874 karma · joined April 15, 2023
> By hiding the costs
It's also called externalization of cost(!) and a systemic problem under capitalism. Im afraid there is no quick fix to this like removing directly involved third parties from health care processes, because like in any economy, the upstream suppliers to the healthcare sector are as profit driven as your current adminstrational layer. You would just push the sympthom around.
From a german perspective, the US has speedrun a process, most of the EU countries are in too, just boiling the frogs slower. You have increasing cost and/or degrading services while budget considerations are always at the front of it. (Behind that is imo top-down fiscal pressure coming from our monetary/banking systems more aligned with the profit seekers.) If germany would reinvent its health care system from scratch in todays neoliberal climate, we'd end up with something very similar to the US, if at all. But since the german public has adopted price expectations, our services get cut to death a million times instead of moon pricing.
EDIT: The video is too shallow to touch broader systemic explanations, so it cant see similarities aswell.
There are many options to deliver drones to a location and i dont think from orbit is the most viable one, let alone moving any production there.
The great divide in our society is between people being more vulnerable to cognitive biases and people who are less so. Science is fundamentally sceptic, which means dipshits play by different rules.
Ofc not. Your statement is bs and deserves all the downvotes. You should take a closer look at the democrats in-fightig, maybe even participate in it, and tell again if a grass roots movement would ne equally bad. To me, this just sounds like you post-hoc rationalizing the idiocy you once voted for. Kamala wouldnt have been worse, same applies to McCain or even Pence.
I think they are using any data source, private and public to compile enemy lists. We will see them use it to manipulate the mid term elections. Isnt it wise at this point to assume that extend of malignance and long term plannig?
I am not questioning this, or that math is racist. You are misrepresenting me, which is dishonest. My main point is why and what you make of it.
And you yield statistics as a definite conclusion, while you kind of contradict yourself.
> The plain fact is that taking in refugees has costed Sweden money
> The math doesn't say if the cost isn't morally worth it [in the future]
> All the math say is that [...cost...] _will_ not be repaid by those refugees
I assume this is just a slight grammar slip but i can think i can call the broader argument dishonest again, because like i said way earlier, by narrowing down the time scope, you are constructing partial views as arguments. Its like saying "brushing your teeth costs money, but is it really worth it?" I repeat, services cost money and integration isnt frictionless.
When you see immigrants as just people subject to socialization, that want a stable and fullfilling live, as much as you do, you woudnt make sweeping selective arguments and oppose immigration in total. The debate subject changes from immigration:yes/no to how/why. This perspective is missing today and i repeat/paraphrase yet again, the problems immigration are not soley caused them but can arise/effect natives as much. A broader discussion would address this too...
> Taking in a large number of refugees with significant lower education and overall wealth
Implies education and wealth is needed for the workforce. It is not. Just a strawman.
> healthcare system that Sweden has, cost significant more than what it produce in increased taxes
How profitable are swedish schools? Rhetorical question to highlight your dumb-think. Services cost money, they are not meant to produce anything else.
> There is the concept of social dumping
> Schools also complain about this issue
Which can also be explained with regular budget pressure from neoliberal fiscal hawks. I dont know the swedish specifics.
> This report however do not account for crime ...
Which allows you to vaguely gesture / associate yet again.
Unfortunately, you didnt link any studies. Searching for "economic contribution migration" on any scientific platform, comes out as unanimously net-positive.
Here is the OECD saying the same.
https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/sub-issues/economic-impact-of...
> It should also be mentioned that only about 1/3 of refugees ever becomes economical self-sufficient.
First generarion? And yet again you just glimpse at it without explanation. Whats the subtext here? Lazyness? Genetic inferiority? Without an explanation, this isnt an argument for anythig, yet tou yield it like it was. And that is dishonest. So understand better, i could use it as an argument myself, "see how bad systemetic discrimination is!?"
The internet abuses cognitive biases around cultural self-identity and foreign disgust and in the end, people group together, thinking they are the reasonable ones, the more educated...
Protecting citizens with closed borders and potentially harming them in the long term with or protecting them with capable institutions based on individual cases? (Hope you see the racism trick question here.)
To return the facor, the "moral impetus" comes from not elevating your culture as the only origing of truth, goodness, etc., but instead codify common basic needs, human dignity, etc. into law and sanction/integrate nased on this.
Im not saying that immigrarion is frictionless, the same way you non-racist arent saying, some undesirable negative traits (like crime) cannot emerge in the native population without immigration. The solution to native or migrant crime is identical.
Why you should take the hassle and hopefully adress social mobility and organize integration? Because of demographics and economic contribution -- the bigger picture yet again.
GP ties negative properties to entire groups without differenciation, this is by definition racist.
To end on a constructive upside, if GP was really concerned about eg womens rights, any kind of stateful intervention should only target that. By being racist and eg trying to associate this issue with brown skins, stateful intervention becomes sweeping. By being more precise, migration politics that targets them all becomes social politics wich only effects some.
Can you see it now?
> and insult opponents of this position as racist
On the other hand, you treat the negative effects of current immigrant milieus as eternal and innert to their ancestry (dare to say: genes).
This way, you can look at integration as if it has to happen in a single generation and also, allows you to ignore the more important part of diminishing social mobility, which effects the natives as much.
Look at germany, where after WW2, alot of turkish "guest workers" were invited and stayed. After several generations the descendant of those immigrants are as german as you can be. They are still soft muslims, drink alcohol, engage with german bureaucracy, have a heavy turkish accent -- some of them are even candidates for the far right AfD. Please note, they migrated into an economic boom.
Isnt that utterly ridiculous? When time proves you wrong, it reveals your narrow mindedness.
And when you reduce immigrants to percieved negative innert properties, isnt that racist? When you broaden your scope, youll see the bigger problems are elsewhere, dont get distracted by bigotted populists, that are as clueless about problems or their solutions.
There is one major reason why oligarchs are in favor of small government, when it's in their way. Another commenter said it already: it's only about power.
Even though i understand your consideration of separating regular access and reset onto different devices, im am still more sceptical about smartphone security than anything else. What happens when someone gets access to your phone? They could redirect and use the magic mails too.
nixos-rebuild build-vm (--flake DIR#HOSTNAME / configuration.nix)
./result/bin/SCRIPT
to build and launch a nixos vm with qemu.