense of empathy is the clinical definition of a psychopath, and there's a reason that's considered a debilitating condition, too. No sense of empathy = nobody wants to be around you. And that is bad. Yes, even when you're retarded.
Considering your standards don't even include "Be a decent human being" I'd say they're pretty low. But you're right about one thing: I do find you repulsive.
The only way legitimate altruism is possible is through empathy. If you are not capable of that, then you are not capable of true altruism. Altruism is doing something that benefits someone else at no benefit, or even at cost, to yourself. Empathy is what allows us to understand what actually benefits someone else, as opposed to assuming what benefits us inherently benefits everyone. Being willing to pay slightly higher taxes to ensure those who can't afford it is a legitimate act of altruism, and as someone who actually pays taxes I think I should get some say in what they are used for.
Also, finding other people to form a society with requires finding people outside of the internet who can tolerate you. You're going to have a hard time doing that if you're constantly screwing other people over for your own benefit.
What do you think universal healthcare is? It is taking precautions to protect what benefits you, both directly and indirect, by ensuring that you and the people who feed, house and clothe you don't die of treatable illnesses.
Whelp, I'll take what I can get, I suppose.
Still not an efficient system, as you would need too many charities to do the work of a single government body. If you think the civil service can just be replaced with a charity then you're more retarded than you look, and you look pretty retarded. The tax system, like it or not, works, because everyone earning over a certain amount pays in and the government know roughly how much they're getting and can budget accordingly. Charities do not have that luxury. I might donate to 'Guide dogs for the blind' this month, but next month I might see a shiny silver denarius I like and by that instead. A system that collapses as soon as the new X-box comes out isn't a system at all.
Because looting a corpse without a good reason makes you an asshole, and nobody wants to be associated with assholes. Not understanding that is a pretty good indicator of clinical psychopathy.
Our bargaining power is that we outnumber you. French revolution, it was a thing. And I'm sorry to tell you this, but democracy has been a thing for 3000 year, it's not going away anytime soon. I'm starting to sound like a broken record here, but seriously, if you hate democracy so much, move to Russia. Or better yet, Saudi Arabia, where they don't even pretend to have democracy. I'd love to hear how much you hate democracy after spending six months without it...
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2015
optimistic
Dehumanization is a way to do that that most humans are able to perform. We cannot eliminate it but as I said it is only bad towards certain individuals and just by referring to those groups as animals we can block off empathy for them.
Agreed. Being unempathetic to everything is just as bad as being empathetic to everything. Moderation is the key so we need to find the golden mean which is optimal
Psychopathy also causes impulsiveness which is a significant part of the debilitatingness though
I agree with this but having empathy for your enemies does not mean that they will stop being your enemies it just means that you will be easier to kill
They do include that. My ethos is helping your friends and harming your enemies
And I am talking about selective altruism towards kin members as opposed to altruism towards strangers and I already said that I support empathy for kin
Altruism comes from one's own will. What you are talking about is surrender to threats. The rich don't get a say in how their taxes are used because they are vastly outnumbered in the majoritarian system so it is as though they just had no ability to vote at all and they are the ones who lose from these policies
I am not going to do that because despite me not caring about most other people I still have a reputation to protect. I need to keep up a reputation of honesty and accountability which is nothing to do with empathy
But it also treats homeless people and NEETs instead of just letting them die as would be the case in a society that actually acted like that
You are not quite understanding what it would be. It would be a single charity that acts as a sort of parallel government in the way that it collects donations on a regular basis and gives sanctions to those in the 1% who benefit from it but don't pay for it but its activity is entirely controlled by the 1%. I only advocate it because the current governments are based around everyone as opposed to the 1% and everyone should benefit roughly equally from the government so I advocate secondary governments for these sorts of things
You won't get associated with them because nobody will know you did it. I am giving a thought experiment where you need to find a justification not to do it completely independent of consequences to yourself
Yes but the Bourbons didn't have chemical weapons, if they did they would have just dumped Sarin in the streets of Paris and the entire revolution would have been over before it began.
I would hate to be a foreigner or commoner in Saudi Arabia but I would like being a prince there assuming that oil prices were stable and high
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2016
I disagree. Your apparent faith in the rapid development of technology is optimistic. Hey, I get it. Humans are hard. We often do strange, illogical things, things that make not sense when you're watching from outside, and computers are simple, they just follow their programming. I'm sorry to tell you this, but the entire human race isn't going to be replaced by robots this side of the 22nd Century, so you're going to have to deal with people. After all, we haven't quite managed to create a fully-functioning sex robot.
Not that simple. It takes a long-term, dedicated, systematic effort to get people to fully dehumanise others. Why do you think there was so much Anti-Semitic propaganda in pre-Hlocaust Germany, or in Rwanda, or before the Second Balkan War? Sane, functioning human being cannot just turn of their empathy; they're not computers, you can't just close the program and expect it to stop running. Blocking empathy in a sane human being takes a lot of work, and it's hardly something a person can do to themself.
They don't stop being your enemies, but having empathy does not make you easier to kill. The root of psychopathy is a clinical lack of empathy, and that is what causes the impulsiveness and the desire for immediate gratification. Empathy allows you to understand other people, and to understand how they will act. Someone with no empathy will only do what benefits them in the short term, and that make them very easy to predict and much easier to defeat.
The fact that you consider random poor people who can't afford healthcare and who you'll likely never meet your enemies is disturbing.
