|
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. |
On March 24 2017 23:45 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2017 23:16 KwarK wrote:On March 24 2017 23:09 LightSpectra wrote:
Kwark, it doesn't sound like we really disagree on anything, except whether it's a smokescreen in order to discriminate against a protected class. I didn't think it was since SCbM (to my recollection at least, but perhaps I'm wrong) did not refuse to service their gay customers, only to custom-make them a cake with objectionable content. If you'd write Michael and Jane on a cake but not Michelle and Jane on a cake then it's clear that the objection is to the sexual orientation of the customer. You can refuse to customize cakes for everyone but saying "we'll customize cakes for all customers as long as the names are opposite genders" is about as useful as saying "I'll photograph weddings for all customers as long as everyone at the wedding is white". There is no question about what the objection was, they didn't want to make a cake for gay customers. Which is fine, unless you're running a bakery which makes cakes for the general public. If you're running a bakery then you fucking make the cake and you deal with it. Except its not "for gay customers".. I imagine there would be no problem if Michelle ordered a custom birthday cake for her legal spouse Jane. Or if Michelle and Jane wanted to order a custom wedding cake for their son Smith marrying the neighbor Tiffany. The argument the baker is making is that a marriage between a man and a woman is different than a marriage between two men or two women, and they only offer custom cakes for one of those events, because they object to the other one. for a protected class example (that doesn't even go up against another protected class) Say an intactivist baker that refused to make a custom cake for celebrating a Bris (even though they made cakes celebrating Barmitzvahs and "It's a boy/girl" cakes celebrating the birth). Your asking them to custom make something for an event they consider deeply wrong/even barbaric.
Actually, the ask is that people with deeply held religious beliefs not go into private business. He and others say the second you serve the public, it's up to them to decide the bounds of religious freedom and protected class discrimination. The decree then is that if serving gay customers is fine by their religion (undisputed by both sides, they were customers at other times), but designing cakes for gay weddings is not fine, then they must surrender their conscience by state decree or shut down.
It is heartening that people like LightSpectra and you, Krikkitone, can see this is an example of 'first they came for Christian bakers, but I didn't speak up because I'm not a Christian/don't believe that about serving the Christian God (and/or I'm not in business for myself).'
We're seeing the slow buildup to a huge religious freedom case, and I'm thankful we will have another strong originalist on the court to hear it.
|
On March 24 2017 23:54 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2017 23:45 Krikkitone wrote:On March 24 2017 23:16 KwarK wrote:On March 24 2017 23:09 LightSpectra wrote:
Kwark, it doesn't sound like we really disagree on anything, except whether it's a smokescreen in order to discriminate against a protected class. I didn't think it was since SCbM (to my recollection at least, but perhaps I'm wrong) did not refuse to service their gay customers, only to custom-make them a cake with objectionable content. If you'd write Michael and Jane on a cake but not Michelle and Jane on a cake then it's clear that the objection is to the sexual orientation of the customer. You can refuse to customize cakes for everyone but saying "we'll customize cakes for all customers as long as the names are opposite genders" is about as useful as saying "I'll photograph weddings for all customers as long as everyone at the wedding is white". There is no question about what the objection was, they didn't want to make a cake for gay customers. Which is fine, unless you're running a bakery which makes cakes for the general public. If you're running a bakery then you fucking make the cake and you deal with it. Except its not "for gay customers".. I imagine there would be no problem if Michelle ordered a custom birthday cake for her legal spouse Jane. Or if Michelle and Jane wanted to order a custom wedding cake for their son Smith marrying the neighbor Tiffany. The argument the baker is making is that a marriage between a man and a woman is different than a marriage between two men or two women, and they only offer custom cakes for one of those events, because they object to the other one. for a protected class example (that doesn't even go up against another protected class) Say an intactivist baker that refused to make a custom cake for celebrating a Bris (even though they made cakes celebrating Barmitzvahs and "It's a boy/girl" cakes celebrating the birth). Your asking them to custom make something for an event they consider deeply wrong/even barbaric. This is the same dumb as hell argument that gays have the same marriage rights as the rest of us before gay marriage because a gay man and a gay woman could get married so what were they even complaining about. It was dumb then and it's dumb now. You can't insist that offering to make straight cakes for anyone, gay or straight, isn't discrimination. It just doesn't work that way. It's no different from offering to host a wedding for anyone, black or white, as long as they're marrying someone of the same race. Sometimes the content is inextricably linked to the customer. The non discriminatory equivalent of allowing straight marriage for straight people isn't allowing straight marriage for gay people. The non discriminatory equivalent of allowing straight cakes for straight weddings isn't allowing straight cakes for gay weddings. That's a logically barren and morally bankrupt argument made by people who, quite frankly, ought to look themselves in the mirror and ask themselves how the hell they got here. All of these arguments you're making have already been made, at length, in opposition of interracial marriage. They were wrong then, they're wrong now. That's why this matter has been so thoroughly settled for so long.
The big difference, as pointed out in other posts, is that legal marriage is provided by the government. (you can get a 'private subcontractor' ie church for the legal portion of it, but that 'subcontractor' IS allowed to discriminate.. nongovernmental officiants can refuse because you are/not a member of a specific religion, because you were divorced, because you had sex before marriage, because they're a jerk, because you're a jerk, etc.)
Cakes are not provided by the government (except, apparently, in pre-Revolutionary France). And especially custom cakes.
|
I also don't know why this hasn't been talked about either. This is homegrown terrorism, and we have a president in office who's yet to condemn these type of actions.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39363465
A white US Army veteran with a hatred for black people travelled to New York City and confronted a black man before killing him with a sword, police say.
James Harris Jackson, 28, is said to have taken a bus from Baltimore to New York with the intention of targeting black men.
When he came across Timothy Caughman, 66, he allegedly stabbed him in the chest and back.
Mr Caughman was pronounced dead in hospital.
His alleged assailant walked into a Times Square police station about 24 hours later and was arrested on suspicion of murder.
