POLITICS & DONALD Annoying Orange MEGATHREAD

[beachbum111111]

How long are wait times in Emergency in the United States?

[Ad Bot]

[Tactical Nuke]

How long are wait times in Emergency in the United States?

I haven't had to find out thank God, but I hear they're better than in Canada.

[Red Spy]

I think I've posted this somewhere else, but like, a 'right' is just whatever we say a right is.

I thinks rights exist in the place of forcing other people into things. You have a right to free speech because I can't shut you up and I have a right to life because you can't shoot me in the richard. Declaring things rights that force other people to take part always get really risky

Access to immediate care at an emergency room wasn't always a right either

Dude I live in California ERs are packed like a McDonalds in Alabama

"I don't think poor people deserve access to a doctor".

It's amazing you can still form full sentences from all the autism you spew

How long are wait times in Emergency in the United States?

From personal experience it can range from 20 minutes to two hours

[Bisjac]

medical care is limited and it does cost someone money.
its irrelevant what "should" be, because appeasing feelings dont pay bills.

anyone who spouts crap about human rights should start offering solutions to why there are poor people to begin with. because handouts will never ever ever solve a problem. they only encourage the problems to worsen. i would happily see many poor people die in the streets before that lesson is rightly learned by everyone. because if its not, then we all will be dead in the streets in the end anyway. it runs out.

[LeisureSuit912]

To be fair, I understand it's not so easy to "get a better job", but healthcare is like a cell phone. It's a commodity, and even if the government is paying for it, it's still a service. You shouldn't be getting it free like all the super-socialist Sanders Democrat types say you should. By the same logic of "you need healthcare in this day and age to function", you could insinuate that you need food, electricity and housing, and not even Bernie will suggest that those be free.

Don't law enforcement fall under the umbrella of "service" too? Alright, forget that, let's privatize it. I don't want my taxes going to some bullstuff police officer to arrest a robber when it doesn't affect my life. By the way, when it comes to food, electricity and housing, you do pay for the farm subsidies that grow food, the public utilities commissions that run power infrastructure, and the public housing millions apply for every year through taxes, too.

There are better ways of lifting people out of poverty than creating more subsidies that incentivize learned helplessness. The poverty line was going down by a lot before the "War on Poverty" began and the government started subsidizing everything. It's literally fixing something that wasn't broken and then trying to fix your fix to the unbroken (now broken) thing with more fixes that require fixing. If you want to lower the cost of drugs, then deregulate the market so that researchers don't have to swim through absolute stuffting bureaucracy to find the cure to cancer. Not ever pharmaceutical worker is Martin Shkreli.

Yeah, definitely, leave the responsibility of uplifting the poor to the insurance and drug companies that literally don't give a stuff about you before their bottom line. That's the reality. All this talk about deregulating the market is a great way to continue rising inequalities between the poor and the rich. These companies are built for money to funnel up to the top.

[Tactical Nuke]

I think I've posted this somewhere else, but like, a 'right' is just whatever we say a right is.

Constitutional rights in the US exist to prevent a government takeover, not to cater to the populace. It's different in other countries because they don't have the history we do, where we've learned that the government shouldn't be given the kind of power they have in saying "you need to buy Obamacare", for example.

Yeah, definitely, leave the responsibility of uplifting the poor to the insurance and drug companies that literally don't give a stuff about you before their bottom line. That's the reality. All this talk about deregulating the market is a great way to continue rising inequalities between the poor and the rich. These companies are built for money to funnel up to the top.

Considering you said a while back that charity was draconian, thus we need government handouts, I'm extremely skeptical when you talk about economic inequality. Sorry.

[SeventhSandwich]

To be fair, I understand it's not so easy to "get a better job", but healthcare is like a cell phone. It's a commodity, and even if the government is paying for it, it's still a service. You shouldn't be getting it free like all the super-socialist Sanders Democrat types say you should. By the same logic of "you need healthcare in this day and age to function", you could insinuate that you need food, electricity and housing, and not even Bernie will suggest that those be free.

No. The reason why health care is not just another 'commodity' like a cell phone is because people literally die if they lack proper health care. Owning cell phone is not a bare necessity for life. It's definitely an important thing to own, but lack-of-cell-phones (excluding extreme cases) have never caused anyone to keel over dead.

