mAEStro-paNDa

They are leading questions. You're assumptions about single-payer, based on what you think "some politicians" said, are baked into your questions. Again, there exists hybrid systems. Take a look at Spain or Australia. Canada almost exclusively works off it's public system, yet private insurance still has a minor role.

Maybe I'm "crazy enough" to think that there should be zero profit-motive in health insurance, but even I can confidently say that a public policy scenario wherein all but a government plan is prohibited just isn't realistic, nor does it reflect what many other western countries have done for 30+ years.

>For which are you advocating?

A single-payer system, as I said.

>Why could I not buy my own insurance? Or why can't I self-insure?

These are leading questions. There exists healthcare systems that are a hybrid of single-payer/private insurance.

>coolest part of the documentary

I'd actually describe that as the worst part, at least insofar the way you contextualized it. That's literally a moment where they are faced with overwhelming evidence against their "theory" and still cannot accept they are wrong.

This isn't something to be admired.

I used to work at a med school, and often I would be in the classroom. Once the Dean gave a presentation over the true cost of healthcare in the US. What was his final conclusion to the class? No one knows the true cost of healthcare. It's nonsensical.

The situation with healthcare in the US has been beyond ridiculous for quite some time. Often the conversation centers around those without insurance, but being under-insured is just as much of an issue.

We need to decouple healthcare from employment. We need a single-payer system. This would save everyone money on healthcare in the long run.

Private or not, the kind of attitudes shown in the group are directly associated with their employment and the people they interact with through that. They condemned their own integrity when the individuals decided to engage in such awful behavior while simultaneously attempting or pretending to have any sense of actual professionalism in said line of work.

Not only that, it's not as if it's just a few bad apples. This Facebook Group consisted of roughly ~9000 members of current and former agents. US Border Patrol employs roughly 20,000 agents.

This is probably one of the more sound takes on both ThinkSpot and the right way to address what is happening on these massive platforms. Thanks for this.

The China stuff aside, I wish I had time to address all of the points made in this comment in full. Frankly it's a severely misleading explanation that edges very close to misinformation.

Quoting the grandparent comment exactly, the US is in fact "locking up children". They are also not "free to leave". Most detainees are required to wait for their hearing. In addition, no rule has been discarded. The push for zero-tolerance policy at the border led to family separation, and is precisely what's happening to these people, which makes this "golden rule" completely bunk. Further, illegal immigration isn't even as high now as it was in 2014.

This is not even taking into account the issue with illegal immigration and seeking asylum being a criminal issue, the fact that people within the US are being deported, not just those attempting to come in the southern border, and lastly, the reasons why people are fleeing these countries as well as the historical context and the US's role in that.

Do you have any advice/resources available for getting into or learning more about some of these nonprofit organizations?

I don't disagree, but uhm...

https://twitter.com/SarahJamieLewis/status/11394299139229573...

>I don't care how it got to that point

>just don't care if it means better results for me.

That's part of the issue though, isn't it? Privacy advocates on here and elsewhere point out frequently that part of the problem is that people don't care enough. There's a similar dynamic in this case.

Here's an article over the cartoon mentioned here that sparked outrage in April which led to this:

https://nypost.com/2019/04/28/new-york-times-condemned-for-a...

>a pacifist nation

I think you mean isolationist.

>but if I wanted to choose a positive mention of a left-wing person, or a negative mention of a right-wing person, I could have chosen about forty different clauses.

That part is easy if you think the article is as you suggested: "the real purpose is the simple, everyday attack on those who have different political opinions to the author."

Besides, you left out the part of the excerpt you chose which alluded more to the actual central criticism the previous comment was pointing out:

"...tied in some vague way to academia, which they use to validate their anti-intellectualism while passing their feelings off as philosophy and, worse, as (mis)guides for the misguided."

This still comes back to a means test of some variety. For your example with vehicles, if you possess the means to not require a large vehicle (such as being single or having a small family), then you would obviously be allocated the smaller vehicle. This is vastly simplified than what such a thing would likely look like in reality. For govt assistance in the US for example this usually begins with your income level.

On a separate note, I'm still very curious of your answer to my question referring to the source.

It appears to me that you're referring to the means testing part of government assistance, which doesn't have much to do with the parent comment.

In addition, I'm curious in what ways is this source biased? I'm not sure an unbiased source exists, but I'm curious of your reasoning here.

This might not be a popular take, but I think there is a serious issue with the way we perceive education, at least in the US. A previous comment noted how this needs to be a business decision, and it appears to me that's precisely the issue.

Increasing costs and other factors has led to education being treated as an investment to improve your standing in the workforce, as opposed to being seen as a net good on it's own. Society benefits from a more educated population overall, but through the connection to employment, wages, etc, as a collective we seem to have lost sight of that.

I understand and I do not doubt that those people exist. However, they don't make up all credit card holders. There are still people who use a credit card rarely or only for emergencies.

Further, pointing out the distinction between these two groups does not strongly debunk the data. That's nit-picking, at best. This should still be concerning, even if it's improved over the past few years.

Sorry, but this thread does not "strongly debunk" the headline by any means. This is pure nitpicking, or trying to center on what does "struggling" to cover a cost really mean.

The data is still sound, whether you think having to borrow or sell something to pay an expense is still not being able to pay that expense or not.

Perhaps instead the employment rate doesn't tell the whole story?

I'd suggest that these groups are less distinguishable, or that there is more overlap of these groups, than you may think.

Going the independent route as a musician doesn't necessarily mean they'll successfully monetize their music. While more artists are doing this, there's still a lot of the old "looking to get signed" mentality. I agree with your post, but I wanted to point out that someone not taking the more independent routes doesn't necessarily mean they aren't interested in monetizing their work.

Similar to a bank as in a guaranteed insurance of my funds, like the FDIC in the US?

> but it's not of the right mix; it doesn't have the right political taste.

What's that have to do with the technology?

Have you considered some of the landlord's actions might not have been illegal? Anyone from the UK that can chime in on this? Is there an authority responsible for this?

Why? I agree some of the actions are taking it too far, but this part is not that far-fetched. It happens.

Used to be, somewhat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine

Not everyone has the freedom/opportunity to pick and choose jobs they like, and even if they did, that doesn't mean Amazon should treat their workers terribly.

In addition, it's just not the appropriate or proportional response, considering the contributors [0]. Individual action alone is certainly not enough. Systemic change is crucial.

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10...

It appears to me that a lot of the responses to this are missing two very important key points this short post illuminates.

1. Self-checkouts have become another a way to diminish the power of the strike.

2. It's not really automation. The labor has been shifted onto the customer.

We can have a discussion about efficiency and innovation, but that's not exactly what's being pointed out here.

I'm not so sure that saying the concept of a credit score is racist is quite the same as saying credit scores perpetuate and reflect racial injustice/inequalities.

Moreover, the article you cited isn't simply making moral claims, but specific examples. In addition, there is a well documented history of racial discrimination within the financial sector (see the Fair Housing Act).