Total posts: 3,178
Posted in:
-->
@linate
"every other country keeps cost under control"
Here is a fun exercise, take an western nation with socialized healthcare. Now, starting today, those countries have to pay for 100% of their own defense and securement of trade routes. GO! 🙃
Not to mention the benefit of piggybacking off of US healthcare innovation. For which the US blows every other nation by far out of the water in R&D spending and academic studies/papers. So much so you can combine alot of subsequent ones together and still not come close. 🤔
"If we keep spending 18% of GDP"
Again, GDP =\= potential taxable revenue. Its not money that government can just appropriate control of on whim, its mostly not even currency itself, its a representation through currency of wealth(currency, commodity, or otherwise) produced 🤔.
>US with 350 million pop.
>China with 1 billion+ pop.
Again, blowing them and other socialistic healthcare nations out of the water on innovation. Administrative costs are not the only healthcare costs, nor is actual medical care/medication. Much of that spending is in R&D of new healthcare drugs, tools, and methodology.
R&D is so expensive *because* its so highly regulated. Dropping regulatory measures would again, reduce these costs dramatically. And again
"If we keep spending 18% of GDP"
This isnt the primary concern/area for healthcare spending. The concern is federal debts and deficits. Its in the $$ the government spends/the revenue it recieves through tax.
How long into running at deficits of at least 3 trillion before the US government drops down the tubes in credit rating? How long before people start dumping dollar investments and the dollar becomes the dumpster fire tinder of currency?
How effective is the system really gonna be at that point? How adequately will it address inequal practical access to healthcare?
"Stopping medical bankruptcies is all a matter of an accounting issue"
You know fudging accounting so as to nullify expenses through technicality does not mean those expenses magically dissapear? There is no such thing as a free lunch, and somebody or multiple some bodies along that line still foot the bill. In the same way, mandating X thing to have Y price to purchase, does not mean X actually has a cost of Y in totality.
The more you speak, the more im starting to get the impression you are very misguided when it comes to economics
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@1harderthanyouthink
People who act like antifa are as bad as fascists enable fascists.
Fail to see the need to heavily differentiate the two. It's like the difference between a "racist" and a "bigot" nowadays. One being worse doesn't mean the other is magically not also a pile of shit.
Plus, a group primarily comprised of anarchists and more specifically the variation therein of it, and communists, who have been active in political violence and rioting since the 90's and the inception of the WTO, aren't positive moral actors.
Plus when "antifa" labels anyone to the right of Lenin, a Facist, an authoritarian, ultranationalist identitarian, and socialist ideology, just about everything under the sun becomes "Facist", which is how the group operates today funnily enough.
Created:
Posted in:
*re-review with a new argument presented on behalf of the banned user?*
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
(stuff)...final say really shouldn't rest in the hands of the community at-large.
I see ur point actually. Perhaps an appeal process? But an appeal to re-review with perhaps a new case. BUT, if the re-review is upheld, its final 🤔🙊
Created:
Posted in:
*many in advance. And arguments for popular overrule of a ban for a debate and forum site are just as compelling fmpov. If a popular enough user is banned, or a string are, that could drive other users off the site as well.
Users are lifeblood, and decisions that would inhibit the overall growth of the userbase in such a manner have a latent mechanism in place to override. 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Moderating should not be an exercise in democracy--contrary to popular belief. There are excellent reasons why should not put judicial verdicts to popular vote.
I don't disagree with there not being excellent reasons, and as to my position as a whole. I think most power should be in the hands of the moderators. Who is on that team could be democratic, it could be by site ownership decision, that doesn't matter to me. But once in that position they stay there until they leave that position by choice fmpov, and have at least a reasonable degree of transparency and consistency.
My proposal of a popular overrule is more a check on that power, than a want to see moderators potentially ousted on whim. And such a measure(popular overrule of banning) would need be a process with a high bar to accomplish fmpov.
This would also appease discontent towards moderators as well imho, quelling many conspiratorial opinions.
Created:
Posted in:
*the trials need not be just for *popular* users. A petition for a trial by popular vote, could also in turn spur a trial if one was deemed unnecessary. Or a petition for a trial could be a lower requirement than for trial by popular vote 👏
A nice balance fmpov and one that adds a little spice 🔥
Created:
Posted in:
amd i would even say the trials be for "popular" users either. Just that there be a case presented in complaint, a capable defense, and a clearly reasoned and consistent judgement therein.
Created:
Posted in:
I near wholly agree with 1h and Bsh1's take on moderators, and the powers and elective process therein. 👏👏.
There seems to be a need for a check on popular removal to whims. Perhaps a heightened ratio of votes? Instead of a simply majority a supermajority set at 2/3-3/4 perhaps?