He is said to have told officers that he had harboured feelings of hatred towards black men for at least 10 years.
|
It was talked about, several pages ago.
|
I think Quakers should be free to join the army and then refuse to go to war but not be fired based on their religious beliefs. In fact, there should be only Quakers in the army.
|
United States42778 Posts
On March 25 2017 00:17 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2017 23:54 KwarK wrote:On March 24 2017 23:45 Krikkitone wrote:On March 24 2017 23:16 KwarK wrote:On March 24 2017 23:09 LightSpectra wrote:
Kwark, it doesn't sound like we really disagree on anything, except whether it's a smokescreen in order to discriminate against a protected class. I didn't think it was since SCbM (to my recollection at least, but perhaps I'm wrong) did not refuse to service their gay customers, only to custom-make them a cake with objectionable content. If you'd write Michael and Jane on a cake but not Michelle and Jane on a cake then it's clear that the objection is to the sexual orientation of the customer. You can refuse to customize cakes for everyone but saying "we'll customize cakes for all customers as long as the names are opposite genders" is about as useful as saying "I'll photograph weddings for all customers as long as everyone at the wedding is white". There is no question about what the objection was, they didn't want to make a cake for gay customers. Which is fine, unless you're running a bakery which makes cakes for the general public. If you're running a bakery then you fucking make the cake and you deal with it. Except its not "for gay customers".. I imagine there would be no problem if Michelle ordered a custom birthday cake for her legal spouse Jane. Or if Michelle and Jane wanted to order a custom wedding cake for their son Smith marrying the neighbor Tiffany. The argument the baker is making is that a marriage between a man and a woman is different than a marriage between two men or two women, and they only offer custom cakes for one of those events, because they object to the other one. for a protected class example (that doesn't even go up against another protected class) Say an intactivist baker that refused to make a custom cake for celebrating a Bris (even though they made cakes celebrating Barmitzvahs and "It's a boy/girl" cakes celebrating the birth). Your asking them to custom make something for an event they consider deeply wrong/even barbaric. This is the same dumb as hell argument that gays have the same marriage rights as the rest of us before gay marriage because a gay man and a gay woman could get married so what were they even complaining about. It was dumb then and it's dumb now. You can't insist that offering to make straight cakes for anyone, gay or straight, isn't discrimination. It just doesn't work that way. It's no different from offering to host a wedding for anyone, black or white, as long as they're marrying someone of the same race. Sometimes the content is inextricably linked to the customer. The non discriminatory equivalent of allowing straight marriage for straight people isn't allowing straight marriage for gay people. The non discriminatory equivalent of allowing straight cakes for straight weddings isn't allowing straight cakes for gay weddings. That's a logically barren and morally bankrupt argument made by people who, quite frankly, ought to look themselves in the mirror and ask themselves how the hell they got here. All of these arguments you're making have already been made, at length, in opposition of interracial marriage. They were wrong then, they're wrong now. That's why this matter has been so thoroughly settled for so long. The big difference, as pointed out in other posts, is that legal marriage is provided by the government. (you can get a 'private subcontractor' ie church for the legal portion of it, but that 'subcontractor' IS allowed to discriminate.. nongovernmental officiants can refuse because you are/not a member of a specific religion, because you were divorced, because you had sex before marriage, because they're a jerk, because you're a jerk, etc.) Cakes are not provided by the government (except, apparently, in pre-Revolutionary France). And especially custom cakes.
So, if I were a private subcontractor, like a wedding venue, who wanted to discriminate against interracial marriages you'd be cool with that? As long as my objections to interracial marriages were strongly held and religious in nature.
Divorced, sex before marriage, being a jerk etc, all not protected classes.
I really don't get how you're struggling so much with this. You say "subcontractors are allowed to discriminate" and then give a list of examples of which exactly none of them are protected classes and use that as proof that subcontractors can discriminate against protected classes. The only one that comes close is the religion one but the concept you are failing to explain is that some churches are not businesses that serve the general public but rather only marry members of their own congregation. I honestly feel like at this point you're not even trying to grasp the subject but whatever, I'll start again from the top.
Everyone can discriminate against anyone for reasons that are not based on the protected class status of the person being discriminated against.
The fact that a church is allowed to refuse to marry a divorcee falls under "reasons not based on the protected class status of the person being discriminated against". It doesn't contradict the first statement that "Everyone can discriminate against anyone for reasons that are not based on the protected class status of the person being discriminated against."
Please try harder to understand this. It's getting really frustrating and the subject isn't actually that complicated. I genuinely believe you can understand how it works, if you would only try.
This whole exchange feels an awful lot like I'm trying to explain BODMAS to an adult who keeps going "yeah, but 10+5*2 is 30 because 10+5 is 15 and 15*2 is 30 so you're wrong" and "okay but there aren't even any brackets in that so how does BODMAS even apply". At a certain point it comes down to you simply not putting the effort in to understand the basic premise.
|
On March 25 2017 00:08 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2017 22:19 mahrgell wrote:
Well... I think this discussion isn't entirely honest by both sides, with very different interpretations of what health care insurance should do.
And I often feel both sides exactly know those differences, but to score political points (or "win" forum discussions) they pretend they would not know about it and interpret everything the other side says in their own interpretation which makes it obviously bullocks.
In the end, insurances are always about risk balancing. In the event of harm, you won't bankrupt over medical bills. But which risks should be balanced?
Interpretation A:
All the risks to society should be rebalanced to everyone. Pretty much what is used in most of Europe. Mens won't get pregnant, still their premium includes the rebalance cost for it. I don't go skiing, but still pay for all those idiots breaking their legs every winter and needing a rescue chopper, then surgery and 4 weeks in hospital etc.
This system also is often combined with a must-have insurance, as with the payment measured by societal averages the correct "play" would often be to only join the insurance when you are in a phase where your personal risks are above those averages. (e.g. before trying to get pregnant or going on a 3 week skiing vacation)
So there will always be participants in the system for which the insurance is, on a personal level, +EV, and some for which it is -EV.
The issue with preexisting conditions only touches changes of plans (which still exist in some, although less impactful forms) but as you are forced into insurance at all times, most minimum needs should generally be covered.
Interpretation B:
Everyones insurance rebalances only his own personal risks. Now you only manage your own risks. This is not to share risks amongst the society but just make sure you don't bankrupt over medical bills and smoothen your health expenses over time. It is up to you if you want to be insured against sport accidents, pregnancy related issues, various forms of cancer etc.
