Total posts: 2,799
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
What makes you think american lives are so much more important than other lives?
I am not saying that American lives matter more in a philosophical sense. I just personally care more about my fellow countrymen in the same way you value your parents more than your third cousin (probably).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
What does a draft have to do with any of this? This situation is very likely going to lead to another stupid war that will result in wasting trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
so for you national debt > abortionthat surprises me on your posts I've read.
Yeah, saying that financial concerns are more important than life is exactly what the pro-abortion people say. "I can't afford a child, so I'll get an abortion".
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
lol you think the debt is bad under Trump watch out if one of the dems win.
Nah, man. The 1% will pay for it, haven't you heard?
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Not inherently, no. Is it a socialist policy to nationalize the police, military, fire fighters, prisons etc. All of these things are run by the government because it is in the national interest that the government do so. Nobody bats an eye.
I could argue that the police, military, etc are a socialist institution. I would say they are 100% necessary to be government-owned because they are a public good. Hard to charge fees for military action, so taxes are the only way to go.
Nationalized healthcare, regardless of whether it is a good idea or not, is not something that every government needs to provide.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Doesn’t Bernie Sanders self identify as a socialist?
Also, no current politician is pure socialist, but wouldn’t you say nationalizing industries is a socialist concept? For example, universal healthcare seems to be a socialist policy. That is a fairly mainstream view for Democrats now, too.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I'm not denying that it could take a long time for drug research to be analyzed thoroughly. I am saying that perhaps some of those 10 years may not solely be because of that and may be bureaucratic and regulatory problems.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Could you elaborate more on the details of that issue and how you think we should fix it?
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
As for the FDA taking a long time... I don't know as much about how the FDA works as I do about the patent office but I do know about the scientific method and my gut says that "10 years to clear a new drug" is probably not because the FDA is incompetent and more likely because that long of a time period is actually required for trials to be carried out properly.
I am not quite sure of why it takes this long. It could be incompetence, as typically happens in government bureaucracies, or it could be that trials take long periods of time. My guess would be a combination of both. Like I said, we could begin taking information verified by other developed countries, like Switzerland, into account. That could speed things up by reducing the burden of proof for drug companies.
Governmental control over the economy is one of the few cases where there actually is a slippery slope.
Yup. Precisely why I am trying to find fixes that will prevent such an event.
I don't claim to have an answer for how to fix the current healthcare system. I really truly don't and I doubt most people on this site that claim to do either. It is a lot more complicated that many are willing to admit. However, I do have enough experience with it to recognize that it is in need of fixing.
I don't think that this will solve all of our problems, but I certainly believe this could improve it.
Glad we could agree on most things.
:)
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
most of the costs of healthcare come from hospitals, not drug prices, and general medical providers. would you be willing to use price fixing in the general medical provider setting, in the array of medical services provided by the industry? if not, how would you control costs?
Well, one factor about this is that unions lobbied the government to put quotas on the number of medical licenses given out per year. This reduces supply and therefore increases medical costs. One way to reduce costs would be to get rid of these quotas and simply allow anyone with the required skills to practice medicine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
can you put on makeup and read a prepared speech with passion?
No, apparently that is something that only the greatest person in the world can do, which is obviously the big-toothed New Zealand lady.
Created:
-->
@Alec
To put another message shortly...
I said price fixing would lead to some shortages and less medical innovation. Also said we need to fix how patents work so that drugs actually become generic, which would make price fixing unnecessary after 20 years(likely by when the companies recoup costs and make decent profits).
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Fun side note, most R&D is actually paid for with government money. They do most of the ground work research. Drug companies then pick it up, play with the formula a little and patent it. They then slap a massive mark up on it and make absurd amounts of money on something they didn't actually do most of the work developing.
We have already discussed this... I agree that is unfair if this is what occurs. I would prefer the government make the drugs and sell them at cost instead. Could you provide an article that says companies use mostly government research and do little work themselves, but end up creating the drugs?
When you take into account that the majority of drug research is government funded and the fact that they spend like 2-3 times more on marketing than on research, it becomes clear this isn't true. If they stopped doing research they would run out of products to sell. Then they would cease to exist.
Even if the marketing statement was true, their need for marketing doesn't disappear if they have less profits due to price fixing. People need to know about their products. These companies will, because of reduced profits, have less money to put towards R&D and the smaller profit incentive will prevent them from taking more ambitious projects.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Don’t have time to respond to everything right now, but this article says that R&D is typically larger than marketing https://www.raps.org/news-and-articles/news-articles/2019/7/do-biopharma-companies-really-spend-more-on-market
Just depends on what you consider “marketing”.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I can certainly see the appeal of that position.....
