Political Roundtable Part XXXIII

[Zonkerbl]

Not once was race brought up in that post. Criminals come in all colors and should be treated the same. All the ones I described spanned multiple races and both genders

Oh sure. It's just a coincidence that the large majority of them are black. Not intentional at all. Wink wink! Amiright?

[daoneandonly]

Not once was race brought up in that post. Criminals come in all colors and should be treated the same. All the ones I described spanned multiple races and both genders

Oh sure. It's just a coincidence that the large majority of them are black. Not intentional at all. Wink wink! Amiright?

You can play the race card for everything and anything; it's what you do, and your post history showcases it, and that's fine your prerogative. I don't care about race (or age for that matter) when it comes to the criminal justice system or what circumstances may have led someone to turn to a life of crime. There is zero reason or excuse to rationalize criminal behavior, zilch. People should be punished accordingly.

[AFM]

I'm the one who brought up race to be fair. Google says 72% of black kids are born to single mothers and 48% dont have a father in the household. Like I said the highest privilege one can have (outside of being healthy) is having two parents that raise you right.

Obviously this is a major problem.

[TGW]

"Universal healthcare" is running from responsiblity?

Seriously, that is such a WTF statement. People who say nonsense like this act like countries that have a universal healthcare system don't have a much better, robust, cost-efficient system than the US that their citizens love. My cousin in Canada said it was absurd to pay medical bills unless it's elective.

The fact that people go bankrupt over medical bills in the US is a joke. How is it running from responsibility if you or a loved one gets cancer and can't afford the treatment? Death panel for you, say conservatives.

[daoneandonly]

I'm the one who brought up race to be fair. Google says 72% of black kids are born to single mothers and 48% dont have a father in the household. Like I said the highest privilege one can have (outside of being healthy) is having two parents that raise you right.

Obviously this is a major problem.

But then, doing a deep dive, what's the reason for this? I for one cant imagine walking away from my kids. I don't know a guy in my orbit that would; that would be such a deadbeat. And while its a terrible thing for the adult to do, doesn't give any kid in that circumstance the license to break any laws or be a degenerate

[daoneandonly]

I've expressed multiple times the stance against universal healthcare. The ability to get appointments and procedures will take far longer than people experience know via the plan they're on through their employer

Once again, how is it fair for people paying 32, 35+% of their income in taxes to get the same exact coverage than those paying far less? Its not, at all

[Zonkerbl]

Not once was race brought up in that post. Criminals come in all colors and should be treated the same. All the ones I described spanned multiple races and both genders

Oh sure. It's just a coincidence that the large majority of them are black. Not intentional at all. Wink wink! Amiright?

You can play the race card for everything and anything; it's what you do, and your post history showcases it, and that's fine your prerogative. I don't care about race (or age for that matter) when it comes to the criminal justice system or what circumstances may have led someone to turn to a life of crime. There is zero reason or excuse to rationalize criminal behavior, zilch. People should be punished accordingly.

It's easy to turn to name calling and ad hominem attacks when your arguments are weak.

I'm playing the race card because your arguments are tired racist tropes that I've heard in this thread over and over again. You're a lazy thinker. Throwing people in jail is not the only way to deal with crime. In fact, it's empirically one of the most pointless strategies to stop crime. Which you would know if you spent any time at all studying this issue carefully rather than blundering in to this thread throwing a toddler temper tantrum about how much you hate stinkin liberals

[daoneandonly]

Oh sure. It's just a coincidence that the large majority of them are black. Not intentional at all. Wink wink! Amiright?

You can play the race card for everything and anything; it's what you do, and your post history showcases it, and that's fine your prerogative. I don't care about race (or age for that matter) when it comes to the criminal justice system or what circumstances may have led someone to turn to a life of crime. There is zero reason or excuse to rationalize criminal behavior, zilch. People should be punished accordingly.

It's easy to turn to name calling and ad hominem attacks when your arguments are weak.