With this model there is absolutely no need to force participation in the model. As the premium is (or should be, if the insurer is doing his job) calculated on your personal risk levels it is up to you what you want to be covered and if you want any insurance at all. In any case, for every participant the insurance always should be +- 0 EV (ignoring the profit margin for the insurer)
Also the issue with preexisting conditions is a much larger one in this model, as you may simply be without any cover at all, if you gambled wrong here.
Now living under A and knowing it's benefit I admittedly prefer A. But I can actually accept that people may consider the goal of health insurance to be different and favor the solution of B.
But what is dishonest is to take someones argument for B, then measure it against the goals of A and then declare victory over this person and its points. Or vice versa.
So before you go at each others throats of whether you consider it fair that this or that should be covered... Maybe you should argue first about the goal of health insurance,and at what level risks should be redistributed. At a societal level or only on a personal one.
Except that if you are a person who interprets it as B, you should also accept that if you gambled wrong and didn't get insured for <insert rare disease>, and you get that disease, then you can either pay for the treatment yourself, or should just die, and not be a burden on society. Moreover, poor people who cannot afford insurance that includes coverage for rare diseases, but get those rare diseases are simply destined to die. In other words: you are a social Darwinist. If you don't accept this as an acceptable outcome of your model, then stop arguing insurance model B. Given that most people here are assuming that lettng people die in the streets because they are poor is unacceptable in civilized society, it is very hard to justify any argument in favor of model B.
Except you won't die on the streets because you are poor. (not for healthcare)
You will be bankrupt and out on the streets, but not dead.
You can always walk into the ER and get care, and they will bill you.. if you can't pay (are poor) then you declare bankruptcy and the ER makes up the money by billing other people more.
Now some people would rather take their risks with poor health than be bankrupt... and if you are bankrupt and poor, then there is a lot of other stuff that can kill you.
The thing is there are two separate problems
1. how to make a health insurance/healthcare system that properly assigns costs
2. how to make sure the poor can pay for the minimum amount of healthcare we think they should have (since it is a minimum, society isn't going to pay for the entire population to get weekly enhanced lab tests and a personal team of nutrition and mental health consultants)
On March 25 2017 00:24 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2017 00:17 Krikkitone wrote:On March 24 2017 23:54 KwarK wrote:On March 24 2017 23:45 Krikkitone wrote:On March 24 2017 23:16 KwarK wrote:On March 24 2017 23:09 LightSpectra wrote:
Kwark, it doesn't sound like we really disagree on anything, except whether it's a smokescreen in order to discriminate against a protected class. I didn't think it was since SCbM (to my recollection at least, but perhaps I'm wrong) did not refuse to service their gay customers, only to custom-make them a cake with objectionable content. If you'd write Michael and Jane on a cake but not Michelle and Jane on a cake then it's clear that the objection is to the sexual orientation of the customer. You can refuse to customize cakes for everyone but saying "we'll customize cakes for all customers as long as the names are opposite genders" is about as useful as saying "I'll photograph weddings for all customers as long as everyone at the wedding is white". There is no question about what the objection was, they didn't want to make a cake for gay customers. Which is fine, unless you're running a bakery which makes cakes for the general public. If you're running a bakery then you fucking make the cake and you deal with it. Except its not "for gay customers".. I imagine there would be no problem if Michelle ordered a custom birthday cake for her legal spouse Jane. Or if Michelle and Jane wanted to order a custom wedding cake for their son Smith marrying the neighbor Tiffany. The argument the baker is making is that a marriage between a man and a woman is different than a marriage between two men or two women, and they only offer custom cakes for one of those events, because they object to the other one. for a protected class example (that doesn't even go up against another protected class) Say an intactivist baker that refused to make a custom cake for celebrating a Bris (even though they made cakes celebrating Barmitzvahs and "It's a boy/girl" cakes celebrating the birth). Your asking them to custom make something for an event they consider deeply wrong/even barbaric. This is the same dumb as hell argument that gays have the same marriage rights as the rest of us before gay marriage because a gay man and a gay woman could get married so what were they even complaining about. It was dumb then and it's dumb now. You can't insist that offering to make straight cakes for anyone, gay or straight, isn't discrimination. It just doesn't work that way. It's no different from offering to host a wedding for anyone, black or white, as long as they're marrying someone of the same race. Sometimes the content is inextricably linked to the customer. The non discriminatory equivalent of allowing straight marriage for straight people isn't allowing straight marriage for gay people. The non discriminatory equivalent of allowing straight cakes for straight weddings isn't allowing straight cakes for gay weddings. That's a logically barren and morally bankrupt argument made by people who, quite frankly, ought to look themselves in the mirror and ask themselves how the hell they got here. All of these arguments you're making have already been made, at length, in opposition of interracial marriage. They were wrong then, they're wrong now. That's why this matter has been so thoroughly settled for so long. The big difference, as pointed out in other posts, is that legal marriage is provided by the government. (you can get a 'private subcontractor' ie church for the legal portion of it, but that 'subcontractor' IS allowed to discriminate.. nongovernmental officiants can refuse because you are/not a member of a specific religion, because you were divorced, because you had sex before marriage, because they're a jerk, because you're a jerk, etc.) Cakes are not provided by the government (except, apparently, in pre-Revolutionary France). And especially custom cakes. So, if I were a private subcontractor, like a wedding venue, who wanted to discriminate against interracial marriages you'd be cool with that? As long as my objections to interracial marriages were strongly held and religious in nature. Divorced, sex before marriage, being a jerk etc, all not protected classes. .
Religion is a protected class, but churches are allowed to discriminate on that basis.
A church could refuse to marry individuals because they (or one of them) profess a different religion.
(they could probably refuse other protected classes as well... I could see a religious institution that only marries men being legal... ie only men-men weddings, no woman-woman or woman-man weddings, assuming they had sincere belief to back it up.)
|
Two separate problems that are virtually inseperable count as one problem.
|
On March 25 2017 00:30 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2017 00:08 Acrofales wrote:On March 24 2017 22:19 mahrgell wrote:
Well... I think this discussion isn't entirely honest by both sides, with very different interpretations of what health care insurance should do.