Even I'M not that paranoid...
That's not altruism, that self-benefit by proxy.
The rich have plenty of ability to vote. You can basically buy politicians in the US, and the rich get far more say in how their taxes are used than anyone else. But then, the majority of tax revenue doesn't come from the rich, now does it? Because the poor and middle-class still pay taxes. But you're not so much concerned about the rich having no say so much as you are about everybody else having a say.
Tell you what: if you think only the rich should get to decide how taxes are used, shouldn't the rich be the only ones paying taxes?
"I have a reputation" is not going to stop you doing stupid shit. It will motivate you not to be caught, but you still will be; most people are. And the higher you put yourself with that "Reputation" of yours the further you'll have to fall.
Someone calling themselves AutisticDragonKin commenting on NEETs and shut-ins... Oh my sides. Get back to me in five years time when you can no longer hide behind an entirely pointless degree and can't find a job or sugarmama because of your shitty personality.
You mean like the current government? Again, you can basically buy politicians, so yes government activity is governed by the 1%. And unless you are stipulating that the other 99% don't have to contribute anything at all, which would raise the costs for more for the wealthy than nationalised healthcare, I should think everybody else who pays in should get some say. You know, like in a democracy.
If I were a corpse lying by the roadside, I would not like people to loot me unless they had a good reason. As a result, I will not do the same to others unless I have a good reason. That is empathy.
No, but Sadam Hussain, the USSR, Gadaffi, Assad, and plenty of other people did.
Sorry to tell you this, but you don't get any say in which social class you're born into. You keep saying how you're going to get rich; tell me, how exactly do you think you're going to do so?
Oh, I fully intend to.
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2015
That is a lot more difficult than many things because it relies on ability to make something look like a human as opposed to perform the same functions
I do not think that we all will be replaced by robots but I think that it will be enough the case that the amount of humans necessary to work would be quite smaller than it is now.
It does take a lot of work but it is possible. If a group of people all understand that their interests lie in not helping a certain group they can dehumanize that group
You are conflating psychopathy and autism and selective empathy. Psychopathy is a debilitating illness that causes lack of affective empathy (not just selective affective empathy) and impulsiveness and it is likely that they share the same cause but not necessarily that the lack of empathy is what causes the impulsiveness and not vice versa or a third cause. Autism is not understanding others but autists can still understand others using social science just not with intuition. Selective empathy would mean not being a psychopath and still feeling the feelings of others but only of an ingroup and relative apathy to the outgroup (which itself could potentially have further problems, I am not saying it is perfect)
That argument could be made for almost anything that is categorized as altruism. You can say that someone is just being altruistic because it makes them feel good so they are not really being altruistic but it is easier to just say they are being altruistic and that is a part of altruism
http://www.iep.utm.edu/psychego/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_egoism#Criticisms
I do think that the rich should be the only ones paying taxes. But it could also work with amount of votes just being proportional to tax paid if you want to still let the poor vote
The best way to not get caught is to not do illegal things. Yes if I was absolutely certain that I could avoid capture I would do a lot of things but when can you really be certain of that. I prefer to play it safe with those sorts of things and many crimes don't even pay that well to begin with
I am not a NEET but being one can actually be a pretty good idea when you know the government will take care of you. The reason why I intend not to be one is that it is pretty bad for surviving future political instability
I am proposing that we include enough people such that the marginal cost equals the marginal benefit
Saddam was invaded not overthrown.
Gadaffi didn't have chemical weapons when overthrown
Assad didn't have the economic conditions
The USSR probably did not have the economic conditions either
I know you do not but you do get to choose what social class your children are born into (to an extent) and I want to make a better future for my children. I want to make a startup
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2013
While I hope you become wealthier than Trump @autisticdragonkin studies show it's unlikely you'll be rich if your parents weren't also rich:
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2017
So I’ve been thinking about the current state of Healthcare in the U.S for some reason today, and I’ve been doing a bit of research into both sides of the argument in favor of and against universal healthcare. I’m still sort of on the fence as which one to support, though.
Then I looked at the sort of mediocre impact that Obamacare had on the American populace and I wonder, what could have been done better if we were to try again? I wanted to get some insight from people who might be a bit more savvy on this.
Then I looked at the sort of mediocre impact that Obamacare had on the American populace and I wonder, what could have been done better if we were to try again? I wanted to get some insight from people who might be a bit more savvy on this.
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2017
So, of course, you came to Kiwi Farms.
- Joined
- May 11, 2018
If you are not willing to pay more on taxes you don't get free drugs.
I hope you enjoy long ass lines of people on the verge of death.
Meds and nurses who work with the cheapest tools and more often that not are forced to pay the consequences of the system.
I hope you enjoy long ass lines of people on the verge of death.
Meds and nurses who work with the cheapest tools and more often that not are forced to pay the consequences of the system.
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2017
Isn’t that what the Deep Thoughts board is for?
We don’t have to pay a license to watch porn.
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2017
Let them eat cake. Or Oxy as the case may be.
I
IV 445
Guest
kiwifarms.net
Ok I’ll give a short response.
If something is free that doesn’t always mean it’s good. I’d go into detail but I’m on mobile and thank God have not had to deal with healthcare as a patient yet.
If something is free that doesn’t always mean it’s good. I’d go into detail but I’m on mobile and thank God have not had to deal with healthcare as a patient yet.