I'm playing the race card because your arguments are tired racist tropes that I've heard in this thread over and over again. You're a lazy thinker. Throwing people in jail is not the only way to deal with crime. In fact, it's empirically one of the most pointless strategies to stop crime. Which you would know if you spent any time at all studying this issue carefully rather than blundering in to this thread throwing a toddler temper tantrum about how much you hate stinkin liberals

What name-calling did I turn to? Calling a criminal, umm, a criminal? It's actually the most basic logic in mankind: put a criminal in jail; guess what they can't do again? Commit a crime in society since they're, I don't know, in jail. Yeah, I see how that doesn't make sense. You can say it doesn't serve as a deterrence to others. That's debatable as I think swift and harsh punishments would. But there's no argument against putting one in jail preventing them from doing it again.

[TGW]

I've expressed multiple times the stance against universal healthcare. The ability to get appointments and procedures will take far longer than people experience know via the plan they're on through their employer

Once again, how is it fair for people paying 32, 35+% of their income in taxes to get the same exact coverage than those paying far less? Its not, at all

So you believe children and elderly who can't afford to go to a doctor should just die off. You can't pay, go away.

Yep, this is the conservative argument alright. Let's go back to the 1800s.

By the way, my wife and I are in the 37% tax bracket. I would rather my tax dollars go to accessible healthcare, instead of a system where children and old people get turned away.

On a side note, I have cadillac insurance. It's taken me over a month to find a new primary care doctor. Let that sink in.

[daoneandonly]

I've expressed multiple times the stance against universal healthcare. The ability to get appointments and procedures will take far longer than people experience know via the plan they're on through their employer

Once again, how is it fair for people paying 32, 35+% of their income in taxes to get the same exact coverage than those paying far less? Its not, at all

So you believe children and elderly who can't afford to go to a doctor should just die off. You can't pay, go away.

Yep, this is the conservative argument alright. Let's go back to the 1800s.

Children should be covered via their parents' plan, whether their employer, ACA, or whatever. The elderly can utilize Medicare or former employers who have plans for retirees. So, no one should die off; the dramatics are not needed to prove the point you believe in.

[TGW]

I've expressed multiple times the stance against universal healthcare. The ability to get appointments and procedures will take far longer than people experience know via the plan they're on through their employer

Once again, how is it fair for people paying 32, 35+% of their income in taxes to get the same exact coverage than those paying far less? Its not, at all

So you believe children and elderly who can't afford to go to a doctor should just die off. You can't pay, go away.

Yep, this is the conservative argument alright. Let's go back to the 1800s.

Children should be covered via their parents' plan, whether their employer, ACA, or whatever. The elderly can utilize Medicare or former employers who have plans for retirees. So, no one should die off; the dramatics are not needed to prove the point you believe in.

But according to your logic, parents shouldn't be required to have a plan, nor should employers have to pay it. So according to your logic, if your parents don't have insurance (and this is the case for millions of americans), should the children have access to healthcare? You're trying to make a personal responsiblity argument...well, how do you make that argument for a group of people who have to rely on others for access?

Oh btw, your side of the aisle is trying to gut medicare and medicaid.

[daoneandonly]

So you believe children and elderly who can't afford to go to a doctor should just die off. You can't pay, go away.

Yep, this is the conservative argument alright. Let's go back to the 1800s.

Children should be covered via their parents' plan, whether their employer, ACA, or whatever. The elderly can utilize Medicare or former employers who have plans for retirees. So, no one should die off; the dramatics are not needed to prove the point you believe in.

But according to your logic, parents shouldn't be required to have a plan, nor should employers have to pay it. So according to your logic, if your parents don't have insurance (and this is the case for millions of americans), should the children have access to healthcare?

Oh btw, your side of the aisle is trying to gut medicare and medicaid.

A parent's #1 duty is to do what's best for their kids and put their childrens' needs above their own. So, of course, that means insuring your kids so they will be taken care of. Your side also claims her body is her choice, the government should stay out of things between a doctor and patient, yet they should somehow pay for it. How does that make sense?

[Zonkerbl]

Alright, so to be fair, here's a study by an economist reported by NPR:

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2021/04/20/988769793/when-you-add-more-police-to-a-city-what-happens

On average, hiring extra cops tends to reduce murders in a cost effective way, through a deterrent effect by concentrating police presence in high crime neighborhoods.

However, there's an important caveat to this finding:

"The economists also find troubling evidence that suggests cities with the largest populations of Black people — like many of those in the South and Midwest — don't see the same policing benefits as the average cities in their study. Adding additional police officers in these cities doesn't seem to lower the homicide rate. Meanwhile, more police officers in these cities seems to result in even more arrests of Black people for low-level crimes. The authors believe it supports a narrative that "Black communities are simultaneously over and under-policed." The economists don't have a solid explanation for why bigger police forces appear to lead to worse outcomes in these cities, and they plan to investigate these findings more deeply in future research."

Spending money on cops in DC, Boston, New York - cost effective. Probably because these cities are in more liberal states that allow them to experiment with evidence based crime reduction techniques. Cities in the south that have Republican state governments meddling in local law enforcement to stick it to the libtards have much less effective police forces.

[TGW]

Children should be covered via their parents' plan, whether their employer, ACA, or whatever. The elderly can utilize Medicare or former employers who have plans for retirees. So, no one should die off; the dramatics are not needed to prove the point you believe in.

But according to your logic, parents shouldn't be required to have a plan, nor should employers have to pay it. So according to your logic, if your parents don't have insurance (and this is the case for millions of americans), should the children have access to healthcare?

Oh btw, your side of the aisle is trying to gut medicare and medicaid.

A parent's #1 duty is to do what's best for their kids and put their childrens' needs above their own. So, of course, that means insuring your kids so they will be taken care of. Your side also claims her body is her choice, the government should stay out of things between a doctor and patient, yet they should somehow pay for it. How does that make sense?

You didn't answer my question because you don't have a good response that doesn't make you look like a heartless conservative scumbag. I am not asking what parents should do.

If the parents are irresponsible i.e. not properly insuring the children, should the children have access to a doctor or not? It's that simple.

[daoneandonly]

But according to your logic, parents shouldn't be required to have a plan, nor should employers have to pay it. So according to your logic, if your parents don't have insurance (and this is the case for millions of americans), should the children have access to healthcare?

Oh btw, your side of the aisle is trying to gut medicare and medicaid.

A parent's #1 duty is to do what's best for their kids and put their childrens' needs above their own. So, of course, that means insuring your kids so they will be taken care of. Your side also claims her body is her choice, the government should stay out of things between a doctor and patient, yet they should somehow pay for it. How does that make sense?

You didn't answer my question because you don't have a good response that doesn't make you look like a heartless conservative scumbag. I am not asking what parents should do.

If the parents are irresponsible i.e. not properly insuring the children, should the children have access to a doctor or not? It's that simple.

Most Americans are insured. And no hospital is going to turn a kid in need away. So I don't need to answer such a ridiculous question, it's your imaginary reality to get free Healthcare at others' expense. Kids will get the care and their parents should be fitted the bill accordingly if they choose not to be insured

But please ignore my question like I did yours

[TGW]

A parent's #1 duty is to do what's best for their kids and put their childrens' needs above their own. So, of course, that means insuring your kids so they will be taken care of. Your side also claims her body is her choice, the government should stay out of things between a doctor and patient, yet they should somehow pay for it. How does that make sense?

You didn't answer my question because you don't have a good response that doesn't make you look like a heartless conservative scumbag. I am not asking what parents should do.

If the parents are irresponsible i.e. not properly insuring the children, should the children have access to a doctor or not? It's that simple.

Most Americans are insured. And no hospital is going to turn a kid in need away. So I don't need to answer such a ridiculous question, it's your imaginary reality to get free Healthcare at others' expense. Kids will get the care and their parents should be fitted the bill accordingly if they choose not to be insured

But please ignore my question like I did yours

26 million Americans are uninsured dude. But that's beside the point...you're trying to make a moral argument against universal healthcare (personal responsiblity), yet your argument completely folds when it comes to real life application. You're even touting medicare and the ACA Typical conservative illogical nonsense.

Anyway, you don't have to respond. I already know who you are.

[pancakes3]

this is really just the group check problem played out in real life.

person 1 didn't bring their wallet but still orders food.
person 2 only got a side salad.
person 3 ordered an entree and a glass of wine.
person 4 ordered 3 entrees and a bottle of wine for themselves.

bill comes.

if you split the bill evenly, that's not fair.
if you split the bill based on what you ordered, the rest of the group still needs to cover person 1's meal.
if you say that person 1 shouldn't have ordered, they're going to starve.
if you say that the group shouldn't have sat together in the first place, maybe, but that's the table you're sat at. you're stuck with them. the restaurant only seats you if there are 4 people.

person 3 despises person 1, and doesn't think that person 1 has any personal responsibility, and doesn't want to pay for him. complains loudly about how it's not fair. doesn't change the fact that the bill needs to be paid. person 3 apparently is ok with person 1 dying if they cannot come up with the money.

person 3 said that their parents were once in person 1's shoes, and went hungry for a few meals until they were able to come up with the money, and that nobody should pay for person 1's meal ever.

which works rhetorically and hypothetically. but what happens when person 1 isn't responsible? what happens when they aren't as industrious as person 3's parents? what happens when there are millions of person 1's? and they have kids? lots of them? practically? they will starve, and they will die. seems immoral to be bystanders while that happens.

it's easy to think about hypotheticals but what do you do when there's a person starving at the table? what happens when there's a homeless person freezing to death in their tent? can you just go to sleep at night, telling yourself that it's ok, just a consequence of their actions? is that what the bible teaches? is that what our humanity allows for

what happens when person 1 has an allergic reaction in the restaurant? who has the epipen? what if the restaurant charges $100 for an epipen? Does it require a vote between person 2, 3, and 4, as to how to split the bill for the epi pen while person 1 slowly dies in the background? does person 1 just become an indentured servant to the rest of the table until they can repay the $100? Or maybe the restaurant, by virtue of it being a restaurant that is serving the people, should just provide epi pens for its patrons? and that it would be paid for by the restaurant's profits, which are derived from diners paying their bills?

but now person 1 is mad that they're paying a little more for their meal because it's not EXACTLY how much the food cost because the restaurant had to raise prices by a little bit to pay for epipens.

but the real problem is that while yes, the restaurant is diverting a little bit of the profits to epipens, it is also appropriating trillions of dollars towards its neighborhood watch program.

and certain diners are not happy that the restaurant is letting in people who are not regulars, who take up tables, and speak loudly in different languages, and the seated diners want the bouncer out front to build a wall to stop new patrons from coming in, even though it's better for the restaurant to be busier, and there are lots of tables open. That doesn't sound enough, we should take these new patrons who are already seated, and deport them from the restaurant en masse until they enter the restaurant the "right way."

and the restaurant used to have a policy where white patrons and black patrons had different menus, and men and women had different menus, and hetero patrons had different menus from LGBTQ+, which was gotten rid of, but now the restaurant wants to reintroduce the separate menu system, and it's very apparent that the white, cisgender menu has all of the best food. and a system of redlining where white patrons got to sit at the best tables. and every so often a white patron would pull a gun out and shoot a black patron dead, and everyone just keeps eating their meals. and every so often, usually a white patron, would go on a mass killing spree, often in the kids' section, and about half of the patrons vehemently opposes a "no guns" policy for the restaurant.

and some patrons desperately want to keep the smoking section open, and not just keep open, but make the entire restaurant smoking despite (1) the air pollution; (2) electric vaping alternatives that do not pollute the air as much; and (3) it's been scientifically proven that all the smoking is actively making the restaurant significantly warmer and will continue to make it warmer.

just seems like a bad restaurant.

[doclinkin]

Da1:

I will say I appreciate that you’re not simply trolling like bs. But willing to stick around to argue a point even when you end up arguing against yourself.

I like that I’ve learned a bit about you from it. That your parents were poor and came from India and worked their way here first then took full advantage of the opportunities here to make a better life for you.

The Left’s argument is that those opportunities exist because of a society that works to provide a baseline of civilization. Sounds to me like you only disagree with where that baseline should be set.

You agree with the ACA requiring employers to provide health care to workers and their children. You cite Medicare and Medicaid providing healthcare for those unable to work.

You don’t like taxes coming out of your paycheck for things you don’t need. That your taxes pay for other people. But you do believe in public education etc. Things that provide a minimum of quality of life and opportunity for people here in the US that they might not get in a country that does not give those opportunities to all of its citizens.

You even seem to agree that when you argue about taxes you’re not talking about multimillionaires and billionaires but hard working successful people who end up carrying a larger load though they need it less.

I think our viewpoints are closer than you express. We can disagree on individual laws. Moral points of view vs science. Or whether there is equal justice under the law. But mostly we are just differing about where the bottom line should be drawn.

I have friends in an Indian community in DC and really appreciate how y’all look out for each other. If an old person is struggling you all show up to feed them and take them to doctors appointments. Family or not. You won’t let one of your own die without someone helping. Maybe that’s just the people I know. But I get the sense it is part of a larger sense of community responsibility. People banding together to help each other. And it is actually celebrated that the more successful you are the more you are able to help other people. The larger your house the larger a party you can throw. The better the food. For everybody.

That’s all the Left is arguing. That government should do the same. That we are all humans in an american community. And those with the biggest success are best able to give back. And shouldn’t try to hide behind loopholes to avoid it. To whom much is given much is expected. Billionaires and massive corporations should carry the largest share since the system has benefited them the most. They should fund the baseline of civilization.

The Left says the baseline should be protecting those who are most vulnerable. That taxes always will provide for things you might not use. But it’s like insurance. You never complain about not having to get a car insurance payout. You’re happy about never getting into a car accident. You don’t complain if you never need health insurance. You’re happy if you never need to pay a hospital bill with it.

Taxes are just civilization Insurance. Government is insurance against anyone’s mother having to squat over a hole. Society is insurance against injustice and cruelty.

If we disagree it’s that one side says: hey life is cruel and that’s just the way it is.

The other side says: let’s look out for the least of us so that it is not unnecessarily cruel if we can prevent it

Because we should be better than that. Because we can afford to be.

I’ll leave it to you to decide which side Jesus would agree with.

[AFM]

I will add that your question about "how is it fair that I pay more for someone else's healthcare" could be applied to almost all taxation.

I'm childless and went to a private university. Why do I have to pay taxes for other people's children to go to school?

My house has never caught on fire. I'm responsible and don't leave the stove on. Why do my taxes pay for the fire department?

You can repeat ad nauseum.

If you're looking for a personal benefit to covering other's healthcare cost, how about this--you get to live in a society where someone is less likely to put a gun to your head and ask for your wallet. Or one without homeless people everywhere, stepping over needles on the sidewalk. Again, medical debt is the number one reason for bankruptcy in america and it's partially why we have a homeless epidemic and crime higher than any other developed country.

I was just in Prague. A much poorer country than America. Didn't see a single guy sleeping on the sidewalk. Didn't hear a single police siren the entire week I was there. Coincidence? Maybe.


As long as we're quoting the bible, here's my favorite:

For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

That honestly sounds like something Eminem would write today that's legit #BARZ

[daoneandonly]

Da1:

I will say I appreciate that you’re not simply trolling like bs. But willing to stick around to argue a point even when you end up arguing against yourself.

I like that I’ve learned a bit about you from it. That your parents were poor and came from India and worked their way here first then took full advantage of the opportunities here to make a better life for you.

The Left’s argument is that those opportunities exist because of a society that works to provide a baseline of civilization. Sounds to me like you only disagree with where that baseline should be set.

You agree with the ACA requiring employers to provide health care to workers and their children. You cite Medicare and Medicaid providing healthcare for those unable to work.

You don’t like taxes coming out of your paycheck for things you don’t need. That your taxes pay for other people. But you do believe in public education etc. Things that provide a minimum of quality of life and opportunity for people here in the US that they might not get in a country that does not give those opportunities to all of its citizens.

You even seem to agree that when you argue about taxes you’re not talking about multimillionaires and billionaires but hard working successful people who end up carrying a larger load though they need it less.

I think our viewpoints are closer than you express. We can disagree on individual laws. Moral points of view vs science. Or whether there is equal justice under the law. But mostly we are just differing about where the bottom line should be drawn.

I have friends in an Indian community in DC and really appreciate how y’all look out for each other. If an old person is struggling you all show up to feed them and take them to doctors appointments. Family or not. You won’t let one of your own die without someone helping. Maybe that’s just the people I know. But I get the sense it is part of a larger sense of community responsibility. People banding together to help each other. And it is actually celebrated that the more successful you are the more you are able to help other people. The larger your house the larger a party you can throw. The better the food. For everybody.

That’s all the Left is arguing. That government should do the same. That we are all humans in an american community. And those with the biggest success are best able to give back. And shouldn’t try to hide behind loopholes to avoid it. To whom much is given much is expected. Billionaires and massive corporations should carry the largest share since the system has benefited them the most. They should fund the baseline of civilization.

The Left says the baseline should be protecting those who are most vulnerable. That taxes always will provide for things you might not use. But it’s like insurance. You never complain about not having to get a car insurance payout. You’re happy about never getting into a car accident. You don’t complain if you never need health insurance. You’re happy if you never need to pay a hospital bill with it.

Taxes are just civilization Insurance. Government is insurance against anyone’s mother having to squat over a hole. Society is insurance against injustice and cruelty.

If we disagree it’s that one side says: hey life is cruel and that’s just the way it is.

The other side says: let’s look out for the least of us so that it is not unnecessarily cruel if we can prevent it

Because we should be better than that. Because we can afford to be.

I’ll leave it to you to decide which side Jesus would agree with.

I, too, appreciate your take, doc, I always have. You wrote this far more eloquently than I could ever hope to.

Yes the Indian community I grew up in very much encompasses what you saw. I've seen them rally behind the sick, bereaved, etc. truly special to join and be a part of. I think where it differs in terms of this conversation is knowledge and the choice to provide that help and how much. Yes, if we're able, by God's grace, we'll bring food over, take care of cleaning/laundry, and spend time with those. I say knowledge because they're aware of the circumstances and have a desire to help, and can determine exactly how much goes into that. On the universal healthcare and other things funded by taxes, that's not the case. To me, the money we've worked hard for, at jobs we dont particularly like nonetheless, isnt going to my kids, nieces/nephews, St.Judes/Shriners/Operation Smile, its going to who knows what. It could very well be helping people who are taking advantage of the system, or heck, even the people who I described in an earlier post that committed crimes against my loved ones.

I think more can be done to really pinpoint who out there truly needs help because of circumstances they could not control or overcome versus people who are more than able to provide everything they need in life but don't or expect more. I feel like "looking out for the least" is children, particularly a baby, when it comes to the abortion side. The vast majority of America (and probably the world) seem to disagree. But I think this country affords its people ample opportunity to lift themselves from the "guttermost to the uttermost," as I've heard many Indian people describe their lives. I've seen it, so I cant just brush it off as some feel good story that is not reality.

But again, thanks for your friendly response. While we do disagree, it's still an important conversation, and it's nice to have it without being called racist or heartless.