bubtubgub
Born on March 28, 2016•10 Karma
Why would nationalized healthcare prevent the opening of private clinics?
> health care is ever going to be truly available to all, it's going to be through the same means and rules that gave us the iPhone.
You seem to not realize that some people can't afford food and clothing, forget iphones.
I don't think you really understand what 'crushing' means. A household of two-well employed adults each making, on average, much more than the median person, having to pay 15-20k more is not 'crushing'. A single mother working 2 minimum wage jobs, barely able to afford food, forget health insurance for herself, if she can get it for her children, while social support is being eroded - that's crushing. The millions of homeless people, including millions of children - that's crushing. The kind of ignorance and egoism that comes with living a cushy life, having no problem with walking over the people below you just so that the softness of your condition isn't threatened is amazing.
"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of."
- Confucius
Did I tell the single mother to have kids? No! (In fact, I've given money recently to Planned Parenthood to preserve her right to choose a better life for herself.)
Half of people you label as "homeless" are in that state because of severe mental illnesses. Did I have _anything_ to do with causing anyone's schizophrenia? No! (In fact, I'm a tireless advocate for reforms to our mental health laws that will returns hundreds of thousands of people back to a state of safety and dignity.)
What about people that are "homeless" due to domestic violence, or bad luck? Nope, I didn't abuse anyone, and I've never caused anyone to have bad luck.
What I am against is a system where people that want to make a better life for themselves are blocked by unjust regulations. Think of someone whose passion is cooking, wants to start a new restaurant, but can't afford to buy $100,000 worth of commercial kitchen equipment required by today's laws. Or someone who wants to braid hair, but has to attend cosmetology school to learn to cut hair. Or someone that wants to work in software, but can't afford to live in the #1 city for it because NIMBYs have made it illegal to build new housing for decades.
All you want is to pile on more rules and schemes that already hold back people that want to make something more of their lives.
You live in a (somewhat) democratic system, you pay taxes and vote. Yes, you absolutely share responsibility.
> Half of people you label as "homeless" are in that state because of severe mental illnesses. Did I have _anything_ to do with causing anyone's schizophrenia? No!
But here you are speaking against measures that could help them because it might cost you a little money.
> What about people that are "homeless" due to domestic violence, or bad luck? Nope, I didn't abuse anyone, and I've never caused anyone to have bad luck.
Again, raising your hands and saying 'I had nothing to do with this problem, just let me ignore it.' is just disgusting, yes you weren't directly involved in these events, but don't fellow humans deserve compassion and empathy?
> What I am against is a system where people that want to make a better life for themselves are blocked by unjust regulations. Think of someone whose passion is cooking, wants to start a new restaurant, but can't afford to buy $100,000 worth of commercial kitchen equipment required by today's laws. Or someone who wants to braid hair, but has to attend cosmetology school to learn to cut hair. Or someone that wants to work in software, but can't afford to live in the #1 city for it because NIMBYs have made it illegal to build new housing for decades.
So you are against a system where the fairly-well-off face minor inconveniences, but people starving on the streets is a-okay? And, yes I agree that there are many stupid regulations that should be eliminated or at least reviewed, but most of these are not major issues, and many regulations are very valuable.
In a sense, I think the reason someone is poor is more important than the fact that they're poor at some given moment in time. I believe that a just system concerns itself with making it possible for those who desire more wealth and are able to earn it to do so, no matter what their present level of wealth is. For the remaining handful of people that don't fit into that category (and don't suffer from a grave mental illness)? Hey, no one is stopping you from helping them.
Mental health care facilities are a thing. Medication is a thing. Of course mentally ill homeless people cannot pay for these things themselves. This is where decent humans have to come together and help.
> In a sense, I think the reason someone is poor is more important than the fact that they're poor at some given moment in time.
Of course, and one of the main reasons people are poor is because they were born into a poor family, or otherwise disenfranchised condition. Class mobility in the US is basically a myth, because the social welfare including everything from child subsidies, education, food, living, healthcare is quite terrible and getting worse.
> I believe that a just system concerns itself with making it possible for those who desire more wealth and are able to earn it to do so
And one of the main factors here is for people to have the ability to get a good education, get healthcare, stay away from crime and drugs, have a certain amount of social and financial security and stability, etc. All of these things is not something a person is born with, these things either come from a well-off family or from the society. Some people manage to break into the upper classes from the lower classes, but these are very few and are the exceptions, not the rule.
Also, I don't really see how you can equate 'justness' of a system to it being able to allow those who want more wealth to get that wealth. That's basically saying 'a just system is where the greediest get the most.' - it's pretty ridiculous.
A just system is where all humans have the same human rights and the same opportunities irregardless of greed.
> Hey, no one is stopping you from helping them.
This is so childish... I don't even.