I’ll begin with part of my stance on the matter and see if we can’t come to some sort of agreement. I am 100% against companies slightly altering their drug to maintain patents indefinitely. I think this is an issue that very seriously needs to be fixed. After 20 years, the drug should become generic and sold for cheap. However, R&D can cost millions and the FDA takes an average of 10 years to clear a new drug. So, I believe companies should be able to charge high amounts in order to recoup those costs, or we should somehow work on making the FDA more efficient(we currently don’t accept research done outside the US for instance). So, I am against price fixing. It can lead to shortages and decreased medical innovation in the future because of the different pricing systems that make turning a profit more difficult. Larger, more ambitious projects may not be undertaken that could produce even more lifesaving drugs. Money spent on securing patents would be used on more productive business functions.
Let me know what you disagree with.
Created:
Other countries have cheaper healthcare because they price fix drugs.
Mixed systems like we have are also quite problematic, but that is a large factor.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DynamicSquid
If you were right, I would agree with you ;)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Another statement born of ignorance.
The only ignorant statement that I have seen was:
Is Jacinda Ardern, no question.
Perhaps you could explain why someone virtually unknown outside of New Zealand is somehow the greatest in the entire world? Or will you begin projecting and rambling off ad-hominem personal attacks per usual? Either way, I'm down.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
I think manipulating someone in an effort to prevent what should be freely their right is wrong.
Would you believe that the ultrasound is manipulation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Also, they are impeaching him for 'abuse of power', which isn't really a defined term in the Constitution. If any president, FDR should have been impeached for 'abuse of power'.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Untrue. You are guessing at his motivation. You do not, and cannot know it. And no motivation can be a crime, just an action. And Ukraine got the funds without doing anything.
The burden of proof is actually larger. You need to have criminal intent AND commit a criminal action for it to be something that you can be prosecuted for.
It is called Mens Rea and Actus Reus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
It's an accurate and pertinent way of describing the early stages of pregnancy such as the zygote however
As you said, everything is a 'clump of cells'. That is kind of how it has to be framed to justify it, though. You have to negate the significance and saying that you are discarding 'tissue' or a 'clump of cells' doesn't sound very bad. Greyparrot mentioned ultrasounds, but those really wouldn't pick anything up at the zygote stage. People aren't aware of the pregnancy at that point, as well, so this would refer to two months in and after (not 100% sure on that timing, just estimating for now).
You could have had a different experience, being from New Zealand and all, but people do call it a clump of cells and don't really give them information about the fetus before they make the decision. They don't say 'hey, this is viable and we could try giving birth instead' or anything of the sort. Abortion shouldn't be a decision that you sugar-coat or misinform people about, which is what often happens.
We don't have to get into the abortion argument. It is clear that neither of us will likely change our position on the matter, but what is your opinion about providing an ultrasound before an abortion?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
You see, there is the problem. As we have seen with the Kavanaugh shenanigans, they assume people to be guilty until proven innocent.
They must have thought we were calling him guilty. Silly Democrats......
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
So you don't think it is manipulation to call a fetus a "clump of cells" but simply showing them what it looks like is manipulation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Why not? Left uses emotion all the time. Kids in cages lul.
That's not funny, bro! That was basically the Holocaust!
Haha
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I'm really confused about why people are freaking out about a Roe v. Wade overturning then. I still think they believe that would outlaw abortion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You won't get a 2/3 consensus to draw the line at when a fetus gets rights. But you WOULD get a 2/3 consensus for a constitutional amendment prohibiting statewide bans on abortions.
That's fair. So Alabama would just make it a one-day thing instead of a ban? Just the "morning after" pill is allowed?
I could see that amendment getting enough support.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Flat Tax. Eliminate crony tax exemptions.
That is my position precisely. He is against the flat tax portion of that, but that is as close as we will get lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I don't doubt that there could be that consensus, necessarily. I'm saying this should not be a federal issue.
I would expect them to pass a federal bill perhaps. People don't want to alienate the religious base with something like an amendment.
Roe v. Wade says that there can't be any significant measures limiting abortion, which is a pretty pro-choice stance. They would likely outlaw third-trimester since most people are against that, at the least, so it would be more pro-life than the current stance.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
That;s a bit like saying if I don't buy gas for my car I have more money. But then you can't get to work to make more money. In the short term that might have some positive side effects. But you are going to push the economy into recession and ultimately screw over everyone.
Well it would depend on the type of immigrant you accept. Are they one that is just menial, cheap labor that will take welfare checks? If so, we would benefit from not taking them. If they are an entrepreneur that makes new jobs, then we would benefit from accepting them.
Oh, so people should just come to america, live and in poverty and squalor because you don't think they should get to eat or have some place to live. America is a nation of immigrants. You are almost certainly descended from immigrants. I will never understand why some people continue to see immigrants as a threat or burden.
So, you think that people should be allowed to come here and freeload off of social programs that they haven't even paid into? The whole reason people have a right to social security is because they paid into it their whole career. But, someone who has been here a year gets to take thousands in benefits and use those resources that they haven't earned?
Let me ask you this: why on earth would you accept someone into the country who you believed would just live on social programs within five years of entering the country? Is that good for your average American who will have to pay more in taxes to subsidize that? Do you simply want new voters?
I am a descendant from immigrants. But guess what? They didn't have an enormous social safety net when they came to America. They worked to earn a living without freeloading off of a system they in no way helped fund. I'm pretty sure Canada does this with their healthcare system, so I don't know why it is so controversial.
I never denied it was a factor. But it is a small one. Immigrants don't decide what labor is worth, billionaires do. So blaming them while not targeting the oligarchs causing the problem is ridiculous.
But the job goes to the lowest bidder, and they overall are willing to accept less. Billionaires can afford to keep wages low by importing low-skill workers who don't care if they are underpaid since it is better than their home country.
Pompeo isn't any better. Trump has filled his cabinet with people who are desperate to start some new wars. Trump himself has admitted he was minutes away from starting a war with Iran before calling it off last minute.
Yeah, a lot of his picks are crappy. Had he started a war with Iran, his entire base, myself included, would have abandoned him and he knew it. He won on the platform of taking us out of foreign conflicts. Nobody wants to go to war with another Middle Eastern country except for people who could profit from it.
America's tax rates have been falling for decades. There are definitely problems of money being misspent. But the rich have systematically undermined america's tax system. They have lobbied hard to avoid paying taxes and it has been working. That is also a very large factor in america's budget problems.
Completely agree.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
3/10
That is a decent minority being "pro-life".
I think abortion will eventually be banned because the rates for it are falling and contraception is more widely available.
I don't think so. We just keep subsidizing single motherhood with welfare checks, so it is just crowding out abortion at the moment.
Thoughts?
Little confused where you are getting your numbers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Roe V Wade must be overturned in order to force Congress to pass a pro-abortion bill.
Or just let it be a state issue like most things should be.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Libertarians are mostly pro-choice.
The Supreme Court has to overturn Roe v Wade. In order to overturn it, they need a case on abortion to go to the SC. With states like Alabama and Georgia passing pro-life laws, it is only a matter of time, but precedent is very important. Most cases are never overturned. Not sure he promised to end abortion, either. That is a very unpopular decision. Most people are against third-trimester, but not earlier times.
Agree on the debt.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Why? There is no reason to think a shrinking economy would somehow improve the standard of living.
The growth rate may slow. If you import more workers and they hold a job, it adds to GDP. But, welfare expenditures are sometimes very high. Immigrant-led households accept welfare at a 51% rate. A lot of them take more than they give, so keeping the money and spending it on ourselves has potential to increase standard of living.
If we accept non-public charges, the opposite could be true.
Just in general, I think immigrants should have to live here for 5-10 years before receiving benefits, as that solves both problems.
again, this is a distraction. Unemployment remains low even with immigration. Wages remain low because big corporations do shitty things like destroying unions, keeping the minimum wage down, etc.
I don't see how immigration is a distraction. They compete for jobs and they are willing to accept less money than native-born citizens. So, either we need to be willing to accept less ourselves or we don't get a job. That is another factor for wages not rising. Also, unemployment is a faulty statistic. People who aren't looking for jobs/have stopped looking aren't considered in that statistic. So, if immigrant laborers undercut their wages, they may eventually give up hope and stop looking.
Agreed. most "mainstream" republicans and democrats are virtually the same party. The want to make the rich richer and sell out the working class. But if you think trump isn't doing the same thing you are mistaken. The minute he got elected he filled the government positions with same corrupt people. He gave massive tax cuts to the rich driving up the deficit. They will then use that deficit to argue that spending on programs that help regular people need to be cut.
I honestly like some of the crazier lefties over corporate Republicans(neo-cons) because at the very least, they are principled and consistent. They aren't just there for power. The establishment overspend on the military fighting wars we have no right or interest being involved in. It is disgusting.
I don't think Trump is some kind of savior. He is better than the average Republican, probably. I was so pissed when he appointed John Bolton, though. Glad he was thrown out quickly.
I don't particularly care for the usual "tax cuts" Republicans do. Spending cuts need to come before tax cuts every time. But unfortunately you can't win elections promising to take away peoples' free stuff. So, about half of Republicans vote for tax cuts with no intention of balancing the budget. Sad :/
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
If america stopped taking in immigrants it's economy would slow if not stop growing entirely. America is a nation of immigrants with a negative birth to death rate.
Maybe our economy would slow, but I bet our quality of life would increase. When you stop letting in public charges, you can spend more on your people already here.
people can shop around all they want, if no company is willing to pay more, then it is entirely irrelevant. Immigration does have an effect on wages. But it is largely a red herring. Politicians and billionaires use it as a distraction because it is much easier to blame some foreigner than you don't know than to pin the blame where it really belongs. Billionaires and politicians have set up the economic system to massively reward the rich and suck the wealth out of the working class.
Well, you are partially correct, but you are focusing on the wrong issue. Rich people and large corporations lobby for mass immigration/open borders-like policies. This hurts the wages of people here and working conditions. Labor is the largest cost for most businesses and they want to reduce it any way they can. So, letting in a million immigrants every year will depress wages by limiting the bargaining power of native-born workers. This helps the rich's bottom line and screws working-class Americans.
sorry. He does use a lot of populist rhetoric. I can see why alot of people would like him over some asshole like the standard republican. But you can't deny he goes off on unhinged rants. There is an entire industry based around trying to interpret what he says because no one can really tell what he means .
I prefer him over a lot of Republicans because a lot of them are garbage neo-con sellouts. You see that whenever a big bill comes in that could challenge an interest group and they fold immediately. Lots of Democrats do this, too. The only good thing about Bernie in my opinion is that he doesn't appear to be bought.
Yeah, Trump has some crazy rants. I went to one rally of his, but he was fine there. He was a pretty funny guy, but sometimes the stress must get to him.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
guest workers essentially get deported at the end of their employment. So they don't get a raise, they usually don't get any additional compensation at all. you just get rid of them and bring in another temp to do it. This lets you keep wages low because your workers aren't going to be staying. They also have their visa held by their employer. So if they ask for something their employer can literally have them deported. This is very different from immigration because immigrants have permanency. If their employer is shit, they can leave and find another job or go on strike.I am not discounting the idea that perhaps bernie had the same opinion on both the guest worker program and immigration in general. It is possible. But TheRealNihilist never provided any evidence of that. I would be open to looking at additional evidence.
Those distinctions are correct, but we have a slightly different case here. We keep taking endless waves of immigrants, so wages stay low. Immigrants agree to much lower wages than native citizens and 2nd/3rd generation immigrants. If we stopped these waves and had periods of little to no immigration, that would be true that they could shop around for jobs.
But this does seem to be contrary to some of your previous rhetoric on some similar topics. You say that these people can just shop around for different jobs that will pay them better, but then you also say that we need all of this government regulation or else everyone will be paid slave wages. This competition for labor by companies inherently raises wages and working conditions.
lol it would make for some interesting television. But having watched trump's speeches, I have had enough of presidents who don't make any sense.
Aww come on, man. Gotta ruin all the fun :/
I will admit, the 4th of July speech where his teleprompter stalled was funny. Talked about storming air force bases during the Revolutionary War or something to that regard.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Looked it up.
Called "The First Temptation of Christ".
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
lol and kids used to like to play with it I hear.
lmfao. I would totally be down with president Biden just so we could have some incoherent fireside chats like that.
And I refuted his point. TheRealNihilist showed a clip of bernie talking about 1 specific policy (the guest worker program) and tried to argue that this showed his opinion about immigration in general. His argument was at best a biased misinterpretation of what bernie was saying. Bernie never talked about his opinion about immigration in the clip he provided. I asked him to show other evidence and he declined to do so.
I would have to go back and check, but I though Bernie's issue was that in the guest worker plan, it is bad for native workers, such as through wage decreases. That would be something that would apply to immigration of similar types of workers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
What is the series?
Also, we don't make bomb threats when they mock Jesus, so it is safer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
That's a pretty apt comparison.
You take pride from a man by making them dependent. Men are meant to be providers and when you take that from them, they don't have much else.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Ten Mercury years or Earth years?
Created:
Posted in:
You can't create an incentive to not work while also destroying jobs with more taxes to fund said programs. Lose lose
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
TheRealNihilist made an entire thread about the immigration flip about a week ago.
Agreed. They are trying to keep him out of the news as much as possible so when people think of him they remember him as he was, like when he kicked palin's ass in a debate in 2008. But Joe is not the man he was 11 years ago. He can barely string sentences together and if anyone questions him at all he snaps.
I liked the corn pop story, personally. Truly inspiring. Apparently his leg hair used to be blond.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Sanders has been consistent in his beliefs
Except immigration.
Biden doesn't actually do many events with voters anyway. And when he does he often tells them to vote for someone else or just calls them fat. I don't think being off the campaign trail is a bad thing for biden. The more he can hide how terrible he is, the better it will be for him.
Lol, pretty sure I heard his team's strategy was to keep him out of the spotlight, at least at the start. Didn't want him losing his early lead.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Are we there yet? Imma weigh in on this.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol, drag him in there for hearings.
Screw over every front runner. I swear, is Trump behind all of this?
Created: