KekDemaga

The reason the government doesn't do that is talented people don't want to work for them. Virtually all the government jobs are union and pay is primarily based on time served. You'd be getting third rate talent at best.

>The government is also not operated on a for-profit basis incentivizing doing the bare minimum level of security to shield yourself from liability.

No instead they hire contractors for that purpose.

>And you long for the day when it's your particular brand of racism and sexism that wins?

Beautifully put, the solution to sexism isn't more sexism.

The government is at least equally incompetent if not more so, at least if a private entity screws up you can sue.

"Ignoring your completely made up percentiles"

You are right, I didn't know the median income moved so much last year.

US Median income = 59,039[0] = the top .2% globally[3]

Average US Worker Pay = 44,148[2] = the top .43% globally[3]

[0]http://www.businessinsider.com/us-census-median-income-2017-...

[2]https://www.thebalance.com/average-salary-information-for-us...

[3]http://www.globalrichlist.com/

"Access to healthy food, healthcare, housing, quality education, etc. are all diminished for low-income people."

And non existent for most of the planet.

EDIT: In regards to the numbers not adding up, You do understand that children don't work right? Remove children (the largest generation ever is currently in high school), then the roughly 40% or so of adults that are unemployed, retired or otherwise out of the workforce and it makes more sense. If you aren't convinced take a look at salaries in European nations, if you happen to find some reasonably high ones on average take a look at the population numbers of those nations.

You know in movies where the villain rich kid goes to a nice upper middle class home and calls the place a dump? That's what the global poor (as in virtually everyone on the planet) see when western "poor people" complain. It's really tone deaf and quite frankly it only takes a few minutes thought to realize all the talk of "fairness" and "equality" is window dressing and all they are purposing is the .1%'s wealth being redistributed to the .2% - .8%, ignoring the 99.2% of human beings who are actually poor and suffer on a scale that no westerner will ever experience.

If 99% of the world would swap places with you economically speaking how on earth do you get to call yourself poor?

That perception becomes even more laughable when you realize that the 51 year old female in question is in the top .3% of income globally, while the "permanent underclass" are in the .4% - .8%.

"No check, no tech." is something I use often.

Wouldn't that mean it's less of a capitalism problem and more of a problem generally since it hasn't been solved in any other economic system in practice?

>It really is remarkable how efficient capitalism is at ensuring that proles are born with nothing and die with nothing.

Compared to what?

An objective test removes the power of picking winners and losers from the academics, they will never allow that to happen.

Free proxy and CGI proxy alone used to generate lots of fake results. As "start using cgiproxy" is the title of a cgiproxy page you'd typically get less false positives.

"start using cgiproxy" used to be all you needed back in my day.

I never thought about it before but wouldn't bringing more people into the first world increase global carbon output?

I had no idea facebook was operating in that space.

Hospitals are forced to provide services in emergencies like the situation you described, so it's more like "fuck you, don't pay any of the bills we send you and it will be off of your credit score within seven years"

Much less dramatic but more accurate.

>It would be nice if we went back to business models where companies sell products to their end users and not sell their end users to others.

If you include services in that you are talking about what, 98% of economic activity currently?

Don't want to remind the states that they have the option, they might vote in term limits or remove money from politics.

How did your wife and kids take it when you lost your house and you all had in move in with your mother?

"What myopic lives they had 1000 years ago" - Future historians reading this blog post

Flood insurance can be revoked in the way you describe but it is a federal matter not a Texas one.

But I'm talking about deaths, I have yet to see even one case yet this is supposedly an epidemic. Sorry if I'm not convinced by statistical handwaving.

So according to your response they don't die from a doctor refusing to provide care as much as they die from fear of bankruptcy? Aren't they poor? So isn't it safe to assume they don't have tons of assets to lose when bankruptcy actually happens? (Also it doesn't even really work that way https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-01-17/the-myth-...)

Because I'm responding to "Then why are people having to go without prescription medication they can't afford?"

Certainly 10 specific cases would be an easy find right? Seriously go look. You can't find them. Studies like this claim cases like "well if we found this cancer earlier" but I'm looking for "he couldn't afford this drug so he died". Should be millions of them according to the rhetoric.

45,000!?! you should easily be able to point out say 10 specific cases where lack of access to a drug killed someone in the last year right?

Have any examples of deaths? Should be thousands available.

Why not give to charity? That's what I do.

I had a software company put me into their newsletter list once.

Also no one: "let's fix it so it won't crash constantly"