True, it is much lower when compared to the 19th century, when the economy was much freer (this is true despite the era's widespread racism and lower level of economic and technological development which manifested in longer hours, and poorer working conditions than those we enjoy today).
it's pretty ridiculous
Taking a different view than one you're accustomed to hearing, labeling it "greed" and calling it "pretty ridiculous" is not much of an argument.
I'm advocating for, "You want a better life? Earn it. Don't lie, cheat, steal, because those aren't going to help you get ahead (and if you can't figure that out, people have the moral right to their own lives, which gives the government the power to stop you.) Rather than envying those with more, make your own! You'd be surprised how capable you are if you just try."
What (besides rare case of a random and tragic accident) can stop people with that attitude? These days, it's high taxes, innovation-stifling regulations, and restrictions on and against immigrants.
Not sure what you are basing this on, I'm guessing on nothing.
> Taking a different view than one you're accustomed to hearing, labeling it "greed" and calling it "pretty ridiculous" is not much of an argument.
No ignoring my actual argument, and quoting 3 words from my conclusion is not much of an argument.
> You want a better life? Earn it... Rather than envying those with more, make your own!... You'd be surprised how capable you are if you just try.
I mean... this is so childishly naive and simplistic, a statement supporting a very unfair state of things - 'You want to have a better life? Go compete with that billionaire who has access to the highest levels of government, media, lobbying, etc.' It's like you didn't think about the socio-economic situation of the world at all.
> What (besides rare case of a random and tragic accident) can stop people with that attitude?
What about not being able to afford education? What about malnutrition? Not being treated for a debilitating disease or condition? Not having enough social and financial stability? Having to compete with people that do have all of these advantages? I already listed all of these things and you blissfully ignored them.
> These days, it's high taxes, innovation-stifling regulations, and restrictions on and against immigrants.
No, that's absolutely false, high taxes, 'innovation stifling regulations' whatever that means, and restrictions against immigrants have nothing to do with class mobility of lower class Americans. Absolutely nothing.
No just system can be formed on such a principle. No two humans will ever have equal opportunities, without destroying all progress, individuality, and justice (it is unjust that one person should be held responsible for the choices of others).
I've come to think that equality of opportunity is wrong, and the alternative that we should fight for is equality before the law. We should also strive to treat people as they deserve, based on their character, choices and actions.
Well, I mean you just said a bunch of things with no supporting arguments. And, since people affect those around them, including their choices, there absolutely is a share of responsibility for the choices of the people you affect such as your children.
> I've come to think that equality of opportunity is wrong
That happens when people try to justify why they deserve more than others based on nothing.
> and the alternative that we should fight for is equality before the law
That's not an alternative, that is something that is also required.
> We should also strive to treat people as they deserve, based on their character, choices and actions.
I guess you leave homeless people to die on the street because you intricately know their character, choices and actions, and based on those you decided that they deserve it?
The rich are growing richer and the wealth gap is deepening, is happens all the time until the lower classes can no longer stand the abuse and revolt, after which usually a subset of the upper classes gets power and makes minor concessions to calm the mob. Usually this is followed by increased propaganda and controls to prevent another revolt from happening which leads to the people losing more power. Most of the media and sources of information are already in the hands of the elite and allied with their interests, so revolts are less likely and usually easily suppressed. The cycle continues. A police state and an Elysium-style separation of the elite from the plebs seems closer every day. People find it easier to ignore the struggle and suffering of people far away or people they don't see, even the impoverished and homeless in their own cities, because the media mostly ignores them, but most don't realize that they will soon also be in this class of ignored, powerless beggars and the elite class will be better protected and more isolated, allowing them to ignore the problems of the lower classes even more.
This isn't something new - 'Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous' from the 1980s was based on this exact kind of excess.
Marxism's taking in lodgers now?
If anyone's revolting its the Greeks and the Spanish, not Americans. And not because of "the rich" but because the feel good socialism they can't pay for is destroying a generation of wealth, work, and prosperity.
HN/Reddit unicorns like Brazil, Russia, Finland, etc are also all underperforming:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-11/meet-2016-...
Gee, maybe low regulatory environments, easy access to investment cash, entrepreneur culture, freedom of speech, honest elections, a real judiciary, capital protections, etc matter to an economy? Naww, keep ignoring the facts.
because i would posit that out of the countries that are economically performing well outside of the united states almost none have: low regulatory environments, easy access to investment cash, entrepreneur culture, freedom of speech, honest elections, a real judiciary, capital protections
if we are going to say we need to focus on empirical evidence then I dont think this elements are as important as you are making them out to be...
Not true, real unemployment (ie including homeless people, people that are unable to work, etc.) is quite high and rising. Many people are just completely excluded from the 'official' unemployment statistics. Mean GDP per capita is fairly high BUT median, which is a much more important metric of wealth inequality, is quite low and decreasing relative to mean. Not sure why you listed household income and GDP per capita as different things even though they are basically the same for this purpose... and high human development index says nothing about revolt, in fact higher educated and well-read people that are economically disenfranchised tend to be more outspoken and interested in the wealth gap.