For issues of bans for popular users, if i may suggest(and sorry if its been said):
1) the senior moderator acts as a judge in necessary conjunction with the site ownership.⚖
2) the junior moderator acts as a prosecution of sorts. ⚖
3) defendants be given an opportunity to defend themselves. ⚖
- Trials be a balance of "fairness" and "expediency".
- Rulings be clear in reason and operate with as much consistency as possible.
4) If enough of a complaint arises by, hypothetically speaking, popular petition, the details can be released(prematurely) and decision voted on with higher than simple majority requirements to be overturned. This could also help as a check against removal on whimsical grounds.
- Transcripts of rulings be released periodically within reason in a pinned and locked thread. 📚(?)
This to be just for bans in which it be deemed necessary. Exception for bots, site ownership dictate, are reasons that could be viewed as lacking necessity of a trial for time reasons fmpov.
This would give a valuable record of sorts, of precedent for decision making, that could be reserved and referred to for any conspiratorial complaints ive seen floating about👾
The specifics would of course need to be worked out 🤔. And this just if the idea is worth serious consideration.
Created:
Posted in:
There are certain situations, like say accidental c/p where a post edit could be seen as reasonable to do though imho 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
I see the indicator. Idk, editing is an awesome feature for regular forum posting. But for mafia I think a policy of no editing is best. Maybe not first time, but second or third seems reasonable 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
No. Nope. Not at all.
Posts must be unique
F
NAC
Created:
neither of which are "corporations" in a legal sense but "muh gun manufacturers" for the NSSF 🙃
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Well the nitpicking would be in the realm of campaign finance, and advertisement. There are limits in place for the former, there are no limits to the latter. Holding "corporations" as having a right to political advocacy in spending via advertising is oft viewed as corrupt. (ex. NSSF, NRA-ILA) 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Bah, you're spamming to get your post counts up? That's a boring and uneventful way to do itPost counts don't matter to me except when they help in identifying veteran members or suspicious trolls.
🙃
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Room for one more?
https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/012/589/patrickstar.jpg
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@linate
whatever your points might be can be remedied by us having more doctors, simple as that.
Ah yes, such clever thinking around needing to mandate price. So, who pays? Government? My guess is that 32. 6 trillion price tag over 10 years[1] didn't say anything about costs of educating new medical professionals to meet the increased demand.
And thus Alice dives down into the Rabbit hole of indirect costs 🙃.
What exactly do you think a GDP is anyways? Do you think GDP is all taxable or something? That if you taxed 100% there would be 18trillion in revenue? Considering that since WW2 tax revenue as a percentage of GDP has always floated around 19% on average, that's very questionable.[2]. So again, who pays? Because somebody has to pay the piper and tax revenue won't cover that + everything else. After all, federal revenues for 2019 are projected to be 3.44 trillion.[3] 👏👏.
32.6/10= 3.26 trillion per year.
Federal Budget for 2019[4] is going to be 4.4 trillion. Thats already a deficit of 1 trillion. Not good, but not disastrous. But consider that, Medicare/Medicaid account for 1.37 trillion. So that is 3.03 trillion in other spending to tack onto that 3.26 trillion a year.
All for a total budget of 6.29 trillion.
In fairness, 1 trillion in a deficit is not good, but not disastrous, it isn't a crisis in other words. A deficit of almost 3 trillion though? That is a crisis to the extreme in the economic ramifications that result from that.
But yeah sure, let's add even more expense on that by paying to educate tens to hundreds of thousands of new general practitioners. Im sure there is nooooooooooo way that goes horribly wrong.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I dont disagree w/you 🙃
Created:
Posted in:
For purposes of discussion, lets assume one, as a judge of the case, determines the type of charge, guilt, and type of sentence imposed.
What would ones ruling be? ⚖🤔
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Earth
What if you were presiding over the case? What sentence would you impose? 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Smithereens
I do totally agree that he does often make non-empirical claims. From my total experience its often in realms where there isnt much empirical evidence to go around 🤔.
His claims deserve scrutiny as everything does, and I'm not trying to imply they don't. Despite his failings, he's still someone who nails alot of stuff fmpov 👏.
That he is painted often as "Right-Wing", is absurd to me on an independent note.
Created:
Posted in:
How gracious of you to make that judgement on behalf of the doctor.[lol]if a doctor sees two hundred patients a year and makes two hundred thousand a year doing it, i dont think anything monumentally different is going to occur if he sees two hundred and twenty patients and makes the same amount of money.
It would however, not be that kind of increase. The average patient panel for a doctor is around 2k.[1] Even if we assume the 20% growth in demand as you proposed(100 ---> 120) that would be an increase of 400 patients per panel per year. Of course, that kind of small percentage increase from current demand seems rather absurd to posit facially.