And I often feel both sides exactly know those differences, but to score political points (or "win" forum discussions) they pretend they would not know about it and interpret everything the other side says in their own interpretation which makes it obviously bullocks.
In the end, insurances are always about risk balancing. In the event of harm, you won't bankrupt over medical bills. But which risks should be balanced?
Interpretation A:
All the risks to society should be rebalanced to everyone. Pretty much what is used in most of Europe. Mens won't get pregnant, still their premium includes the rebalance cost for it. I don't go skiing, but still pay for all those idiots breaking their legs every winter and needing a rescue chopper, then surgery and 4 weeks in hospital etc.
This system also is often combined with a must-have insurance, as with the payment measured by societal averages the correct "play" would often be to only join the insurance when you are in a phase where your personal risks are above those averages. (e.g. before trying to get pregnant or going on a 3 week skiing vacation)
So there will always be participants in the system for which the insurance is, on a personal level, +EV, and some for which it is -EV.
The issue with preexisting conditions only touches changes of plans (which still exist in some, although less impactful forms) but as you are forced into insurance at all times, most minimum needs should generally be covered.
Interpretation B:
Everyones insurance rebalances only his own personal risks. Now you only manage your own risks. This is not to share risks amongst the society but just make sure you don't bankrupt over medical bills and smoothen your health expenses over time. It is up to you if you want to be insured against sport accidents, pregnancy related issues, various forms of cancer etc.
With this model there is absolutely no need to force participation in the model. As the premium is (or should be, if the insurer is doing his job) calculated on your personal risk levels it is up to you what you want to be covered and if you want any insurance at all. In any case, for every participant the insurance always should be +- 0 EV (ignoring the profit margin for the insurer)
Also the issue with preexisting conditions is a much larger one in this model, as you may simply be without any cover at all, if you gambled wrong here.
Now living under A and knowing it's benefit I admittedly prefer A. But I can actually accept that people may consider the goal of health insurance to be different and favor the solution of B.
But what is dishonest is to take someones argument for B, then measure it against the goals of A and then declare victory over this person and its points. Or vice versa.
So before you go at each others throats of whether you consider it fair that this or that should be covered... Maybe you should argue first about the goal of health insurance,and at what level risks should be redistributed. At a societal level or only on a personal one.
Except that if you are a person who interprets it as B, you should also accept that if you gambled wrong and didn't get insured for <insert rare disease>, and you get that disease, then you can either pay for the treatment yourself, or should just die, and not be a burden on society. Moreover, poor people who cannot afford insurance that includes coverage for rare diseases, but get those rare diseases are simply destined to die. In other words: you are a social Darwinist. If you don't accept this as an acceptable outcome of your model, then stop arguing insurance model B. Given that most people here are assuming that lettng people die in the streets because they are poor is unacceptable in civilized society, it is very hard to justify any argument in favor of model B. Except you won't die on the streets because you are poor. (not for healthcare) You will be bankrupt and out on the streets, but not dead. You can always walk into the ER and get care, and they will bill you.. if you can't pay (are poor) then you declare bankruptcy and the ER makes up the money by billing other people more. Now some people would rather take their risks with poor health than be bankrupt... and if you are bankrupt and poor, then there is a lot of other stuff that can kill you. The thing is there are two separate problems 1. how to make a health insurance/healthcare system that properly assigns costs 2. how to make sure the poor can pay for the minimum amount of healthcare we think they should have (since it is a minimum, society isn't going to pay for the entire population to get weekly enhanced lab tests and a personal team of nutrition and mental health consultants)
This falls apart when you consider what percentage of people are a member of a family. My father in law refused to get medical attention for a long time because he didn't want to bankrupt his family. Turned out he had advanced stage cancer and was toast by the time he was forced to go to the doctor. This is not uncommon. People question whether their health is worth the cost. That is madness and has no place in a modern society.
In Canada, my father in law would not have worried about the cost and would have had his condition treated much sooner, cheaper and more effectively. The dilemma of "is my life worth bankrupting my family and causing them a life of financial misery?" is something no one should ever be faced with. My step father is not distinct in his selflessness. Many fathers and people in similar positions would choose their family's financial stability over a risk to their life.
|
THE BIG IDEA: If you read Donald Trump’s “The Art of the Deal,” substituting “conservatives" for "contractors," the president’s ultimatum to House Republicans on health care is not at all surprising. “You have to be very rough and very tough with most contractors or they’ll take the shirt right off your back,” Trump wrote in the 1987 business classic.
As a businessman, Trump bragged about his ability to drive a hard bargain to win favorable terms and make lots of money. "I also protect myself by being flexible,” he explained. “I never get too attached to one deal or one approach. … I keep a lot of balls in the air, because most deals fall out, no matter how promising they seem at first."
...
-- The stakes are higher, but once again Trump is playing the take-it-or-leave-it game. He sent his chief of staff, chief strategist and the OMB director to the Capitol last night to say that if the House does not pass the repeal-and-replace bill today, as it stands, he is going to leave Obamacare in place as the law of the land and drop the issue. Budget director Mick Mulvaney, who co-founded the Freedom Caucus, told his former colleagues last night: “The president needs this.… If for any reason it [goes] down, we’re just going to move forward with additional parts of his agenda.” White House press secretary Sean Spicer went on Fox News to echo him: “At the end of the day, this is the only train leaving the station that’s going to repeal Obamacare.”
-- Trump, who knows this is a high-risk gamble, is following through on his campaign promise to bring a businessman’s approach to government. Today offers a big test of how that will work out.
...
Rand Paul, who has been highly critical of the House legislation, brought copies of “The Art of the Deal” with him to a meeting with the Freedom Caucus last week. He urged members to brush up on Trump’s tactics. The Kentucky senator even brought a poster with a quote from a chapter on how to “use your leverage.” “The worst thing you can possibly do in a deal is seem desperate to make it,” Trump wrote. “That makes the other guy smell blood, and then you're dead."
