• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should we pay people who are unwilling to work? AOC thinks so.

noonereal said:
Have you ever read/studied this subject?
Click to expand...

I have read a bit about genetics and psychology in general, and about the nature vs nurture debate specifically, but I do not recall ever reading anything that claimed with assurance that it could broken down the way you claim it has.

If you have something specific in mind for me to read, feel free to offer a recommendation
 
sangha said:
I have read a bit about genetics and psychology in general, and about the nature vs nurture debate specifically, but I do not recall ever reading anything that claimed with assurance that it could broken down the way you claim it has.

If you have something specific in mind for me to read, feel free to offer a recommendation
Click to expand...

I don't have one specific link for you but if you are interested look to the empirical studies of twins separated at birth.

Studies also show that adopted children show much greater similarities to their biological parents than to their environmental parents. \

We are pretty much pre-programmed, it really makes the idea of free choice look very sketchy.
 
noonereal said:
I don't have one specific link for you but if you are interested look to the empirical studies of twins separated at birth.

Studies also show that adopted children show much greater similarities to their biological parents than to their environmental parents. \

We are pretty much pre-programmed, it really makes the idea of free choice look very sketchy.
Click to expand...

I have read about those things, but I have never heard it expressed as a percentage.
 
Acadia said:
"Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.) and Ed Markey (D., Mass.) introduced a Green New Deal bill Thursday that, in addition to transitioning the U.S. entirely to renewable energy in ten years, promises to provide “economic security for those unable or unwilling to work.”
Click to expand...


I wish people would get a little more circumspect in their thinking, and a little more hesitant to just rush toward a judgment. I agree that someone who is able to work, but who, out of sheer laziness or (worse) a vicious desire to con others, does not work, should be cut off without mercy. But plenty of people are unwilling to work for other reasons. Here are a few:

1. Getting a PhD is really tough (unless you're getting one from a degree mill). It takes an average of 8+ hours of reading every day, seven days a week, usually for about six years, in addition to writing, preparing lectures for lower-division undergrad classes, and so on. It's occasionally possible to work, but doing so can often mean the difference between completing your program, and not completing it. PhD programs typically have around a 40% completion rate, and the main contributor is work. Students who do complete their programs either have wealthy parents, or they refrain from working so they can focus on their studies--and they usually pay by forgoing medical or dental care, losing a bunch of weight due to eating a ton of ramen, and so on. But you have to be unwilling to work to achieve your goal.

2. Someone may have a sick parent/child/sibling. They may be able to work and care for their relative, but find it very difficult for any number of reasons. Perhaps the sick individual lives in a rural area and it would require a long commute to get to a job, and the worry might be that the ill person might suffer some crisis while the caregiver is too far away to get back to them.

3. Someone may have an idea for an invention or a book or a piece of music or something like that. Perhaps it's something that would be of great benefit to society (a new genre of music, for example, can create economic opportunities for tens of thousands of people. Books can bring new ideas into the public conversation that may change things for the better. Sometimes inventions can significantly improve living conditions for people). And perhaps this person may have decided to take a year or two off of work to bring their idea to fruition, and may have even saved enough money to sustain them under normal conditions while not working, but they may then suffer a catastrophic event that wipes out their savings early. They are then faced with the choice of going back to work and not bringing their vision to fruition, or figuring out some way not to work.

Are you sure that AOC isn't talking about those kinds of examples, rather than people who are just lazy asses whose greatest ambition is to score a bag of weed for the weekend? From a perspective of what would benefit society, doing more for the visionary/creative sort who may have an idea that helps us all, but who doesn't have a lot of resources, would be good for us all. And that's something that our current economic system doesn't do very well.
 
Jetboogieman said:
ANOTHER AOC thread!

There is dangerous levels of AOC on the forum, if we do not turn back now and stop posting so many, it could create a tear in the space-time continuum.
Click to expand...

Stop the endless Trump threads, then complain.
 
Visbek said:
And again, read my post. There is literally nothing in the actual framework that says anything about setting up a massive welfare state. Thus, if the most powerful objection you've got is literally one word in a FAQ that was pulled almost immediately, then it seems like you've got nothing.
Click to expand...

To be fair, both Nixon and McGovern floats the idea a guaranteed annual income ($600-$1000 per person) as an alternative to welfare in the late 1960s-early 1970s. Nixon used it in his TV ads against McGovern. I presume that this is in that vein, inelegantly phrased, removed from her website. But why should that stop the Ocasio-obsessed?
 
Renae said:
Not really. But much of the first world is mired in a system they cannot escape from.
Click to expand...

True. Can't count the number of times I've seen street demonstrations in Europe demanding a health care system like the pre-Obamacare US. Strange that all that turmoil hasn't produced repeal of health care in those countries, who live in an existential nightmare worthy of Sartre.
 
Helix said:
stupid would be for them to trade health care systems with us.
Click to expand...
I agree, being responsible for your own health is such a dumb idea, let Gov't take care of you...
 
