Comments by "LancesArmorStriking" (@LancesArmorStriking) on "Actual Justice Warrior" channel.

jack lumsden ?? You won't be turned away, but you will be billed afterwards. Just because you can't pay now, the reasoning goes, doesn't mean you can't finance your bill! People deliberately avoid taking the ambulance to a hospital because that alone can bankrupt them.
16
@robertkleiman Lmao, you're equating Nixon's presidency to now? It's true— the U.S. brought China out of Maoism and into capitalism. But the Americans were stupid enough to believe that free trade would magically bring democracy. That's the problem with Americans; too naive and self-infatuated. Afghanistan and Iraq will magically get democracy after we show up and install our government! That's not even the point. It's not the '60s anymore, and no U.S. company will ever come back once they've tasted foreign labor. In fact, there's a new trend, now that China is modernizing— Southeast Asia! Vietnam and Indonesia will be the new China. And after that, India! Then Africa! After that, robots will likely do the work. Jobs are never coming back to America. Sorry, man. It's too expensive. No amount of patriotism will convince shareholders to pay exorbitant amounts for workers who already don't like manual labor. Capitalism and nationalism are like oil and water. There's nothing a company loves for profits like overseas labor. And China is more powerful than you think. A much, much larger domestic market than the U.S. and the most fertile tracts of land on Earth ensure that if you cut them off completely, China would still survive. After all, they did for 1,000 years. The Europeans were the ones who came looking for trade routes to them, not the other way around. And if China's manufacturing "means nothing," why is the U.S. bidding with other countries for masks produced in China? Shouldn't America be all-powerful and not rely on another country?? China already bought IBM and makes BJI's drones, Oppo, Vivo, OnePlus, Xiaomi, Huawei, and on and on. It does produce its own things, and will only get more prolific with time. What a joke you and your ideas are. Open your eyes. The Dragon is waking up, and it'll be everything you think you are right now, but with an extra billion people to boot. For shits and giggles.
2
@steveng6704 Even if it isn't, I think the economic security (and increased productivity) of 40M people will be a boon to the economy more than the money saved by just letting them go uninsured, rack up expensive medical procedure debts, and/or die.
1
@annatardlordofderps9181 Sorry... which source did you pull out of your ass that says deaths per capita?!! LMAO conservatives are even stupider than I thought Nobody's saying that "everyone does it, so we should", we're saying that other countries receive better health outcomes for roughly the same amount of money or less, per capita (learn to use that correctly), than we spend. https://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf If you want to skip the methodology, go to page 18. There'a a table ranking
1
@MrChiangching Then halt military spending. No stinkin' expansion, right???
1
@MrChiangching Well, you can have that reduced spending when you pry it from the Republican Party's cold, dead hands. Sorry, but if that's the party you support, you're (electorally, not personally, but still) supporting enormous increases in military spending. If it isn't (which.. come on, Green Party is to the left of Democrats, what other options do you have in the U.S.?)-- then I apologize for assuming. Just be aware, most conservatives don't agree with you
1
@annatardlordofderps9181 ...After years of deficits, courtesy of the Tories. Right. Funny, that. https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Financial-Sustainability-of-the-NHS.pdf In case your English comprehension isn't the best, let me reiterate: my comment was referring to your speech. "Deaths per capita" is like saying "dead people per person". Death rates are measured per 1,000 at a minimum. Something I imagine you'd be familiar with if you actually understood what you're talking about. From the article you sent, if you had bothered to read it: "However, no further methodology has been provided for England or other countries, so we can't say whether the methods used to collect data on HSMRs over the past 10 years were appropriate. Professor Jarman's analysis does not appear to have been peer-reviewed." That evidence is flimsy, and that's being generous. Not even mentioning that the UK has one of the highest in-hospital mortality rates in the EU. Not representative of the outcomes achieved with single-payer, sorry.
1
Ironic, since her philosophy seemed to stem from her emotional trauma, having lived through Stalinist purges. Obsessed with strength because her earliest memories were having none, and even more ironically her worldview (with regards to social Darwinism) would have favored the Soviets over her, a vulnerable commonner.
1
OligarchySlayer Um, anybody who lived through Stalin's purges would have had emotional trauma. Her family damn near starved at points during the Russian Civil War. And Rand pioneered the philosophy of egoism: _"Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute is self-sacrifice – which means self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial self-destruction – which means the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good. Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: No. Altruism says: Yes.""_ That isn't a far stretch from social Darwinism. If one is to act rationally in one's own self-interest, especially in the example she gave, it is often to the detriment of others. That she praises this egoism is an endorsement of social Darwinism- an acceptance of it as the result of her ideas. Atlas Shrugged is about a 'misunderstood visionary', her main character is literally an oppressed Mary Sue.
1
@chuckecheese5251 Where did you get that impression? What exactly did you think Obamacare was? An enormous compromise! A public option isn't nearly as extensive as single-payer and, at the very beginning, it was optional anyway. It was deliberately written that way so it would actually pass the Republican Senate. I'm sure you have a general idea in your head of what each side "does", but if you look at actual events from the recent past you'll find it's more nuanced than your mental image. There is plenty— in fact, mostly— compromise coming from the left.
1
@Matt-ww9wv That's true, although like you said, de facto it usually doesn't happen. And even if it were more expensive than it is now, the amount of people saved (able to work and contribute to the economy, rather than be dead) would, I believe, offset the cost greatly. Though yes, it generally would be cheaper. Less administrative glut, better ability to prevent, rather than treat, diseases, and better bargaining with companies for medical supplies and a better insurance policy.
1
Um... that's not what Bernie is advocating for, nor is that what Kyle refers to when he says Bernie is mainstream. It's like supporting automobile production and then asking "since when is putting chariot makers out of business "mainstream" in any country on planet Earth?!!!". Very disingenuous, and if this is the best argument the (right? stumbled on this video) has, then it's even more pathetic than originally thought. https://www.kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/kff-health-tracking-poll-january-2020/ A narrow majority of those polled (swing voters; as close to nationally representative as we can get atm) favor Medicare For All, although even more favor a public option (what we have right now).
1
@Varangian_af_Scaniae Doesn't seem to be a healthcare problem, but an immigration problem. Because you've received an influx of undocumented migrants, you're willing to scrap your entire healthcare system? Seems like you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.\ Instead, rally for the Swedish government to make them temporarily citizens- or create a new legal status wherein they can be deported more quickly, but (because many are fleeing war) they can stay as long as they pay taxes. Why are you all fixated on either kicking foreigners out or making their lives hell? They're willing to work for you; their home country is effectively gone, so until they rebuild, tax them.
1