Source: WaPo
|
On March 25 2017 00:17 ShoCkeyy wrote:I also don't know why this hasn't been talked about either. This is homegrown terrorism, and we have a president in office who's yet to condemn these type of actions. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39363465Show nested quote +A white US Army veteran with a hatred for black people travelled to New York City and confronted a black man before killing him with a sword, police say.
James Harris Jackson, 28, is said to have taken a bus from Baltimore to New York with the intention of targeting black men.
When he came across Timothy Caughman, 66, he allegedly stabbed him in the chest and back.
Mr Caughman was pronounced dead in hospital.
His alleged assailant walked into a Times Square police station about 24 hours later and was arrested on suspicion of murder.
He is said to have told officers that he had harboured feelings of hatred towards black men for at least 10 years.
Mentally ill lone wolf, what else can ya say?
|
On March 25 2017 00:41 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2017 00:17 ShoCkeyy wrote:I also don't know why this hasn't been talked about either. This is homegrown terrorism, and we have a president in office who's yet to condemn these type of actions. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39363465A white US Army veteran with a hatred for black people travelled to New York City and confronted a black man before killing him with a sword, police say.
James Harris Jackson, 28, is said to have taken a bus from Baltimore to New York with the intention of targeting black men.
When he came across Timothy Caughman, 66, he allegedly stabbed him in the chest and back.
Mr Caughman was pronounced dead in hospital.
His alleged assailant walked into a Times Square police station about 24 hours later and was arrested on suspicion of murder.
He is said to have told officers that he had harboured feelings of hatred towards black men for at least 10 years. Mentally ill lone wolf, what else can ya say?
Poor people looking for someone to blame for their sad, powerless life. Just like the black people who tortured the disabled kid. Just like every single time this ever happens.
|
I'm thinking Nunes is aware that his stunt backfired. He wanted good headlines, but all he did was provoke another unfavorable leak.
|
There's some congressman from Kentucky in the House right now that stands up after every congressman speaking in favor of the AHCA by saying "I'd like to remind the Speaker that there are [x] thousand people in his district that will lose insurance if this bill passes."
Whoever this is, brilliant.
EDIT: I think it's John Yarmuth because he's the only Democrat from Kentucky in the House, not sure.
|
On March 25 2017 00:33 Artisreal wrote:
Two separate problems that are virtually inseperable count as one problem.
Well fortunately the second problem is a REALLY simple* one to solve...If someone is too poor to buy something you want them to have
1. give it to them
OR
2. give them money to buy it
(2 is generally better if you can guarantee that they actually buy it)
The only complicated part becomes around
-what is the minimum society/government wants to provide (because society is not one person)
-how do you determine who is to poor to buy something you want them to have
That's when you get into things like work requirements, income+asset tests, etc.
But those should be separate from how to actually design the healthcare/insurance system. (Which as DT suddenly realized is much more complicated**...with unforeseen sudden expenses, and unforeseen chronic expenses.... which isn't present in other types of insurance...if your car can't get repaired or no one knows if the repair will work for your car, then you just junk it and buy a new one... you can't do that to a body)
*simple, not easy, it is expensive
**not necessarily expensive (for the government at least).. if you mess it up you can make it more expensive and poorer for everyone else.
|
On March 25 2017 00:08 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2017 22:19 mahrgell wrote:
Well... I think this discussion isn't entirely honest by both sides, with very different interpretations of what health care insurance should do.
And I often feel both sides exactly know those differences, but to score political points (or "win" forum discussions) they pretend they would not know about it and interpret everything the other side says in their own interpretation which makes it obviously bullocks.
In the end, insurances are always about risk balancing. In the event of harm, you won't bankrupt over medical bills. But which risks should be balanced?
Interpretation A:
All the risks to society should be rebalanced to everyone. Pretty much what is used in most of Europe. Mens won't get pregnant, still their premium includes the rebalance cost for it. I don't go skiing, but still pay for all those idiots breaking their legs every winter and needing a rescue chopper, then surgery and 4 weeks in hospital etc.
This system also is often combined with a must-have insurance, as with the payment measured by societal averages the correct "play" would often be to only join the insurance when you are in a phase where your personal risks are above those averages. (e.g. before trying to get pregnant or going on a 3 week skiing vacation)
So there will always be participants in the system for which the insurance is, on a personal level, +EV, and some for which it is -EV.
The issue with preexisting conditions only touches changes of plans (which still exist in some, although less impactful forms) but as you are forced into insurance at all times, most minimum needs should generally be covered.
Interpretation B:
Everyones insurance rebalances only his own personal risks. Now you only manage your own risks. This is not to share risks amongst the society but just make sure you don't bankrupt over medical bills and smoothen your health expenses over time. It is up to you if you want to be insured against sport accidents, pregnancy related issues, various forms of cancer etc.
With this model there is absolutely no need to force participation in the model. As the premium is (or should be, if the insurer is doing his job) calculated on your personal risk levels it is up to you what you want to be covered and if you want any insurance at all. In any case, for every participant the insurance always should be +- 0 EV (ignoring the profit margin for the insurer)
Also the issue with preexisting conditions is a much larger one in this model, as you may simply be without any cover at all, if you gambled wrong here.
Now living under A and knowing it's benefit I admittedly prefer A. But I can actually accept that people may consider the goal of health insurance to be different and favor the solution of B.
But what is dishonest is to take someones argument for B, then measure it against the goals of A and then declare victory over this person and its points. Or vice versa.
So before you go at each others throats of whether you consider it fair that this or that should be covered... Maybe you should argue first about the goal of health insurance,and at what level risks should be redistributed. At a societal level or only on a personal one.
Except that if you are a person who interprets it as B, you should also accept that if you gambled wrong and didn't get insured for <insert rare disease>, and you get that disease, then you can either pay for the treatment yourself, or should just die, and not be a burden on society. Moreover, poor people who cannot afford insurance that includes coverage for rare diseases, but get those rare diseases are simply destined to die. In other words: you are a social Darwinist. If you don't accept this as an acceptable outcome of your model, then stop arguing insurance model B. Given that most people here are assuming that lettng people die in the streets because they are poor is unacceptable in civilized society, it is very hard to justify any argument in favor of model B.
Thanks for providing an example post of what I meant with dishonest arguments...
Your example is deeply flawed: If the poor person can not afford the coverage of the rare disease under B, then you don't help him by forcing him to buy it anyway.
The choice of A vs B has absolutely nothing to with the accessibility of it for poor people. At least not in the way you are describing it.
The redistribution in model A happens not from one income-group to the other. But from low risk people to high risk people. If you are looking into accessibility to health services for poor people you have to subsidize them, but this could (and Imho should) be done regardless of the choice between A and B.
Now it is true, that many proponents of B also refuse those subsidies. But this is a very different topic.
As stated before, I strongly support and prefer A...
But this intentional misrepresentation of the other side somehow deeply disturbs me. There are enough good arguments, why not stick to those? It is a discussion culture which only aims at the total defeat of the "enemy" instead of an exchange of ideas, after which everyone can decide which ones he considers to be more convincing. And people may decide differently even after everything has been said.
|
United States42778 Posts
On March 25 2017 00:30 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2017 00:08 Acrofales wrote:On March 24 2017 22:19 mahrgell wrote:
Well... I think this discussion isn't entirely honest by both sides, with very different interpretations of what health care insurance should do.
And I often feel both sides exactly know those differences, but to score political points (or "win" forum discussions) they pretend they would not know about it and interpret everything the other side says in their own interpretation which makes it obviously bullocks.
In the end, insurances are always about risk balancing. In the event of harm, you won't bankrupt over medical bills. But which risks should be balanced?
Interpretation A:
All the risks to society should be rebalanced to everyone. Pretty much what is used in most of Europe. Mens won't get pregnant, still their premium includes the rebalance cost for it. I don't go skiing, but still pay for all those idiots breaking their legs every winter and needing a rescue chopper, then surgery and 4 weeks in hospital etc.
This system also is often combined with a must-have insurance, as with the payment measured by societal averages the correct "play" would often be to only join the insurance when you are in a phase where your personal risks are above those averages. (e.g. before trying to get pregnant or going on a 3 week skiing vacation)
So there will always be participants in the system for which the insurance is, on a personal level, +EV, and some for which it is -EV.
The issue with preexisting conditions only touches changes of plans (which still exist in some, although less impactful forms) but as you are forced into insurance at all times, most minimum needs should generally be covered.
Interpretation B:
Everyones insurance rebalances only his own personal risks. Now you only manage your own risks. This is not to share risks amongst the society but just make sure you don't bankrupt over medical bills and smoothen your health expenses over time. It is up to you if you want to be insured against sport accidents, pregnancy related issues, various forms of cancer etc.
With this model there is absolutely no need to force participation in the model. As the premium is (or should be, if the insurer is doing his job) calculated on your personal risk levels it is up to you what you want to be covered and if you want any insurance at all. In any case, for every participant the insurance always should be +- 0 EV (ignoring the profit margin for the insurer)
Also the issue with preexisting conditions is a much larger one in this model, as you may simply be without any cover at all, if you gambled wrong here.
Now living under A and knowing it's benefit I admittedly prefer A. But I can actually accept that people may consider the goal of health insurance to be different and favor the solution of B.
But what is dishonest is to take someones argument for B, then measure it against the goals of A and then declare victory over this person and its points. Or vice versa.
So before you go at each others throats of whether you consider it fair that this or that should be covered... Maybe you should argue first about the goal of health insurance,and at what level risks should be redistributed. At a societal level or only on a personal one.
Except that if you are a person who interprets it as B, you should also accept that if you gambled wrong and didn't get insured for <insert rare disease>, and you get that disease, then you can either pay for the treatment yourself, or should just die, and not be a burden on society. Moreover, poor people who cannot afford insurance that includes coverage for rare diseases, but get those rare diseases are simply destined to die. In other words: you are a social Darwinist. If you don't accept this as an acceptable outcome of your model, then stop arguing insurance model B. Given that most people here are assuming that lettng people die in the streets because they are poor is unacceptable in civilized society, it is very hard to justify any argument in favor of model B. Except you won't die on the streets because you are poor. (not for healthcare) You will be bankrupt and out on the streets, but not dead. You can always walk into the ER and get care, and they will bill you.. if you can't pay (are poor) then you declare bankruptcy and the ER makes up the money by billing other people more. Now some people would rather take their risks with poor health than be bankrupt... and if you are bankrupt and poor, then there is a lot of other stuff that can kill you. The thing is there are two separate problems 1. how to make a health insurance/healthcare system that properly assigns costs 2. how to make sure the poor can pay for the minimum amount of healthcare we think they should have (since it is a minimum, society isn't going to pay for the entire population to get weekly enhanced lab tests and a personal team of nutrition and mental health consultants) Show nested quote +On March 25 2017 00:24 KwarK wrote:On March 25 2017 00:17 Krikkitone wrote:On March 24 2017 23:54 KwarK wrote:On March 24 2017 23:45 Krikkitone wrote:On March 24 2017 23:16 KwarK wrote:On March 24 2017 23:09 LightSpectra wrote:
Kwark, it doesn't sound like we really disagree on anything, except whether it's a smokescreen in order to discriminate against a protected class. I didn't think it was since SCbM (to my recollection at least, but perhaps I'm wrong) did not refuse to service their gay customers, only to custom-make them a cake with objectionable content. If you'd write Michael and Jane on a cake but not Michelle and Jane on a cake then it's clear that the objection is to the sexual orientation of the customer. You can refuse to customize cakes for everyone but saying "we'll customize cakes for all customers as long as the names are opposite genders" is about as useful as saying "I'll photograph weddings for all customers as long as everyone at the wedding is white". There is no question about what the objection was, they didn't want to make a cake for gay customers. Which is fine, unless you're running a bakery which makes cakes for the general public. If you're running a bakery then you fucking make the cake and you deal with it. Except its not "for gay customers".. I imagine there would be no problem if Michelle ordered a custom birthday cake for her legal spouse Jane. Or if Michelle and Jane wanted to order a custom wedding cake for their son Smith marrying the neighbor Tiffany. The argument the baker is making is that a marriage between a man and a woman is different than a marriage between two men or two women, and they only offer custom cakes for one of those events, because they object to the other one. for a protected