Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Its not really an economic wave, its one of those quirks we have seen under Obama as well. Clinton did 3.8% on average, Obama did 2% and Trump is doing just under 3% on an economic upswing already in progress before he took office. Of course with the tariffs slamming down that 3% average might go down. He is actually at the bottom of the pack performance wise for a president starting his term in an upswing. Of course facts have never gotten in the way of a good rally.
As I expressed in a previous post, true Trumpists don't give a crap about facts. Whatever "facts" against Trump come into the light of day, they are hand-waved away with several excuses:
1. it's only what everyone does (locker room talk.)
2. The Democrats do it too. (Defrauding charities -- this is a lie of course but Trumpists believe it.)
3. I don't care.
4. Fake media.
What will be interesting is if it does actually come about that Trump is prosecuted (impeached, whatever) for illegal collusion with the Russian government to fix the election, what percentage of Trumpists will change their mind. We already know it won't be 100%.
For many, it will cement their belief that there really is a shadowy liberal Deep State. Somehow a vast conspiracy involving thousands of actors is more plausible than one sleazy criminal con artist being a sleazy criminal con artist.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Disciple of Fate wrote: Its not really an economic wave, its one of those quirks we have seen under Obama as well. Clinton did 3.8% on average, Obama did 2% and Trump is doing just under 3% on an economic upswing already in progress before he took office. Of course with the tariffs slamming down that 3% average might go down. He is actually at the bottom of the pack performance wise for a president starting his term in an upswing. Of course facts have never gotten in the way of a good rally.
As I expressed in a previous post, true Trumpists don't give a crap about facts. Whatever "facts" against Trump come into the light of day, they are hand-waved away with several excuses:
1. it's only what everyone does (locker room talk.)
2. The Democrats do it too. (Defrauding charities -- this is a lie of course but Trumpists believe it.)
3. I don't care.
4. Fake media.
What will be interesting is if it does actually come about that Trump is prosecuted (impeached, whatever) for illegal collusion with the Russian government to fix the election, what percentage of Trumpists will change their mind. We already know it won't be 100%.
Of course, this is the party that went "feth your libby feelings" while also saying "my feelings are as important as your facts". If you want to know just look at how many changed their opinions on Clinton after all those Benghazi hearings ended up with nothing, there is your answer in a nutshell.
For many, it will cement their belief that there really is a shadowy liberal Deep State. Somehow a vast conspiracy involving thousands of actors is more plausible than one sleazy criminal con artist being a sleazy criminal con artist.
Its the 9/11 conspiracy theory for the next generation.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/27 19:03:02
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
I'm voting for Dwayne Johnson if he runs for president. He said he was considering it. You honestly thing Trump could defeat the rock?
I am almost certain though that the dems are going to run Kanye.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/27 19:19:10
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Disciple of Fate wrote: I wonder how people are going to buy robots to take care of them when those same robots have made their jobs obsolete. Is it magic money or socialist reform?
Yes I think so. I think we will hit a tipping point were that subsistence allowance becomes very necessary because such a large percentage will need. Then it'll just be tacked onto the national debt or something.
I don't know if that will count as socialism or not. But that change will probably be something no one can argue against at that point. I would say that there are a cross section of jobs that when they are fully automated, it'll be time. Which is where it gets strange. If we have this influx of labor and those labor jobs go away, granted a lot of them probably wont, then what? If I recall the next job to worry about is trucking.
If we had a government that was more trustworthy I would encourage more Americans to join the military until that was out given profession. (Just something I have thought off an on over the years.)
We're unlikely to ever have UBI. If we reach a point where so many people are unemployed we need to institute UBI it will already be too late to save the current system and we'll have to hope that we can successfully create a society that no longer uses money as we know it.
The labor participation rate hit a plateau hovering around 63% since 2014 which was preceding by a fairly steady decline from 66% in 2008 and an all time high of 67.3% in 2000. The stock market is going up, the economy is on a post recession upswing but we're not seeing an increase in people participating in the workforce. Typically recessions are fueled by job growth and wage growth as companies compete for workers as they expand in a growth period but that's not happening now.
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000
There are 255 million people in the civilian noninstitutional population, 160.2 million in the labor force, 153.25 million employed (96%) with 6.964 million unemployed (4%) and 94.75 million people not participating in the labor force.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
The poverty line for a single individual in the US is an annual income of $12,140 with an increase of $4,320 for each additional person in a household.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
If we want UBI to provide a basic poverty level existence for people that's $12,140 per person per year spent by the Federal govt. Only counting the adults not participating in the labor force as qualifying for UBI that's a total annual expense of $115,026,500,000 so a bit over $115 billion. Of course that's not counting any dependents those people might have and that's not including everyone participating in the labor force so it's not a very universal UBI. If we wanted UBI to mean that the government is providing everyone with enough money to live a minimal poverty line existence that would cost #3,095,700,000,000 so that's $3 trillion dollars to give every working age adult in the US a poverty level existence excluding any dependents they might have.
https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines
The current Federal government expenditures are $4.1 trillion annually so UBI For working age adults would be roughly a 75% increase in Federal spending annually. Current Federal revenues are $3.3 trillion so we would need an almost 100% increase in Federal revenues just to pay for UBI.
https://www.cbo.gov/topics/budget
If we didn't want to double Federal revenues to pay for UBI, if the government just created the $3 trillion dollars for UBI that would cause hyperinflation and wreck the economy even more (of course if tens of millions of people dropped out of the labor pool due to increased automation our consumer based economy would already be in bad shape).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation
Hyperinflation occurs when there is a continuing (and often accelerating) rapid increase in the amount of money that is not supported by a corresponding growth in the output of goods and services.
Futurists like to talk about UBI alleviating the destruction of jobs by automation in the future but they aren't very good at explaining how we'd fund it.
..imagine the horror of a world in which people's children were both educated and healthy !
But will we have a chicken in every pot too?
Sure every child deserves healthcare and education but how will the government guarantee that?
Rural areas have a dwindling population that is increasingly too sparse to justify keeping hospitals and clinics open in rural areas. Is the government going to pay to keep hospitals open and operating at a loss to provide healthcare to rural areas?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/17/us/hospital-closing-missouri-pregnant.html
Medical help is growing dangerously distant for women in rural America. At least 85 rural hospitals — about 5 percent of the country’s total — have closed since 2010, and obstetric care has faced even starker cutbacks as rural hospitals calculate the hard math of survival, weighing the cost of providing 24/7 delivery services against dwindling birthrates, doctor and nursing shortages and falling revenues.
Today, researchers estimate that fewer than half of the country’s rural counties still have a hospital that offers obstetric care, an absence that adds to the obstacles rural women face in getting health care. Specialists are increasingly clustered in bigger cities. Clinics that provide abortions, long-term birth control and other reproductive services have been forced to close in many smaller towns.
A quality education is vital for children but NYC, where Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez is from has had infamously bad public schools for decades. What is the plan to fix poorly performing public schools in urban and rural areas? It can't just be that our public school system of government run schools financed through taxes levied on the public just isn't socialist enough, whatever that means.
What constitutes a living wage? What does the minimal human right level of compensation and standard of living include? Different locations have different costs of living and standards of living can be extremely subjective. How do we define and enforce a living wage standard across multiple municipalities and states for millions of people with different needs and households? How do we do we make a private sector that will always have a hierarchy of jobs that contribute different amounts of value to a company and are done by people who exhibit different levels of competency and proficiency flatten out and be more socialist? Do we want to?
If it's the government's job to make sure that all of this is provided does that mean the government will subsidize me and spend money to increase my wages, cover my healthcare expense and pay for my housing? How will that be funded? Will it be means tested? If the government is going to provide a living wage, housing and healthcare will it require me to accept the manner in which it's provided? We already have government housing projects throughout the US, they are routinely unpleasant places to live. Is the government's socialist solution going to require me and my family to live in a government housing project that includes a government run hospital to provide healthcare and a government run school to educate my kids while giving us a government determined level of income complete with a standard of living created via government provided amenities? I probably won't need or be allowed to own private transportation since everything I need while be provided for me by the government in the government run community and if I need to go somewhere I can use the government provided public transportation system. I am sure it will be a wonderful socialist utopia and it will only cost me all of the freedoms I currently enjoy. Actually, that utopia sounds just like a classic dystopian future, ironic, no?
Well at least Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez isn't just a pretty face pandering to voters with empty promises, no sir, she has clearly thought through these complicated issues and is well versed with their nuances...
In an appearance on PBS' Fire Line last week, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the socialist Democratic nominee for a New York City Congressional seat that unemployment is low "because everyone has two jobs."
Ocasio-Cortez's assertion was ranked "pants on fire" wrong by Politifact.
MARGARET HOOVER, HOST: Do you think that capitalism has failed to deliver for working-class Americans or is no longer the best vehicle for working-class Americans?
ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: Well, I think the numbers that you just talked about is part of the problem, right?
Because we look at these figures, and we say, ‘Oh, unemployment is low. Everything is fine,’ right?
Well, unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs.
Unemployment is low because people are working 60, 70, 80 hours a week and can barely feed their kids.
And so, I do think that, right now, when we have this no-holds-barred, Wild West hypercapitalism, what that means is profit at any cost.
Socialised healthcare and education would be a piece of cake for the world's richest country. The financial logistics would be a breeze. The political will is the roadblock.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
..imagine the horror of a world in which people's children were both educated and healthy !
But will we have a chicken in every pot too?
Sure every child deserves healthcare and education but how will the government guarantee that?
Rural areas have a dwindling population that is increasingly too sparse to justify keeping hospitals and clinics open in rural areas. Is the government going to pay to keep hospitals open and operating at a loss to provide healthcare to rural areas?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/17/us/hospital-closing-missouri-pregnant.html
Medical help is growing dangerously distant for women in rural America. At least 85 rural hospitals — about 5 percent of the country’s total — have closed since 2010, and obstetric care has faced even starker cutbacks as rural hospitals calculate the hard math of survival, weighing the cost of providing 24/7 delivery services against dwindling birthrates, doctor and nursing shortages and falling revenues.
Today, researchers estimate that fewer than half of the country’s rural counties still have a hospital that offers obstetric care, an absence that adds to the obstacles rural women face in getting health care. Specialists are increasingly clustered in bigger cities. Clinics that provide abortions, long-term birth control and other reproductive services have been forced to close in many smaller towns.
A quality education is vital for children but NYC, where Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez is from has had infamously bad public schools for decades. What is the plan to fix poorly performing public schools in urban and rural areas? It can't just be that our public school system of government run schools financed through taxes levied on the public just isn't socialist enough, whatever that means.
What constitutes a living wage? What does the minimal human right level of compensation and standard of living include? Different locations have different costs of living and standards of living can be extremely subjective. How do we define and enforce a living wage standard across multiple municipalities and states for millions of people with different needs and households? How do we do we make a private sector that will always have a hierarchy of jobs that contribute different amounts of value to a company and are done by people who exhibit different levels of competency and proficiency flatten out and be more socialist? Do we want to?
If it's the government's job to make sure that all of this is provided does that mean the government will subsidize me and spend money to increase my wages, cover my healthcare expense and pay for my housing? How will that be funded? Will it be means tested? If the government is going to provide a living wage, housing and healthcare will it require me to accept the manner in which it's provided? We already have government housing projects throughout the US, they are routinely unpleasant places to live. Is the government's socialist solution going to require me and my family to live in a government housing project that includes a government run hospital to provide healthcare and a government run school to educate my kids while giving us a government determined level of income complete with a standard of living created via government provided amenities? I probably won't need or be allowed to own private transportation since everything I need while be provided for me by the government in the government run community and if I need to go somewhere I can use the government provided public transportation system. I am sure it will be a wonderful socialist utopia and it will only cost me all of the freedoms I currently enjoy. Actually, that utopia sounds just like a classic dystopian future, ironic, no?
Well at least Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez isn't just a pretty face pandering to voters with empty promises, no sir, she has clearly thought through these complicated issues and is well versed with their nuances...
In an appearance on PBS' Fire Line last week, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the socialist Democratic nominee for a New York City Congressional seat that unemployment is low "because everyone has two jobs."
Ocasio-Cortez's assertion was ranked "pants on fire" wrong by Politifact.
MARGARET HOOVER, HOST: Do you think that capitalism has failed to deliver for working-class Americans or is no longer the best vehicle for working-class Americans?
ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: Well, I think the numbers that you just talked about is part of the problem, right?
Because we look at these figures, and we say, ‘Oh, unemployment is low. Everything is fine,’ right?
Well, unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs.
Unemployment is low because people are working 60, 70, 80 hours a week and can barely feed their kids.
And so, I do think that, right now, when we have this no-holds-barred, Wild West hypercapitalism, what that means is profit at any cost.
What is wrong with hospitals in low pop areas operating at a loss to ensure proper healthcare is provided to citizens?
Prestor Jon wrote: Is the government's socialist solution going to require me and my family to live in a government housing project that includes a government run hospital to provide healthcare and a government run school to educate my kids while giving us a government determined level of income complete with a standard of living created via government provided amenities? I probably won't need or be allowed to own private transportation since everything I need while be provided for me by the government in the government run community and if I need to go somewhere I can use the government provided public transportation system. I am sure it will be a wonderful socialist utopia and it will only cost me all of the freedoms I currently enjoy. Actually, that utopia sounds just like a classic dystopian future, ironic, no?
Yes, making sure that everyone has a home, access to transportation wherever they wish to go, food, healthcare and education will rob you of your freedom to... not have those things? You're presenting a scenario in which you say that all of your needs will be met and expect us to worry about it.
feeder wrote: Socialised healthcare and education would be a piece of cake for the world's richest country. The financial logistics would be a breeze. The political will is the roadblock.
B-but what would we do without the aircraft carrier we could build with that money? Don't you know we need that aircraft carrier to protect democracy!? Why, without that new B-21 bomber we'll be totally defenseless!
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/07/27 23:10:17
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
Prestor Jon wrote: Is the government's socialist solution going to require me and my family to live in a government housing project that includes a government run hospital to provide healthcare and a government run school to educate my kids while giving us a government determined level of income complete with a standard of living created via government provided amenities? I probably won't need or be allowed to own private transportation since everything I need while be provided for me by the government in the government run community and if I need to go somewhere I can use the government provided public transportation system. I am sure it will be a wonderful socialist utopia and it will only cost me all of the freedoms I currently enjoy. Actually, that utopia sounds just like a classic dystopian future, ironic, no?
Yes, making sure that everyone has a home, access to transportation wherever they wish to go, food, healthcare and education will rob you of your freedom to... not have those things? You're presenting a scenario in which you say that all of your needs will be met and expect us to worry about it.
They will be met only on the condition to submit tail to govt control over your life which is a very high price to pay for subsistence living.
Prestor Jon wrote: Rural areas have a dwindling population that is increasingly too sparse to justify keeping hospitals and clinics open in rural areas. Is the government going to pay to keep hospitals open and operating at a loss to provide healthcare to rural areas?
Yes?
Dreadwinter wrote: What is wrong with hospitals in low pop areas operating at a loss to ensure proper healthcare is provided to citizens?
If you suggested that the Pentagon needs to turn a profit the way conservatives demand the Postal Service should, people would act like it's the craziest idea ever. It's weird. The idea that the 12th richest country in the world somehow can't afford to do what Norway has been doing for over 100 years is ludicrous.
We don't want to. Be honest.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/27 23:33:48
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
feeder wrote: Socialised healthcare and education would be a piece of cake for the world's richest country. The financial logistics would be a breeze. The political will is the roadblock.
B-but what would we do without the aircraft carrier we could build with that money? Don't you know we need that aircraft carrier to protect democracy!? Why, without that new B-21 bomber we'll be totally defenseless!
Spending money we don’t have on aircraft carriers we don’t need is not a great idea. Spending money we don’t have on healthcare we do need is still running deficits spending money we don’t have which isn’t sustainable in the long run no matter how much good is done with the spending.
If people are healthier, they are gonna work more, and pay more in taxes, in theory at least. There definitely is a benefit to having healthier people in society as opposed to not, that is tangible and felt in the bottom line.
Let's not forget that other countries have implemented these systems and are relatively successful. Of course, there are examples of where it doesn't work (many formerly 3rd world countries, etc.) but they have a whole host of other problems.
The problem isn't necessarily money (or lack thereof), since we've seen these systems implemented in other countries as well, but rather a cultural one.
Prestor Jon wrote: Spending money we don’t have on healthcare we do need is still running deficits spending money we don’t have which isn’t sustainable in the long run no matter how much good is done with the spending.
And somehow, despite our braying about "American Exceptionalism", we're not able to pull of the logisitical feats Albania was able to handle.
Spoiler:
It is impossible to look at this map and say with any degree of honesty that universal healthcare is not possible economically.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
..imagine the horror of a world in which people's children were both educated and healthy !
But will we have a chicken in every pot too?
Sure every child deserves healthcare and education but how will the government guarantee that?
Rural areas have a dwindling population that is increasingly too sparse to justify keeping hospitals and clinics open in rural areas. Is the government going to pay to keep hospitals open and operating at a loss to provide healthcare to rural areas?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/17/us/hospital-closing-missouri-pregnant.html
Medical help is growing dangerously distant for women in rural America. At least 85 rural hospitals — about 5 percent of the country’s total — have closed since 2010, and obstetric care has faced even starker cutbacks as rural hospitals calculate the hard math of survival, weighing the cost of providing 24/7 delivery services against dwindling birthrates, doctor and nursing shortages and falling revenues.
Today, researchers estimate that fewer than half of the country’s rural counties still have a hospital that offers obstetric care, an absence that adds to the obstacles rural women face in getting health care. Specialists are increasingly clustered in bigger cities. Clinics that provide abortions, long-term birth control and other reproductive services have been forced to close in many smaller towns.
A quality education is vital for children but NYC, where Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez is from has had infamously bad public schools for decades. What is the plan to fix poorly performing public schools in urban and rural areas? It can't just be that our public school system of government run schools financed through taxes levied on the public just isn't socialist enough, whatever that means.
What constitutes a living wage? What does the minimal human right level of compensation and standard of living include? Different locations have different costs of living and standards of living can be extremely subjective. How do we define and enforce a living wage standard across multiple municipalities and states for millions of people with different needs and households? How do we do we make a private sector that will always have a hierarchy of jobs that contribute different amounts of value to a company and are done by people who exhibit different levels of competency and proficiency flatten out and be more socialist? Do we want to?
If it's the government's job to make sure that all of this is provided does that mean the government will subsidize me and spend money to increase my wages, cover my healthcare expense and pay for my housing? How will that be funded? Will it be means tested? If the government is going to provide a living wage, housing and healthcare will it require me to accept the manner in which it's provided? We already have government housing projects throughout the US, they are routinely unpleasant places to live. Is the government's socialist solution going to require me and my family to live in a government housing project that includes a government run hospital to provide healthcare and a government run school to educate my kids while giving us a government determined level of income complete with a standard of living created via government provided amenities? I probably won't need or be allowed to own private transportation since everything I need while be provided for me by the government in the government run community and if I need to go somewhere I can use the government provided public transportation system. I am sure it will be a wonderful socialist utopia and it will only cost me all of the freedoms I currently enjoy. Actually, that utopia sounds just like a classic dystopian future, ironic, no?
Well at least Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez isn't just a pretty face pandering to voters with empty promises, no sir, she has clearly thought through these complicated issues and is well versed with their nuances...
In an appearance on PBS' Fire Line last week, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the socialist Democratic nominee for a New York City Congressional seat that unemployment is low "because everyone has two jobs."
Ocasio-Cortez's assertion was ranked "pants on fire" wrong by Politifact.
MARGARET HOOVER, HOST: Do you think that capitalism has failed to deliver for working-class Americans or is no longer the best vehicle for working-class Americans?
ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: Well, I think the numbers that you just talked about is part of the problem, right?
Because we look at these figures, and we say, ‘Oh, unemployment is low. Everything is fine,’ right?
Well, unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs.
Unemployment is low because people are working 60, 70, 80 hours a week and can barely feed their kids.
And so, I do think that, right now, when we have this no-holds-barred, Wild West hypercapitalism, what that means is profit at any cost.
What is wrong with hospitals in low pop areas operating at a loss to ensure proper healthcare is provided to citizens?
Nothing is wrong with it but the State cannot compel a private healthcare company to operate at a loss or seize control of a private hospital. The state can operate their own hospital but they need to allocate the funds to do so and most states don’t have money to spend on hospitals that lose money.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/28 00:00:02
Healthcare and education should be a loss to the goverment. You shouldn't make money from education and healthcare. For that a country has commerce, industry, etc... If I'm paying taxes is exactly to have things like healthcare, education, etc... because even if I'm the healthiest person in the world and never becomes sick or I'm a self-made man and never did go to school, I'm being benefited by living in a healthier country where people is educated. Less crime rates, better places to live, my workers (If I have any) will be healthier, etc...
Is just so backwards to think about "Do you know what should be our priority in regards to having a healthy population that works more, doesn't suffers pandemics, and doesn't has people dying on their beds alone? To gain money doing it"
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/07/28 00:00:49
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
Galas wrote: Healthcare and education should be a loss to the goverment. You shouldn't make money from education and healthcare. For that a country has commerce, industry, etc...
Is just so backwards to think about "Do you know what should be our priority in regards to having a healthy population that works more, doesn't suffers pandemics, and doesn't has people dying on their beds alone? To gain money doing it"
The state doesn’t make a profit from public education or healthcare but states have to fund those expenditures with revenue streams and the amount of revenue that can be collected is finite.
Galas wrote: Healthcare and education should be a loss to the goverment. You shouldn't make money from education and healthcare. For that a country has commerce, industry, etc...
Is just so backwards to think about "Do you know what should be our priority in regards to having a healthy population that works more, doesn't suffers pandemics, and doesn't has people dying on their beds alone? To gain money doing it"
The state doesn’t make a profit from public education or healthcare but states have to fund those expenditures with revenue streams and the amount of revenue that can be collected is finite.
I agree and I'm sure theres hundreds of other expenses that any goverment in the world could cut before reducing something as needed and basic has healthcare and education.
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
Prestor Jon wrote: Spending money we don’t have on healthcare we do need is still running deficits spending money we don’t have which isn’t sustainable in the long run no matter how much good is done with the spending.
And somehow, despite our braying about "American Exceptionalism", we're not able to pull of the logisitical feats Albania was able to handle.
Spoiler:
It is impossible to look at this map and say with any degree of honesty that universal healthcare is not possible economically.
There are 100 million Americans with diabetes or prediabetes. Average cost of treatment of diabetes over a persons lifetime is $85k. If the government is going to foot the bill for that treatment we need a revenue stream to pay for it. And that’s just one example of one health condition. I’m not saying that having universal healthcare would be bad or that I don’t want the US to have it but I’ve yet to see a practical plan for paying for it.
Well, modern world works with debt. Theres no real reason to use "We can't pay for it" as an argument agaisnt something as universal and "free" (You still pay taxes) healthcare. Debt will never be payed. The system will collapse at some point, thats why most countries know this and they just try to evade it as long as possible ,running forwards.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/07/28 00:15:13
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
Galas wrote: Healthcare and education should be a loss to the goverment. You shouldn't make money from education and healthcare. For that a country has commerce, industry, etc...
Is just so backwards to think about "Do you know what should be our priority in regards to having a healthy population that works more, doesn't suffers pandemics, and doesn't has people dying on their beds alone? To gain money doing it"
The state doesn’t make a profit from public education or healthcare but states have to fund those expenditures with revenue streams and the amount of revenue that can be collected is finite.
I agree and I'm sure theres hundreds of other expenses that any goverment in the world could cut before reducing something as needed and basic has healthcare and education.
Yes that’s true and I’m sure that’s a huge number of programs and expenditures that you and I would agree could/should be cut to make room in the budget for better education and healthcare systems and outcomes but there’s a constituency behind every dollar the govt spends and it’s is nigh impossible to convince voters and politicians to cut spending. There’s better uses for our money than subsidizing soy farmers but that won’t stop it from happening.
Prestor Jon wrote: There are 100 million Americans with diabetes or prediabetes. Average cost of treatment of diabetes over a persons lifetime is $85k. If the government is going to foot the bill for that treatment we need a revenue stream to pay for it.
There are no medical conditions I am aware of that only apply to Americans. I am sure there are Albananians with diabetes too, and somehow they make it work despite having a GDP equivalent to a third of Vermont.
It is a matter of political will.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/07/28 00:15:50
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
1750 pts Blood Specters
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Bonespitta's Badmoons 1441 pts. 