Not only that, Doctors that would be classified under being a Primary Care Physician(General Practice, Family Medicine, etc.) account for a pitifully small portion of total medical practitioners. "Other specializations" being itself 54%. PCP's, or routine care, is where demand will be most focused, no? How do we go about solving the obvious shortage crisis and necessary ballooning in price that will come to routine care?
Of course, by mandating price without barring private practice [🙃].
Created:
Posted in:
Lets imagine for purposes of edification there is a married couple. Person 1 in the married couple is quite unhappy with Person 2. So much so that Person 1 hires(pays) Person 3 to kill Person 2.
Person 3 kills person 2. This plot is uncovered by Law Enforcement and both are arrested.
Should Person 1 or 3 be charged with homicide[1], or both? Why?
Should Person 1 or 3 receive the more severe punishment? Should their punishment be equal? Why?
What critiques do you have, if any, with how homicide, and its variations, is classified and prosecuted?(in the US) Why?
If none, what aspects are particularly appealing? Why?
Created:
Certain crimes can't be charged to a "group" though, you are correct. There are workarounds though 🙃
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
But you can, below is a PDF that details the process:you can't put an association/corporation in jail or hold them criminally liable I don't think.
There are certain crimes that can't be charged as a "group" or be used to apply to associated individuals like sure. But for example, a whole group can be criminally charged with "domestic terrorism" and any associated individuals therein held to be "in conspiracy" to the detailed crimes of the entire group.
On a smaller scale, lets say criminal homicide. 3 individuals *conspire* to commit murder. One does the killing, one does the transport after picking up from a designated location, One buries the body after it is dropped off at the designated burial location.
Persons 2 and 3 did not actually *commit homicide* but would be held, at least, guilty of *conspiracy* to (insert crime). A crime that oft comes with similar punishment to the original crime if Persons 2 and 3 were found to be crucial to the premeditation of the crime 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
Costs from just the scope of potential savings is too narrow. An aggregate reduction to administrative costs/wastes =\= a total reduction to costs of healthcare overall. And any such systems actually addressing inequalities in access to care are questionable at best, particularly in the realm of specialized(non-routine) care(ex. surgical).[1] and longer and in some cases extremely higher than global average wait times[2].
Basically, in theory it addresses inequality of potential access, but heightens inequality in practical access. And that discrepancy widens the greater the prevalence of black market access. A potential workaround implemented in Canada was to bar the private practice of medicine, but Chaoulli v Quebec[3] overturned that aspect and opened the door to private("black market") medicine. Private costs of healthcare in Canada are ridiculously expensive, but people who can afford it, still get the priority access 🙃
To get a little spicy, it seems to me if we continue down the path I presented, you're gonna be slipping on a pair of jackboots as if they're slippers 😏
[1]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4917991/
Basically, in theory it addresses inequality of potential access, but heightens inequality in practical access. And that discrepancy widens the greater the prevalence of black market access. A potential workaround implemented in Canada was to bar the private practice of medicine, but Chaoulli v Quebec[3] overturned that aspect and opened the door to private("black market") medicine. Private costs of healthcare in Canada are ridiculously expensive, but people who can afford it, still get the priority access 🙃
To get a little spicy, it seems to me if we continue down the path I presented, you're gonna be slipping on a pair of jackboots as if they're slippers 😏
[1]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4917991/
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Smithereens
@Imabench
Added: 08.14.18 09:48AM
--> @Imabench
I think this technically marks my 8th temp ban from DDO now XDInb4 perma
F
Created:
Posted in:
evolution aside (because he doesn't give credence to evolution which your link is heavy on).
I'm starting to get the impression you aren't very familiar with Peterson.
That whole video reinforces that he is a big proponent of evolution, not just the law of (micro)evolution, but the theory of (macro)evolution.
"...you've been evolving 3.5 billion years"
thats right off the bat and 3.5billion necessarily implies macroevolution.
His claim iirc "females aren't happy because they, by their own volition settle for sub-optimal partners."
The only thing I'll amend is rather than *their own volition* substitute *have to settle for*. Settle in relation to "sub-optimal". One wants optimal, getting sub-optimal is settling in relative terms for less, for whatever reason.
The discussion was about females choosing poor partners and ending up disgruntled, evolution aside
Not evolution aside, the discussion was in relation to feminism as a whole and more specifically post-modern feminism. Which holds many unique ideas that your empirical self i would presume to be skeptical of in turn.
A particular characteristic of the aforementioned being "toxic masculinity" which often seeks to *suppress* undesired masculine traits as opposed to *channeling* them constructively.
These points don't just happen in a vacuum. Like the aforementioned wage gap criticism that wasn't, this was actually in the same overarching topic of discussion, that being the(post-modern) feminism of today.
And the views thereins such as *toxic masculinity* and the *suppression* of masculine characteristics instead of constructively *channeling* them. For example in the "wage gap" part, he references Scandinavian countries that have experienced heightened disproportionality in the realms of profession choice, in the face of the greatest efforts to achieve equal proportionality to these choices.