class example (that doesn't even go up against another protected class) Say an intactivist baker that refused to make a custom cake for celebrating a Bris (even though they made cakes celebrating Barmitzvahs and "It's a boy/girl" cakes celebrating the birth). Your asking them to custom make something for an event they consider deeply wrong/even barbaric. This is the same dumb as hell argument that gays have the same marriage rights as the rest of us before gay marriage because a gay man and a gay woman could get married so what were they even complaining about. It was dumb then and it's dumb now. You can't insist that offering to make straight cakes for anyone, gay or straight, isn't discrimination. It just doesn't work that way. It's no different from offering to host a wedding for anyone, black or white, as long as they're marrying someone of the same race. Sometimes the content is inextricably linked to the customer. The non discriminatory equivalent of allowing straight marriage for straight people isn't allowing straight marriage for gay people. The non discriminatory equivalent of allowing straight cakes for straight weddings isn't allowing straight cakes for gay weddings. That's a logically barren and morally bankrupt argument made by people who, quite frankly, ought to look themselves in the mirror and ask themselves how the hell they got here. All of these arguments you're making have already been made, at length, in opposition of interracial marriage. They were wrong then, they're wrong now. That's why this matter has been so thoroughly settled for so long. The big difference, as pointed out in other posts, is that legal marriage is provided by the government. (you can get a 'private subcontractor' ie church for the legal portion of it, but that 'subcontractor' IS allowed to discriminate.. nongovernmental officiants can refuse because you are/not a member of a specific religion, because you were divorced, because you had sex before marriage, because they're a jerk, because you're a jerk, etc.) Cakes are not provided by the government (except, apparently, in pre-Revolutionary France). And especially custom cakes. So, if I were a private subcontractor, like a wedding venue, who wanted to discriminate against interracial marriages you'd be cool with that? As long as my objections to interracial marriages were strongly held and religious in nature. Divorced, sex before marriage, being a jerk etc, all not protected classes. . Religion is a protected class, but churches are allowed to discriminate on that basis. A church could refuse to marry individuals because they (or one of them) profess a different religion. (they could probably refuse other protected classes as well... I could see a religious institution that only marries men being legal... ie only men-men weddings, no woman-woman or woman-man weddings, assuming they had sincere belief to back it up.)
Churches have limited powers to discriminate on the basis of religion, such as not being forced to hire a Catholic Rabbi. In terms of hosting weddings, a lot of churches don't offer their services to the general public exactly as a way to avoid this issue. They are available only to their own congregation, like a members only club. I would be surprised if a church which also operated as a rentable wedding venue business available to the public could reject gay couples. I suspect it would be ruled that the church is operating as a business rather than as a church. Although it'd probably get into the minutiae of whether they charged and whether the charge was above costs.
Either way, doesn't really apply to the bakery, it's not a members only bakery.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
A story in English about it: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39363416
Could be any number of reasons. Not that close to the border but it is a pretty important strategic warehouse. There's actually a fair number of unusual and dangerous things happening over the past few days in Ukraine.
|
On March 25 2017 00:41 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2017 00:17 ShoCkeyy wrote:I also don't know why this hasn't been talked about either. This is homegrown terrorism, and we have a president in office who's yet to condemn these type of actions. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39363465A white US Army veteran with a hatred for black people travelled to New York City and confronted a black man before killing him with a sword, police say.
James Harris Jackson, 28, is said to have taken a bus from Baltimore to New York with the intention of targeting black men.
When he came across Timothy Caughman, 66, he allegedly stabbed him in the chest and back.
Mr Caughman was pronounced dead in hospital.
His alleged assailant walked into a Times Square police station about 24 hours later and was arrested on suspicion of murder.
He is said to have told officers that he had harboured feelings of hatred towards black men for at least 10 years. Mentally ill lone wolf, what else can ya say?
I guess I should start quoting Kwark
On February 25 2017 01:31 KwarK wrote:
Well it's like the saying goes. One man's mentally ill lone wolf is another man's freedom fighter.
|
On March 25 2017 00:52 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2017 00:30 Krikkitone wrote:On March 25 2017 00:08 Acrofales wrote:On March 24 2017 22:19 mahrgell wrote:
Well... I think this discussion isn't entirely honest by both sides, with very different interpretations of what health care insurance should do.
And I often feel both sides exactly know those differences, but to score political points (or "win" forum discussions) they pretend they would not know about it and interpret everything the other side says in their own interpretation which makes it obviously bullocks.
In the end, insurances are always about risk balancing. In the event of harm, you won't bankrupt over medical bills. But which risks should be balanced?
Interpretation A:
All the risks to society should be rebalanced to everyone. Pretty much what is used in most of Europe. Mens won't get pregnant, still their premium includes the rebalance cost for it. I don't go skiing, but still pay for all those idiots breaking their legs every winter and needing a rescue chopper, then surgery and 4 weeks in hospital etc.
This system also is often combined with a must-have insurance, as with the payment measured by societal averages the correct "play" would often be to only join the insurance when you are in a phase where your personal risks are above those averages. (e.g. before trying to get pregnant or going on a 3 week skiing vacation)
So there will always be participants in the system for which the insurance is, on a personal level, +EV, and some for which it is -EV.
The issue with preexisting conditions only touches changes of plans (which still exist in some, although less impactful forms) but as you are forced into insurance at all times, most minimum needs should generally be covered.
Interpretation B:
Everyones insurance rebalances only his own personal risks. Now you only manage your own risks. This is not to share risks amongst the society but just make sure you don't bankrupt over medical bills and smoothen your health expenses over time. It is up to you if you want to be insured against sport accidents, pregnancy related issues, various forms of cancer etc.
With this model there is absolutely no need to force participation in the model. As the premium is (or should be, if the insurer is doing his job) calculated on your personal risk levels it is up to you what you want to be covered and if you want any insurance at all. In any case, for every participant the insurance always should be +- 0 EV (ignoring the profit margin for the insurer)
Also the issue with preexisting conditions is a much larger one in this model, as you may simply be without any cover at all, if you gambled wrong here.