I agree that not all necessities have to be paid for by the government, but think about this for a second: Only ~0.2% of people are homeless. People do manage to afford housing in the society we've created (and presumably electricity as well). Food is still a problem, but there are programs in place that help to fix food insecurity without necessarily making it 'free' for everyone'.

However, nearly a tenth of our population doesn't have health insurance. Ten percent is not isolated cases of people making bad decisions. It reflects a systemic problem with how our market system distributes life-saving medicine. We've used government intervention to fix the stufftier aspects of the market in the past, and we should definitely do it again with health insurance.

The poverty line was going down by a lot before the "War on Poverty" began and the government started subsidizing everything.

You mean the poverty line was going down after the single biggest economic boom in US history? I don't think it makes sense to blame subsidies for that. Baby boomers enjoyed a couple decades of postwar economic prosperity and then the bubble popped. That's about it.

If you want to lower the cost of drugs, then deregulate the market so that researchers don't have to swim through absolute stuffting bureaucracy to find the cure to cancer. Not ever pharmaceutical worker is Martin Shkreli.

I'm studying to be a medical researcher and this is not going to work. Martin Shkreli did not price gouge because his company was over-regulated, and he's definitely not some unique devil in the pharmaceutical industry. He owned a firm with the rights to the only approved antiparasitic treatment for Toxoplasmosis, and he hiked up the price to his firm's profit-maximizing price, which he was able to do because he holds a monopoly on Daraprim. This was not because he is evil (although he is evidently sociopathic),  it's because he was hired by a board of directors to make decisions that maximize the profit of his drug company. A CEO will always do this, no matter what, because they will get fired if they do not.

Constitutional rights in the US exist to prevent a government takeover, not to cater to the populace. It's different in other countries because they don't have the history we do, where we've learned that the government shouldn't be given the kind of power they have in saying "you need to buy Obamacare", for example.

I don't follow. What part of our history says that an individual healthcare mandate is bad?

[IkeTheGeneric]

anyone who spouts crap about human rights should start offering solutions to why there are poor people to begin with.

Medical costs, for one

[HellHound]

Medical costs, for one

don't forget communism too

[LeisureSuit912]

It's amazing you can still form full sentences from all the autism you spew

Is that it?

[SeventhSandwich]

I thinks rights exist in the place of forcing other people into things. You have a right to free speech because I can't shut you up and I have a right to life because you can't shoot me in the richard. Declaring things rights that force other people to take part always get really risky

I agree that there's a thin line we've got to walk on, but the fact of the matter is we have an established precedent of setting rights that do not merely stop other people from doing bad stuff.

This is just my opinion, but I think that guaranteeing a right to public education was a good thing for society. If you agree with that, then you shouldn't immediately disregard the idea of guaranteeing a right to healthcare without first weighing the actual pros and cons.

anyone who spouts crap about human rights should start offering solutions to why there are poor people to begin with. because handouts will never ever ever solve a problem. they only encourage the problems to worsen. i would happily see many poor people die in the streets before that lesson is rightly learned by everyone.

I have extreme disagreements with this theory that poor people are poor because they perpetually make bad decisions. If we agree that people are blank slates with completely free will, then you shouldn't ever see a cycle of poverty. It shouldn't matter whether someone's parents are poor or not, because, according to probability alone, they'll be just as likely to become middle-class as anyone else. But that's not the case.

[LeisureSuit912]

Considering you said a while back that charity was draconian, thus we need government handouts, I'm extremely skeptical when you talk about economic inequality. Sorry.

When did I ever say that? Or are you just pulling things out of your ass again?

[Red Spy]

But that's not the case.

This could be a good start

[SeventhSandwich]

This could be a good start

I'll read the article, but consider this for a second: What's the likelihood that the guy writing this article actually was poor and followed these rules to join the middle class? I'm not trying to discredit him right off the bat, but I'm sort of naturally suspicious of anyone that tries to give advice to people whose experiences they cannot possibly relate to.

[Red Spy]

I'll read the article, but consider this for a second: What's the likelihood that the guy writing this article actually was poor and followed these rules to join the middle class? I'm not trying to discredit him right off the bat, but I'm sort of naturally suspicious of anyone that tries to give advice to people whose experiences they cannot possibly relate to.

"You're not black so you can't talk"

forget off. Is there anything in the article that is actually incorrect?