US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5791
Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
farvacola
United States18818 Posts
| ||
![]()
KwarK
United States41983 Posts
On October 28 2016 08:38 IgnE wrote: The Twisted Business of Donating Plasma It does seem a bit cruel to suggest to a minimum wage worker that donating plasma twice a week is the road to financial security when that worker has to replace the plasma being siphoned off on his or her ramen diet and lack of sleep. A bit like Vampire: The Masquerade. No? Yeah, I've not only read that article, I've actually been to that specific plasma location. It's sanctimonious bullshit that converts people trying to improve their lives into a faceless exploited mass who must be protected from their own ignorant choices. Hell, there's a fair chance I've met some of the people he spoke to about that article. Fuck that guy. Seriously. | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States41983 Posts
On October 28 2016 08:39 farvacola wrote: If you believe that the government has an essential role to play in providing access to education, you aren't a conservative in US terms. And I'll keep voting Democrat (well, when I can vote in the election after this one) until they work out where they're losing me and decide they want my vote. | ||
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On October 28 2016 08:40 KwarK wrote: Yeah, I've not only read that article, I've actually been to that specific plasma location. It's sanctimonious bullshit that converts people trying to improve their lives into a faceless exploited mass who must be protected from their own ignorant choices. Hell, there's a fair chance I've met some of the people he spoke to about that article. Fuck that guy. Seriously. So would you say the same thing if people were donating their kidneys . . . or do you just think donating blood plasma twice a week for 45 years is totally harmless? | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States41983 Posts
On October 28 2016 08:42 IgnE wrote: So would you say the same thing if people were donating their kidneys . . . or do you just think donating blood plasma twice a week for 45 years is totally harmless? I'd donate a kidney for a price. Hell, if you put someone who needed one and was compatible in front of me I'd probably give them one for free. Humans do just fine with one. But there again I'm into donating bits of myself, I've previously cured cancer for example. I'd draw the line at things people only have one of though, assuming they need them. | ||
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
*edited for clarity | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Both strike me as the kind of thing that younguns with more health and time than common sense would do. Reminds me of the people I know who considered themselves really clever for saving $5 by changing their own oil, but then wouldn't stop getting pulled over by the police for driving stupidly (costing a good $300 a pop). | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States41983 Posts
On October 28 2016 08:48 IgnE wrote: I wasn't asking whether you would donate a kidney for some undisclosed price. I was asking whether you think requiring a donation at market-price is an acceptable solution to poverty. *edited for clarity I think organs represent a moral hazard but I don't know that I'd rule kidneys out. A lot of people die waiting for them and a lot of people in great health have spares. It's a tricky one. Both parties benefit greatly from the transaction. Oddly enough kidney donors have better long term health outcomes than the general population (selection bias). I looked into it quite a lot a while back, I was considering non directed kidney donation (you donate it to whoever needs it without knowing who). With appropriate safeguards I may lean kidney sale legalization. But we're a long way from plasma at this point. | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Apparently terrorism is cool if your white. I can't even right now. | ||
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On October 28 2016 09:39 Plansix wrote: https://twitter.com/NickKristof/status/791790348007792642 Apparently terrorism is cool if your white. I can't even right now. The death count was atrocious. | ||
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On October 28 2016 06:21 KwarK wrote: Bullshit. I refuse to believe that I'm as exceptionally gifted as you guys are insisting that I am. Wait, what is it you're studying to handle? Golf balls? Endangered frogs? Fireworks? | ||
GreenHorizons
United States22696 Posts
On October 28 2016 09:39 Plansix wrote: https://twitter.com/NickKristof/status/791790348007792642 Apparently terrorism is cool if your white. I can't even right now. Aww come on, it was just some good ol' boys enjoying a month+ long armed occupation of a government building. What's criminal about that? | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Its not my fault they are shitty terrorist. | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 28 2016 09:42 GreenHorizons wrote: Aww come on, it was just some good ol' boys enjoying a month+ long armed occupation of a government building. What's criminal about that? Nothing is wrong, they are white. They would never be violent towards police or the government. Its just protesting with the threat of gun violence if you try to stop them. But we got some unarmed brown people protesting a pipeline, so we better send dogs after them and arrest reporters that cover the story. | ||
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On October 28 2016 04:08 LegalLord wrote: Obamacare is strictly worse than single payer socialized healthcare as far as I'm concerned, but it's a large step in the right direction and it's the only healthcare overhaul that had a chance of passing. Hey, at least you're honest! If bad overhauls pass muster because of ideological attachment to the weather vane, we can remember this is a fight to the end. | ||
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On October 28 2016 09:00 KwarK wrote: I think organs represent a moral hazard but I don't know that I'd rule kidneys out. A lot of people die waiting for them and a lot of people in great health have spares. It's a tricky one. Both parties benefit greatly from the transaction. Oddly enough kidney donors have better long term health outcomes than the general population (selection bias). I looked into it quite a lot a while back, I was considering non directed kidney donation (you donate it to whoever needs it without knowing who). With appropriate safeguards I may lean kidney sale legalization. But we're a long way from plasma at this point. but then the problem is that in the kidney free market its probably poor people who give up a kidney for 20-30k (making this up). and then the poor people have one kidney, and poor people have worse health so their one kidney goes kaput. iirc iran has a program kidney purchase program that works. its like 5k or something. | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Voters care more about Congress and the next president controlling the price of prescription drugs than they do about changes to President Barack Obama's health care law, shows a poll released Thursday by the Kaiser Family Foundation. But that doesn't mean voters aren't interested in the future of the health care law as well: The poll found 60 percent of Republicans and 40 percent of Independents believe Obamacare should be repealed, and 17 percent of Democrats said the same. About an equal share of people – one third – want to see the next president and Congress repeal the entire law as want to see them expand what the law does. The poll comes less than two weeks before Election Day and finds that health care isn't a top issue for voters – it falls behind other issues like the economy, foreign policy and even the candidates themselves. Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump has vowed to repeal Obamacare if elected and has presented various conservative measures to reform health care, while his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, has put forward proposals to strengthen the Affordable Care Act. More voters reported that they feel they have a good understanding of Clinton's proposal than they do of Trump's, but they also feel the candidates' positions are "very different." Clinton's plan includes a public option, a proposal Obama also says would improve the law. Overall, about two-thirds of voters say they favor a public health insurance option to compete with private health insurance plans in the Obamacare exchanges, but how the proposal is described – whether as a "public health insurance option" or a "government-administered public health insurance option" – affects people's level of support. The views of those surveyed also shift when they hear arguments against the public option, including that doctors or hospitals would be paid less under a public option or when they hear that the government would have an unfair advantage over private insurers. The candidates have similar positions on how to rein in the cost of prescription drugs. Both have proposed allowing Medicare to set drug prices. On average, 74 percent of surveyed voters said drugs should be made affordable to people with chronic conditions who need them. Source | ||
| ||