Now living under A and knowing it's benefit I admittedly prefer A. But I can actually accept that people may consider the goal of health insurance to be different and favor the solution of B.
But what is dishonest is to take someones argument for B, then measure it against the goals of A and then declare victory over this person and its points. Or vice versa.
So before you go at each others throats of whether you consider it fair that this or that should be covered... Maybe you should argue first about the goal of health insurance,and at what level risks should be redistributed. At a societal level or only on a personal one.
Except that if you are a person who interprets it as B, you should also accept that if you gambled wrong and didn't get insured for <insert rare disease>, and you get that disease, then you can either pay for the treatment yourself, or should just die, and not be a burden on society. Moreover, poor people who cannot afford insurance that includes coverage for rare diseases, but get those rare diseases are simply destined to die. In other words: you are a social Darwinist. If you don't accept this as an acceptable outcome of your model, then stop arguing insurance model B. Given that most people here are assuming that lettng people die in the streets because they are poor is unacceptable in civilized society, it is very hard to justify any argument in favor of model B. Except you won't die on the streets because you are poor. (not for healthcare) You will be bankrupt and out on the streets, but not dead. You can always walk into the ER and get care, and they will bill you.. if you can't pay (are poor) then you declare bankruptcy and the ER makes up the money by billing other people more. Now some people would rather take their risks with poor health than be bankrupt... and if you are bankrupt and poor, then there is a lot of other stuff that can kill you. The thing is there are two separate problems 1. how to make a health insurance/healthcare system that properly assigns costs 2. how to make sure the poor can pay for the minimum amount of healthcare we think they should have (since it is a minimum, society isn't going to pay for the entire population to get weekly enhanced lab tests and a personal team of nutrition and mental health consultants) On March 25 2017 00:24 KwarK wrote:On March 25 2017 00:17 Krikkitone wrote:On March 24 2017 23:54 KwarK wrote:On March 24 2017 23:45 Krikkitone wrote:On March 24 2017 23:16 KwarK wrote:On March 24 2017 23:09 LightSpectra wrote:
Kwark, it doesn't sound like we really disagree on anything, except whether it's a smokescreen in order to discriminate against a protected class. I didn't think it was since SCbM (to my recollection at least, but perhaps I'm wrong) did not refuse to service their gay customers, only to custom-make them a cake with objectionable content. If you'd write Michael and Jane on a cake but not Michelle and Jane on a cake then it's clear that the objection is to the sexual orientation of the customer. You can refuse to customize cakes for everyone but saying "we'll customize cakes for all customers as long as the names are opposite genders" is about as useful as saying "I'll photograph weddings for all customers as long as everyone at the wedding is white". There is no question about what the objection was, they didn't want to make a cake for gay customers. Which is fine, unless you're running a bakery which makes cakes for the general public. If you're running a bakery then you fucking make the cake and you deal with it. Except its not "for gay customers".. I imagine there would be no problem if Michelle ordered a custom birthday cake for her legal spouse Jane. Or if Michelle and Jane wanted to order a custom wedding cake for their son Smith marrying the neighbor Tiffany. The argument the baker is making is that a marriage between a man and a woman is different than a marriage between two men or two women, and they only offer custom cakes for one of those events, because they object to the other one. for a protected class example (that doesn't even go up against another protected class) Say an intactivist baker that refused to make a custom cake for celebrating a Bris (even though they made cakes celebrating Barmitzvahs and "It's a boy/girl" cakes celebrating the birth). Your asking them to custom make something for an event they consider deeply wrong/even barbaric. This is the same dumb as hell argument that gays have the same marriage rights as the rest of us before gay marriage because a gay man and a gay woman could get married so what were they even complaining about. It was dumb then and it's dumb now. You can't insist that offering to make straight cakes for anyone, gay or straight, isn't discrimination. It just doesn't work that way. It's no different from offering to host a wedding for anyone, black or white, as long as they're marrying someone of the same race. Sometimes the content is inextricably linked to the customer. The non discriminatory equivalent of allowing straight marriage for straight people isn't allowing straight marriage for gay people. The non discriminatory equivalent of allowing straight cakes for straight weddings isn't allowing straight cakes for gay weddings. That's a logically barren and morally bankrupt argument made by people who, quite frankly, ought to look themselves in the mirror and ask themselves how the hell they got here. All of these arguments you're making have already been made, at length, in opposition of interracial marriage. They were wrong then, they're wrong now. That's why this matter has been so thoroughly settled for so long. The big difference, as pointed out in other posts, is that legal marriage is provided by the government. (you can get a 'private subcontractor' ie church for the legal portion of it, but that 'subcontractor' IS allowed to discriminate.. nongovernmental officiants can refuse because you are/not a member of a specific religion, because you were divorced, because you had sex before marriage, because they're a jerk, because you're a jerk, etc.) Cakes are not provided by the government (except, apparently, in pre-Revolutionary France). And especially custom cakes. So, if I were a private subcontractor, like a wedding venue, who wanted to discriminate against interracial marriages you'd be cool with that? As long as my objections to interracial marriages were strongly held and religious in nature. Divorced, sex before marriage, being a jerk etc, all not protected classes. . Religion is a protected class, but churches are allowed to discriminate on that basis. A church could refuse to marry individuals because they (or one of them) profess a different religion. (they could probably refuse other protected classes as well... I could see a religious institution that only marries men being legal... ie only men-men weddings, no woman-woman or woman-man weddings, assuming they had sincere belief to back it up.) Churches have limited powers to discriminate on the basis of religion, such as not being forced to hire a Catholic Rabbi. In terms of hosting weddings, a lot of churches don't offer their services to the general public exactly as a way to avoid this issue. They are available only to their own congregation, like a members only club. Doesn't really apply to the bakery, it's not a members only bakery.
Based on that last bit, then it means that no one should offer services to the public if they object to anyone.
Instead just have
"Ask about our custom wedding cakes*"
*members only...membership is free and only requires your name and approval
Which would be strange to see outside a McDonalds
*members only (membership provided when you order for free, no name required, but We reserve the right to refuse/withdraw membership for any reason)
but under that argument would protect them in case McDonalds wanted to have a "safe space Saturdays" location that didn't serve whites on Saturday.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
