Probably because under his administration the US allowed gay marriage. Everyone knows, the Roman empire fell the moment when they accepted homosexuals.
POLL: Trump or Hillary
- Thread starter Fall Out Boy
- Start date
K
Kremin
Guest
jfc it's like a self parody at this point
yes clearly people who dislike Obama do so because they're all homophobes.
Well you can now believe this or not, I won't claim that it's true. But if it is, I find it kinda telling.
A news anchor mentioned a survey where people have been asked if they support Obama care, and around 50% of the people didn't support it. However, if they asked the same people the question if they supported the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act „PPACA“, almost 70% of them said, yes, they support it.
A news anchor mentioned a survey where people have been asked if they support Obama care, and around 50% of the people didn't support it. However, if they asked the same people the question if they supported the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act „PPACA“, almost 70% of them said, yes, they support it.
olestra
Look, Ma! Two Heads!
i think there is conservative theory behind that. the fall of The Family, loss of hold on population ecology, "white replacement". having gay men with interesting sex lives around encourages women to delay their interest in monogamy and producing christian children. it's no coincidence people were joking that women shouldn't vote on twitter, they test the water with jokes and memes
olestra
Look, Ma! Two Heads!
what?
olestra
Look, Ma! Two Heads!
i dont think it's a conspiracy. it isn't an uncommon sentiment in the alt-right. milo yiannopoulos endorses that view. the whole #repealthe19th starts similarly to how other crap started and is now on every internet forum
http://www.latimes.com/nation/polit...tweet-repealthe19th-1476299001-htmlstory.html
http://www.latimes.com/nation/polit...tweet-repealthe19th-1476299001-htmlstory.html
Makta
The DICKtator
Socialism CAN work in certain countries. Heck even Sweden that used to work really well with socialism can't seem to handle it anymore.
Antiwarprofallout
It Wandered In From the Wastes
Bastiat has something to say to you, Crni Vuk
Jogre
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
You can post all the quotes you want, but can you think of any practical alternatives to state healthcare?
How do you propose those who can't afford it get access to healthcare if the state can't get involved?
How do you propose those who can't afford it get access to education if the state can't get involved?
Antiwarprofallout
It Wandered In From the Wastes
Socialism is 'practical'?
Privatize it, it'll be cheaper in general. If there's a large set of folk who need a service/product, have money but don't have enough money by themselves, why would private business ignore that market? They don't in regards to food, vehicles, appliances, services, etc, so why would they ignore that market here?
State involvement in education has made it more expensive to educate, before that, typically local education cost little to nothing and it worked better than state sponsored education.
https://mises.org/library/free-education-and-literacy
Ilosar
Vault Fossil
Socialism as it was originally conceived isn't the most practical, no. Socialism as it has been adopted by most Western democraties, weaved in so that it works in concert with capitalism, is to a much greater degree. Albeit of course it's nowhere near perfect, but nothing is.
The problem with this comparison is that health care has much, much higher potential costs than stuff like foods and vehicles, and a widely different set of needs and demands.
For example; someone, person A makes 50K a year. They can buy a mid-range car, mostly cheap food with some restaurants/luxury on the side, mid-range with maybe some second-hand appliances, so on and so forth. Other person, B, makes 300K. Obviously they can buy a great car, be selective when it comes to food, buy top-tier appliances while not putting themselves in debt for life, so on and so forth. That's logical, and covers most of the stuff you listed. Basic point is, the guy who makes 50K a year can predict his purchases according to his income if he's not an idiot.
Both these people then gets cancer, or some other illness of your choice that costs a bundle to treat. No state-sponsored healthcare, and their treatment will cost 40K a year, bare minimum, because effective treatment is expensive no matter who you are, and we're talking about your fucking life here, not choosing whenever you wanna eat pork or filet mignon, and cancer gives no fucks about your income and is something you can't exactly predict in your yearly budget. Person B is going to be (mostly) OK, he makes much more money than that. Person A, however, is fucked. The treatment puts him in a crushing debt, and there's no way for him to pay less unless he wants to get sub-par/incomplete treatment and thus, put his very life in danger. Assuming he can even manage to borrow the money in the first place, I wouldn't want to tell the bank I need money almost equal to my pay for a loan each year.
So the state intervenes, and pays for most (all, sometimes) of the treatment on his behalf. Because people would rather have that, than either receive inadequate treatment or be in debt for who knows how long and have their entire life derailed. Because the expectation is that whoever pays for person A, would also receive support from A's very own taxes in return.
I mean, one can criticize how, exactly, the state does the intervention, sure. I'm not saying any system is perfect. But I see no way that a fully private system can ever work without leaving boatloads of very vulnerable people by the wayside. Especially not in the US, which has so many poor people both in relative and absolute terms. And charity is not an answer, it can't muster a fraction of the money required to provide health to all those who need it.
Also, I can only speak from personal experience, but healthcare here in Canada really isn't the complete disaster it's made out to be in the US sometimes. Yeah, wait times can be long if you go because you have a cold or a bruise, but that's also because there's a lack of local clinics that governments are seeking (with more or less diligence, admitedly) to correct. If you have a grave illness, you will get good treatment in priority, with competent doctors. You sure as fuck don't wait 17 hours if you show up for an emergency surgery or with a broken arm. And for every horror story about when this does happen, well you can find American horror stories of people in debt for life or thrown out of the hospital.
Antiwarprofallout
It Wandered In From the Wastes
Where are you getting this price? If it's an average in the US, well, it's not like the US system is what I advocate, as I said, and it's not like the prices inherent in that system would be in a free-market/private system.
I used that piece of anecdotal evidence against that guy because he was using anecdotal evidence, I didn't use it to actually argue anything about Canada's system.
Ilosar
Vault Fossil
Treatment for cancer is very expensive and demanding. Chemo, hospital stays, possible surgeries, boatloads of medication, requires specialized doctors instead of generalists. Over a year, the costs add up very fast indeed.
I mean, I'm not an expert, but I wouldn't be surprised if I'm lowballing it. Healthcare is expensive because, well, it's a highly specialized service. And still, the number is an example, but you won't find a serious illness or mediacal condition that isn't going to cost you a ton to treat in this day and age. To say nothing, of course, of other things such as treatment of mentally ill people. I know that to put my autistic brother in an entirely private institution would cost an arm and a leg. My family can't support that.
I doubt a private system would drive costs down significantly. You still, and will always, need competent doctors, good nurses, efficient hospitals, clean rooms, high technology to offer the best treatments (especially if all the hospitals start being in competiton with little/no oversight), so on and so forth. That stuff ain't cheap, and the customer will foot the bill in all cases.
I mean, look at pharmaceutics. The costs are always going up too, and it's not regulated as much as hospital fees are. Hell, Big Pharma is one of the most influencial and/or corrupt lobbies in the US if you follow some people. I very much doubt an entirely private health care would be anywhere near as good as you believe. It needs oversight.
Antiwarprofallout
It Wandered In From the Wastes
Note, 1965 had the government passing Medicare.
This explains it pretty in-depth: http://tinyurl.com/n4y3mdk
Yeah, that he has no fucking clue what socialism is.
Socialism =/= Communism.
K
Kremin
Guest
Isn't Socialism literally one of the first steps towards Communism though?
Socialism is like getting fucked in the ass but with some spit lube whereas Communism is just getting fucked in the ass
Both suck but theres still a distinction to make.