Renae said:
I agree, being responsible for your own health is such a dumb idea, let Gov't take care of you...
Click to expand...

most of the rest of the first world has discovered that variations of single payer work a lot more efficiently. we'll figure that out eventually, as well, i would guess.
 
Helix said:
most of the rest of the first world has discovered that variations of single payer work a lot more efficiently. we'll figure that out eventually, as well, i would guess.
Click to expand...

Much of the rest of the world is content to wait 18 months for a hip replacement. 8-16 weeks for an MRI....

So we should settle for less because they are happy with bad?
 
Renae said:
Much of the rest of the world is content to wait 18 months for a hip replacement. 8-16 weeks for an MRI....

So we should settle for less because they are happy with bad?
Click to expand...

i don't believe right wing horror stories about health care. i've seen the cost, inefficiency, and variability of our own system depending on where i live and work. i'll take a first world solution, thanks. a generation of right wingers will throw tantrums and threaten to secede over it, and then it will be the status quo like Medicare is now.
 
Renae said:
Much of the rest of the world is content to wait 18 months for a hip replacement. 8-16 weeks for an MRI....

So we should settle for less because they are happy with bad?
Click to expand...

Your claimed statistics are overblown, more people will have access to health care, not less. You might be confused or have read lies on conservative websites. if we ever join the rest of the civilized world and offer single-payer health care, people will still find plenty of conservative doctors working for themselves and making a much higher profit.

Try asking the people who have access to SPHC. If you do a little searching you'll find that the people who're lucky enough to have single-payer health care, overwhelming prefer it just as much as Canadians;

"...A 2009 Harris-Decima poll found 86% of Canadians preferred their healthcare system to the one in the United States...."

You should be basing your decisions on the truth of what most everyone, from most every county, actually prefer, not on conservative philosophical talking points...
 
Helix said:
i don't believe right wing horror stories about health care. i've seen the cost, inefficiency, and variability of our own system depending on where i live and work. i'll take a first world solution, thanks. a generation of right wingers will throw tantrums and threaten to secede over it, and then it will be the status quo like Medicare is now.
Click to expand...

No, you willingly choose not to dig into the truth, because you've decided that you "like" this UHC idea, and now that you're fully committed to being pro-UHC you are incapable of changing your position. Is it pride? Ego? I dunno.

It's not "Right wing horror" stories, I don't pull those numbers from BreitBart, or some Koch Brothers Foundation newsletter. These aren't anecdotal stories I read on a Free Republic forum thread. They are hard numbers from countries with UHC. Put out but their Government or UHC entities own internal numbers.

I'd love it, seriously if UHC worked like you claim it does. But it don't. Being dishonest about the facts makes you look petty Helix. On most other issues, I love your opinion, UHC matters? You're blindly partisan.
 
Renae said:
No, you willingly choose not to dig into the truth, because you've decided that you "like" this UHC idea, and now that you're fully committed to being pro-UHC you are incapable of changing your position. Is it pride? Ego? I dunno.

It's not "Right wing horror" stories, I don't pull those numbers from BreitBart, or some Koch Brothers Foundation newsletter. These aren't anecdotal stories I read on a Free Republic forum thread. They are hard numbers from countries with UHC. Put out but their Government or UHC entities own internal numbers.

I'd love it, seriously if UHC worked like you claim it does. But it don't. Being dishonest about the facts makes you look petty Helix. On most other issues, I love your opinion, UHC matters? You're blindly partisan.
Click to expand...

No, I am able to look at what the rest of the first world has been doing for decades, as well as charts and data. We vastly overpay for our health care. I hope to see a more efficient first world model in my lifetime.
 
Manc Skipper said:
As you spout half truths and downright misrepresentations.
The NHS is not the only healthcare provision in Britain. It also has an active private healthcare sector providing elective treatments for less than they would cost in the USA. The only "health tourists" the US gets from the UK would be those in search of rarer more exotic treatments unavailable anywhere else.
Click to expand...

No i didn't i posted the truth.
we are discussing the NHS system.

I posted links pertaining to that system. So where was a lie.
The US is number 1 in

Medical technology
Medical procedures
and Doctors.

We have doctors here that can do things that other countries can't.
we develop the drugs that other countries don't.
The rest of the world benefits from a lot of the upfront leg work that the US does in medical research.

that costs billions of dollars a year that they can't invest in, but we do.

Your government has been forcing more and more people into that private healthcare sector as well because your NHS system is
over-run and the system can't support the number of people using it.
 
Lakryte said:
She doesn't want to get rid of planes. Please point to where in the resolution it says "abolish airline travel."

EDIT: Here's the full text to make it easier to point out.
Click to expand...

Green New Deal by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez | What Is the Green New Deal
The Green New Deal proposed today would want to radically expand that bright spot, with a call to "build out high-speed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary."

So please tell me how I am supposed to get to europe on a train?
Please tell me how i am supposed to make it across the US in a day without a plane?

train travel would take a few days at least not counting stops and un-loads.
this is what happens when you put emotion before logic and reason.
 
Helix said:
No, I am able to look at what the rest of the first world has been doing for decades, as well as charts and data. We vastly overpay for our health care. I hope to see a more efficient first world model in my lifetime.
Click to expand...