> And not because of "the rich" but because the feel good socialism they can't pay for is destroying a generation of wealth, work, and prosperity.
80% of the American public is essentially completely politically disenfranchised, for most people in the US the net income adjusted for inflation and increasing costs is decreasing.
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fi...
> And not because of "the rich" but because the feel good socialism they can't pay for is destroying a generation of wealth, work, and prosperity.
Greece and Spain are far from 'feel good socialism' compared to countries that are much closer such as Germany, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, where quality of life and happiness is regularly rated as higher than the US.
> Gee, maybe low regulatory environments, easy access to investment cash, entrepreneur culture, freedom of speech, honest elections, a real judiciary, capital protections, etc matter to an economy? Naww, keep ignoring the facts.
Literally none of those things conflicts with socialism, socialism actually helps many of those things. But I guess you heard the good ol 'socialism bad hurr durr' on fox news or whatever and suddenly feel that is a basis to justify your misguided beliefs.
> Gee, maybe low regulatory environments
Yeah, that worked out magnificently in 2008.
Every country reports unemployment similarly. The system we use has classes, so yes you can look at both U3 and U6 and the still the US comes out on top, if compared to the same class. The US's high employment rate is unquestionable, as much as you hate it and wish it to be worse.
>. Mean GDP per capita is fairly high BUT median, which is a much more important metric
Real Median Household Income is almost excactly the GDP per capita in the USA.
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/MEHOINUSA672N
https://www.google.com/search?q=gdp+per+capita+usa&ie=utf-8&...
>Greece and Spain are far from 'feel good socialism'
They absolutely are. Their programs are unaffordable, especially in Greece's case. The government is the biggest employer there and literally writes checks it cannot back because its bullied by the unions and leftist electorate to do so. Eventually you need to pay your bills and the Greeks simply cannot.
> Germany, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, where quality of life and happiness is regularly rated as higher than the US.
Because people are naturally racists and in ethnocentrist cultures people are happy. White loves white. Why is that a plus to you? Melting pot life will always have more strife. Also those countires are a fraction of the size of the USA. Denmark is a mere 5m people, about half of the Chicago metropolitan area. Compared that to a 330m juggernaut is silly. Sweden is about the population of the Chicago metropolitan area. Germany has a multi-payer health care system just like the US does, its much more to the right than the other countries you mentioned.
>Yeah, that worked out magnificently in 2008.
Every country has economic issues that come and go. The US has been the lead performer since WWII. We're seeing the destruction of Greece right now with no real way out. There's very different than the once in 30 years recession almost all economies suffer from. Your precious Germany had some bad dealings both political and economically in the 30s and 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s. I guess we arent allowed to talk about that ,but anything in the US's history is fair game, eh?
> I guess we arent allowed to talk about that
Acerbic asides like these degrade the discussions here and typically provoke much worse from others, as happened in this case. Please eliminate nastiness from what you post here, regardless of how right and wrong you or someone else's views may be.
First of all, U3 and U6 are both not real unemployment. They exclude a large portion of the population from the statistic, like I already said, but you seem to have no idea what I'm talking about. Real unemployment which is usually taken as the number of people above 16 who do not work is about 40% in the US. Yes, there are reasons why people in this large group should be separated for statistical purposes but this number is the real unemployment, IE the actual number of people who are not employed.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/record-94610...
> The US's high employment rate is unquestionable, as much as you hate it and wish it to be worse.
You're really trying to sound like an idiot aren't you?
> Real Median Household Income is almost excactly the GDP per capita in the USA.
So now you are comparing MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD (OFTEN TWO OR MORE PEOPLE COMBINED) income to AVERAGE PER CAPITA (SINGLE PERSON) income? Really? Embarrassing.
Here is what the real median vs average incomes look like:
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/central.html
http://qz.com/260269/painfully-american-families-are-learnin...
> They absolutely are. Their programs are unaffordable, especially in Greece's case.
So, your definition of 'feel good socialism' is 'they have unaffordable programs'? You amaze me with your depth of knowledge.
> Because people are naturally racists and in ethnocentrist cultures people are happy.
Sorry, go preach your NrX crap to the children over at /r/AnarchoCapitalism. It does not impress me.
> Denmark is a mere 5m people, about half of the Chicago metropolitan area.
How is that relevant, when their productive output is still dependent on their size?
> I guess we arent allowed to talk about that ,but anything in the US's history is fair game, eh?
You sound like an angry American redneck, who tries to yell 'Murica! Fuck yeah!' to whoever might hear you and try to defend America to people who don't have anything against the country in general and attack them with childish fallacious rants. All the while trying to cover up any issues that actually hurt American people. You are a brainwashed moron.
If you'd like this account not to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com. But please read the guidelines first:
[0]https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Steam_under_Linux
I work Ubuntu Based, Fedora, and Arch have had no issues on these.
No you haven't.