This tying into the criticism of "(Post-Modern)Feminism of the present" part along with the current complaint regarding partner choice in marriage and issues therein that potentially arise.
To claim that this is the source of the social issues that women face is completely bizarre and not supported. That sort of link can't even be tested. It's not science, but he acts like it is, and asserts it as if it were true! Sorry but no, I can't just buy it.
Good, now take this same criticism and apply it to what he is criticizing in (Post-Modern) Feminism today. Look at the forest, take a moment away from the trees. You are attacking someone for lacking empirical date in criticizing a doctrine that equally lacks empirical data as it is only recently widely surging in popularity and just starting to take a broader hold of the course of direction 🤔
Created:
My initial thought is do the same laws apply to individuals as they do a corporation. Can a corporation commit libel or slander? I don't see how.
Corporations can sue others for libel/slander. Cant find anything about them being able to be sued. But fmpov it would make sense that they could be 🤔
Same rationale really. If individuals can be sued for libel so too can associations of individuals.
can the members of a corporation or any group really appoint a person or persons to speak for them collectively, i don't see why not
Mhhm, Corporations themselves are protected under the peacable assembly clause in the 1A. This case is a bit hard to pick apart tbh. Simple, but it's solid rationale lol. Might be a bit too lopsided to have a level debate on 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
Think its about time the US rounded up anarchists again and threw them in the nearest stateless land. I hear Somalia is beautiful this time of year
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Smithereens
Those criticisms arent invalid fmpov, one of the moments where he did use "pop-psych". The reference to women wanting "strong and competent partners" isnt supported by data.
But i look at that question and go, "why hasn't this been studied?"
"Are there studies that would indicate this might be true?"
observations like this couldnt be axiomatic fmpov, but it doesnt seem such a wild assertion to make either.
Im not sure how many people would desire, v how many wouldnt/dont care. But it seems absurd to posit most ay person wouldn't prefer at the least a competent partner in the areas they prioritize highly. The "strong" qualifier could probably be left out, but there is great "strength" in a sense in being competent in something. And women exclusively prolly best exchanged with "people prefer" 🤔
Have def seen him say some "wtf" stuff before though 🤔. He does have a tendency to make note of being a clinical psychologist often, despite mainly talking about philosophy(anti-postmodern) and politics(anti-marxist/facist).
Two realms fmpov that are realms where an expert opinion certainly helps, but isnt absolutely necessary to a great degree 🤔.
On another note, am I off on his musings on religion being rather in line with Carl Jung? If so, wouldn't that be odd being anti-postmodern, using a post-modern theorem of analytical psychology? 🤔
Created:
-->
@Smithereens
Idk lol, I more wanted to examine the ruling itself. Planning on doing my next debate on this, so figured some prep my making a forum post would be smart 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
*Virtuoso is replacing Rational*
Why'd Rational get banned? 🤔
Created:
^^^^^^[1]https://www.aclu.org/other/freedom-expression
Created:
Should I say, individuals have free speech rights, associations of individuals thusly have free speech rights in turn.
In regards to freedom of expression, "Freedom of Speech" has been ruled to apply to certain forms of expression:
"In Tinker v. Des Moines, the Court recognized the right of public school students to wear black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War. In 1989 (Texas v. Johnson) and again in 1990 (U.S. v. Eichman), the Court struck down government bans on "flag desecration." Other examples of protected symbolic speech include works of art, T-shirt slogans, political buttons, music lyrics and theatrical performances."[1]
Created:
-->
@BezosFuturist
Seems like its just establishing the trait of attempting to silence opposing viewpoints as not being exclusive as a characteristic to the left or right of the spectrum
Created:
Posted in:
penalized non voting would not necessarily be a bad thing either to get spicy about it 🔥
Created:
Posted in:
The US should have voter ID laws and incentivized voting 🙊👏
Created:
In Citizens United v FEC[1] the Supreme Court in essence ruled that not only do individuals have rights to free speech/expression, but associations of individuals, and corporations being one of such association, also have rights to free speech and expression.
Do you agree that associations of individuals have free speech rights, even if indirectly inherited?
Are corporations an association of individuals, or should they be held in distinction? Why?
Furthermore, an underlying, less talked about issue at play here fmpov is the question of spending and/or donating money as a form of speech.
Do you hold the activities as a form of speech? If not? Why?
What is the dividing line in between expression that counts as speech(such as artistic) and expression that does not?
Created:
Posted in:
*Beginners 2.0 Sign-Up Sheet*
(Beginner only while current series is ongoing)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
if enough interest merits it
8.
9.
Created:
Posted in:
DP will start when everyone has confirmed and all NA's are submitted
Created: