Would We Accept "Single Payer" Groceries?
I have not only come to this conclusion through research but also through growing up in impoverished neighbourhoods. This is what holds people down the most. Telling people to try harder or lift themselves up by the bootstraps is no good and doesn't address the nuances and complexity of this paradigm. They'll only try harder in things they consider worthwhile. The key is to help em see that education is worthwhile, and there is no simple answer to that. What needs to be done is to bring awareness to this concept and pouring money into activism. A lack of role models is also quite demoralizing and contributes to fatalism. However, the only person that can change is yourself, and the only thing that inhibits change is permission. So personal responsibility is still a big factor here. I don't believe in wealth redistribution, throwing money at em, or having false expectations about education. At the same time I don't believe in saying "To hell with em" and just abandoning em since the middle class and upper class are just as susceptible to the inertia of holding a worldview and thus contempt towards the lower class is unwarranted since everyone's sh** stinks equally.
The activism thing isn't the only thing I think would help and I don't even know if it is a central factor to helping em. It is a complete mindf*ck I haven't sorted out yet.
I know it's not a silver bullet, but access to educational opportunity does at least provide the possibility for someone to dig themselves out of poverty. It's a necessary precondition to any other attempts at solving the problem, and so is a reasonable first step.
I don't have any examples off-hand, but I didn't feel like debating it and I'm sure there have been a couple screw-ups.
OK, you are no longer permitted to spout all your arrogant condescending nonsense about how I'm too "immature" to understand the "real world." You are so absurdly, mind-bogglingly naive if you actually believe things like what you just said.
Your definitions are meaningless. Those links exist by virtue of all of us existing and inhabiting the same planet. There is nothing voluntary about it, and that is true no matter what government exists or doesn't exist.
When did I say I wanted representative government?
But your views are not grounded in objective reality. The issue here is that what you believe to be objective reality is just your own absurd fantasy.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
OK, you are no longer permitted to spout all your arrogant condescending nonsense about how I'm too "immature" to understand the "real world." You are so absurdly, mind-bogglingly naive if you actually believe things like what you just said.
QFT
You need to research this some more if you're going to keep on talking about the FDA and the goodness of pharmaceutical companies. They are, on balance, good for humanity, but they don't make the products they do out of the goodnes of their avaricious little hearts. If they could get away with selling drugs with no testing at all, they would do so. If they could get away with testing without informed consent, they would do so. If they could get away with testing only for minor side-effects that are unlikely to be impacted by the drugs main chemical pathway, they would do so. They have, in fact, done all of these things in the past and continue to do some of them now, as well as other obviously immoral things.
@ JWC: You are full of s**t about the pharmaceutical thing. In the last semester of my health care course I heard about the Vioxx scandal, which involved em snaking their way around the clinical trials by distorting it and they completely denied the heart attack risks as well as trying to silence the scientists who would expose this. Of course there are things to be gained from withholding less obvious things like health risks and long term effects. The fact that you keep trying to make Orwell out to be naive is laughable when common sense should've told you that obviously there are incentives to conceal the more subtle downsides of their products.
In my health care course I've also been taught that newer drugs aren't necessarily better. They can just merely be the same as the old ones but more expensive. In this case you are only paying for the brand rather than an innovative product that spawned from the pressure of competition.
http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordp ... ys-better/
The pinko stinkos have whipped the Proles into a veritable fury of unrealistic expectation.
Did you know that the Proletariat is revolting, the world over?
ruveyn
If JWC tried to force his way it would be more than the Proletariat revolting. You would not be able to count on your food being safe to eat or your water being safe to drink. You would be forced to stop and pay a toll for every couple blocks you travel down the road in your car.
To be fair, the FDA must also accept some of the blame on that one. There are a lot of places where our regulatory agencies need to be improved. One issue is that lobbying interests have too much power, and this is part of the reason the health risks of Vioxx were not fully disclosed.
It is also worth mentioning, however, that the doctor who exposed the risks behind Vioxx did not necessarily want it pulled from the market- he just wanted to make sure that physicians and their patients were aware of the potential risks so they could make an actual informed decision. The pharmaceutical company tried their damnedest to prevent this from happening, as some people would have decided the risk was not worth the benefits and their profits would have been slightly lower.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
To be fair, the FDA must also accept some of the blame on that one. There are a lot of places where our regulatory agencies need to be improved. One issue is that lobbying interests have too much power, and this is part of the reason the health risks of Vioxx were not fully disclosed.
It is also worth mentioning, however, that the doctor who exposed the risks behind Vioxx did not necessarily want it pulled from the market- he just wanted to make sure that physicians and their patients were aware of the potential risks so they could make an actual informed decision. The pharmaceutical company tried their damnedest to prevent this from happening, as some people would have decided the risk was not worth the benefits and their profits would have been slightly lower.
Not in America. Not in as simple a fashion as you are trying to demonstrate.
So true. Especially when cronies, bribes, incompetence and corruption enter the picture.
ruveyn
Not in America. Not in as simple a fashion as you are trying to demonstrate.
So true. Especially when cronies, bribes, incompetence and corruption enter the picture.
ruveyn
I would also add the FDA is corrupt as well they do a lot of 'pay to play' stuff which while it is considered expected in Chicago and perfectly acceptible to Obama, most of us would call it corruption.
We've already seen another short satire written by Michael Hurd on liberals eliminating cost. His satires are very weak. Health insurance and medical care are not similar to groceries and food services. First, no, I would not say most people in the United States have the luxury of choosing from a wide variety of competing health-insurance companies; most people go with the plan offered by their employer or the employer of their spouse or parent; otherwise, the cost is prohibitive. Second emergency medical care is often a life-or-death necessity, and the consumer may be too incapacitated to pick doctors or hospitals. For food, there is a wealth of choice, relatively low cost and thus no need for "food insurance," and less education and training needed to operate a farm, run a grocery store, or open a restaurant (than a medical doctor). Since food and potable water are basic life necessities, we provide a form of welfare called food stamps, and there are food banks and other charities.
In contrast, single-payer universal healthcare has worked and at a lower cost in many European countries.
Does this Michael Hurd do anything but write red-meat polemics for market fundamentalists?
In contrast, single-payer universal healthcare has worked and at a lower cost in many European countries.
Europeans are used to the government running stuff. Americans tend to loathe the idea. Americans are smart enough to realize their government is rotten at the core. They just don't have an acceptable alternative yet.
ruveyn
Dylanperr
Veteran
Joined: 1 Jan 2018
Age: 22
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,756
Location: Somewhere In A Boreal Forest
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Frustration over always being single :( |
11 Jul 2026, 3:52 am |
| Dating supposed to be easier today why are there more single |
19 Aug 2026, 5:51 pm |