Yet you call the hard truth, that MRI's are a long wait, that many surgeries require months of wait times as "right wing horror stories". That shows you are not intellectually honest about UHC.

For EXAMPLE:
Waiting Your Turn: Wait Times for Health Care in Canada, 2018 finds that the median wait time for medically necessary treatment in Canada this year was 19.8 weeks. Among the provinces, Saskatchewan has the shortest median wait time this year at 15.4 weeks, and New Brunswick again recorded the longest wait time (45.1 weeks).
Click to expand...
Health Care Wait Times | Fraser Institute

Patients also experience significant waiting times for various diagnostic technologies across the provinces. This year, Canadians could expect to wait 4.3 weeks for a computed tomography (CT) scan, 10.6 weeks for a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan, and 3.9 weeks for an ultrasound.

Research has repeatedly indicated that wait times for medically necessary treatment are not benign inconveniences. Wait times can, and do, have serious consequences such as increased pain, suffering, and mental anguish. In certain instances, they can also result in poorer medical outcomes—transforming potentially reversible illnesses or injuries into chronic, irreversible conditions, or even permanent disabilities. In many instances, patients may also have to forgo their wages while they wait for treatment, resulting in an economic cost to the individuals themselves and the economy in general.
Click to expand...

How is the above "Right Wing Horror" stories? Like I said, a few years ago, my left ankle swelled up, I was in severe agony. Their initial diagnosis, "Gout" was dead wrong, got me an MRI within 48 hours and lo and behold it was a tendon shredded apart. Had I waited 10 weeks... who know how much damage would have been done? How much pain.

YOU might think that's a small price to pay, me I find that concept to be... terrifying.
 
Renae said:
Yet you call the hard truth, that MRI's are a long wait, that many surgeries require months of wait times as "right wing horror stories". That shows you are not intellectually honest about UHC.

For EXAMPLE:

Health Care Wait Times | Fraser Institute



How is the above "Right Wing Horror" stories? Like I said, a few years ago, my left ankle swelled up, I was in severe agony. Their initial diagnosis, "Gout" was dead wrong, got me an MRI within 48 hours and lo and behold it was a tendon shredded apart. Had I waited 10 weeks... who know how much damage would have been done? How much pain.

YOU might think that's a small price to pay, me I find that concept to be... terrifying.
Click to expand...

If the health care in other countries was that bad, they wouldn't be beating us at life expectancy. Like I said, I don't believe the right wing horror stories.

I fully understand that the right won't be convinced by arguments, facts, data, or charts. I'm ok with that. The path forward is to vote as many of them out as possible. I will help.
 
Helix said:
If the health care in other countries was that bad, they wouldn't be beating us at life expectancy. Like I said, I don't believe the right wing horror stories.

I fully understand that the right won't be convinced by arguments, facts, data, or charts. I'm ok with that. The path forward is to vote as many of them out as possible. I will help.
Click to expand...

It is that bad. Playing with the numbers and reporting differently doesn't change reality. It's just makes it more marketable.
 
Renae said:
It is that bad. Playing with the numbers and reporting differently doesn't change reality. It's just makes it more marketable.
Click to expand...

sorry, i don't believe it. there's always a crowd that is afraid of progress and acts like it will be this big horror story if we do anything to fix deeply flawed systems. if we listened to them, we wouldn't have Social Security, Medicare, and a lot of other good programs that were controversial once but are now the status quo. the key is to win enough seats and make the change. it will probably still take a couple decades, which is unfortunate.
 
ludin said:
Green New Deal by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez | What Is the Green New Deal
The Green New Deal proposed today would want to radically expand that bright spot, with a call to "build out high-speed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary."

So please tell me how I am supposed to get to europe on a train?
Please tell me how i am supposed to make it across the US in a day without a plane?

train travel would take a few days at least not counting stops and un-loads.
this is what happens when you put emotion before logic and reason.
Click to expand...
You are attacking a strawman. Nowhere in the resolution does the Green New Deal call for abolishing airline travel, which is why you failed to point to an actual provision in the document. Nobody is suggesting taking trains to Europe that somehow cross the ocean.

You are conflating investment in high speed rail (what the resolution calls for) with getting rid of planes (which is nonsensical and not at all called for).
 
Helix said:
sorry, i don't believe it. there's always a crowd that is afraid of progress and acts like it will be this big horror story if we do anything to fix deeply flawed systems. if we listened to them, we wouldn't have Social Security, Medicare, and a lot of other good programs that were controversial once but are now the status quo. the key is to win enough seats and make the change. it will probably still take a couple decades, which is unfortunate.
Click to expand...

You and I will agree to disagree. I admire your passion, but find your refusal to accept the downside realities of what you push weakens your arguments and lessens your value as an advocate for the idea.
 
Renae said:
You and I will agree to disagree. I admire your passion, but find your refusal to accept the downside realities of what you push weakens your arguments and lessens your value as an advocate for the idea.
Click to expand...

i'm good with agreeing to disagree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom