|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
So for my european friends, not only does it suck to lose your job or be laid off in the US, you also lose your health insurance. You get the "great"option of keeping your insurance through COBRA but you have to pay your employer premium out of pocket (which most people dont even know about ) but its typically in the range of $500-$1000 depending on if you have a family. This is in addition to what you normally pay (i pay somewhere around $450 for my wife and myself). So not only do you get fucked because you are out of work and if you are lucky you get unemployment, you get fucked by being out of pocket for your health insurance to the tune of $1000-$1500 a month. Thats not even counting copays, deductables, etc.
|
On November 09 2024 02:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2024 01:51 ChristianS wrote:On November 09 2024 01:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 09 2024 00:11 ChristianS wrote:On November 08 2024 10:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2024 10:11 ChristianS wrote:On November 08 2024 10:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2024 08:52 KwarK wrote:On November 08 2024 06:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2024 05:33 WombaT wrote:
If the Democrats framed Trump as a shitbag who’d shortly fuck off, let’s figure out some messaging to counter him, that’s one thing. Kinda my position
But they want to simultaneously frame him as a Fascist threat to democracy, while also doing nothing to block his ascent to power What is terrifying to me is that libs/Dems are just going to retcon the "Trump is a fascist that will destroy democracy" thing, as we see happening now. Then insist no matter how authoritarian Trump gets, that he's not actually a fascist dictator, because then electoralism wouldn't be worth shit and they are lesser evil absolutists. They'll be the one's explaining " actually this bipartisan mass deportation bill is a win because we got some more weapons for Israel and Ukraine!" Then " Oh, turns out there's no where that will take the ~10,000,000+ people we Democrats and Republicans rounded up, guess we'll have to make these camps a bit more permanent" Then " Oh you know who could do the work? These people illegals we rounded up! It's okay if they don't want to, we can legally force them" and so on....That's just one of the lib/Dem to fascism examples but there's more. Before anyone tells me "oh Democrats wouldn't let Trump enslave undocumented immigrants, put them in work camps, and violently punish those that refuse". Genocidal Democrats are already building the cop cities across the country that could fill/staff the prison camps while actively voting against ending slavery in California in 2024 (Harris NEVER mentioning this being on her ballot is actually unbelievable to me). FOH. This is all happening right in front of our faces and libs/Dems are just like "man this hot tub is nice, smells a bit like spices though...". I don't anticipate defending or apologizing for anything Trump does, though it's possible he might be tricked into something good. I'm still pissed at him for shit from 2016. Though one thing I will say for him is that he's never hidden what he is. Even back then he was openly stating that he'll accept the results of the election if he wins and refuse to accept them if he loses. The scorpion never claimed he was anything other than a scorpion. I have more venom and contempt for those who decided that they didn't have enough scorpions in their lives. You'll notice in that post I don't anticipate you defending or apologizing for anything Trump does either. What I'm describing is a bipartisan mass deportation aka ethnic cleansing effort that would be rationalized by you and other lib/Dems, much like you all just did with your/Harris/Biden's support of ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. To ChristianS point when GENOCIDE doesn't pass for "consequences bad enough it’s worth abandoning that first principle (the one about the president being whoever won the election)." it begs the question of what is? So far you guys have given me nothing, so I have to believe Trump and Democrats enslaving 10,000,000 immigrants wouldn't be it either. If the question is “what would the circumstances be under which I would take up arms against my government?” I hope you’ll appreciate that I don’t take the question lightly and don’t necessarily have a comprehensive answer for you right this moment, but I’m certainly pondering what exactly the answer might be. I’m not sure if that’s the question you’re asking, though. "Take up arms" is a bit dramatic, I'm at "what would the circumstances be under which I would join a revolutionary socialist organization" (or "I would read like 50% of a book by a socialist", edit: or just "I would stop voting for Democrats") and have been for YEARS waiting on you guys to have an answer to where you draw the line if not genocide for just that much. I’m imagining various scenarios about Trump carrying out some or all of the atrocities he promised to commit, and your question is “how bad would that have to get for you to agree never to vote for Democrats again?” Do you get how it doesn’t seem like a responsive question? If I promised that right this moment, it wouldn’t change the path a bit because I’m just one CA voter, and if voters en masse made the same promise, surely it would just embolden Republicans to commit atrocities without fear of electoral consequence. The obvious conclusion is that no amount of promising not to vote for Democrats is capable of stopping Republicans from committing atrocities, no? You had to skip "what would the circumstances be under which I would join a revolutionary socialist organization" to get to the edit about voting. You should have started there. But the “how bad would that have to get for you to agree never to vote for Democrats again?” besides being a bit of a transmutation, is a decades old question that precedes us. You speak to the timeliness as if I haven't been putting that question in one form or another to you and libs/Dems here for years without you all ever having anything resembling an answer. Most people just lob childish insults, or talk about any inane/bad faith thing (even on reasonable topics) they can with the oBlade types because as we know, they can't help themselves. You and the person you tried to elect President had the chance to discuss ending the enslavement of your fellow Californians and neither of you mentioned it 1 time afaict. I don't think people appreciate how fucked up that is on so many levels. I don't mean that as a personal indictment of you (I absofuckinglutely do of Harris), but of such deep systemic problems that it probably barely crossed your radar. It'd be bad enough if it was passing despite Harris NEVER mentioning how she was voting on ending the enslavement of her fellow Californians (let alone pushing for it), but it is failing. That makes it so much more unforgivably bad. + Show Spoiler +Maybe it would be helpful to pivot a bit to a related subject: a word socialists often like to use is “revisionism.” As I understand it, it dates back to a late 19th century German socialist named Eduard Bernstein, and the concept is “we don’t need a revolution, we’ll just form political parties, win votes, and enact legislation to bring about socialism.” Socialists don’t exactly use the term as a compliment; indeed, it’s the punchline to the joke about socialists that Drone posted a while back: + Show Spoiler [Drone’s joke] +There's also this joke, which comes in various ways - just copy pasting the first one I found: Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "The proletariat love you. Do you believe in the proletariat?"
He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a communist or a socialist?" He said, "A communist." I said, "Me, too! Marxist-Leninist or anarchist?" He said, "Marxist-Leninist." I said, "Me, too! What kind of thought?" He said, "Trotskyist." I said, "Me, too! Intersectional Trotskyist or Classical Trotskyist?" He said, "Intersectional Trotskyist." I said, "Me, too! Socialist Action (United States), Socialist Alternative (United States), or Socialist Equality Party (United States)?"
He said, "Socialist Action (United States)." I said, "Me, too! Socialist Resurgence splinter group, or Socialist Action mainline?" He said, "Socialist Resurgence splinter group." I said, "Me, too!"
"Socialist Resurgence committee of 2019, or Socialist Resurgence committee of 2021?" He said, "Socialist Resurgence committee of 2021." I said, "Die, bourgeois revisionist!" And I pushed him over. Lenin spends no small amount of time in What is to be Done tearing into Bernstein and Revisionism, and yet for all his sarcasm and scorn, I have trouble enumerating what exactly would be his explanation of why socialism cannot be enacted by electoral campaigns in a liberal democracy. He’s not a vanguardist, he doesn’t think the proles are too dumb to get it and you need a small cadre of radicals to stage a coup and give them their dictatorship against their will. So if you’re going to have to convince the masses of your program, why would it be an unacceptable route to elect representatives who pass bills and amendments? To be clear, I’m not asking this because I think the conclusion is wrong. Now especially, but even after 2020 I didn’t have a ton of faith in our democratic process as an effective engine for change or political decision-making. Kwark et al. are going on about how dumb it is that voters would blame Biden for inflation and such when it’s trivial to analyze why inflation happened and whether Biden did a good job combating it; but the fact remains, voters overwhelmingly make decisions on the basis of those kinds of factors. Where can you go with that besides questioning the premise of government based on elections decided by this electorate? If a fairly simple analysis like “why does inflation happen?” is way beyond what we can expect of the average voter, I certainly don’t think you can expect a majority of them to undergo the kind of revolutionary socialist self-education you’re begging everyone in the thread to find time for. But… then what? Are we back to vanguardism? Lenin eventually got somewhere with this stuff, but I’m not particularly thrilled to follow the path of early 20th century Russia (neither how they got to revolution, nor where they when after it). I want to keep this manageable so the rest can wait. Let's take back a step and focus on "what would the circumstances be under which I would join a revolutionary socialist organization". I obviously favor Revolutionary Socialism (as developed primarily by Black radicals mostly after WWII) but how about just a socialist org? We could include DSA which still does plenty of voting for Democrats? I get people are busy, but "democracy" in any meaningful sense of the word isn't just voting every couple years based on a party you have no influence on. + Show Spoiler +I mean, I guess the generic answer is “people (including myself) will sign onto a political project if they think it seeks better outcomes than the alternatives and has a reasonable chance of achieving them.” When exactly to focus on ideology (“seeks better outcomes”) and when to focus on efficacy (“has a reasonable chance of achieving them”) is a constant dilemma with no simple solution, and different posters might place their objections to socialist organizations on one or the other (or both), but I’m guessing for most folks around here, they think revolutionary socialists have almost no chance of ever taking power in America (extremely low on the efficacy measure), and if they did, they worry all the quoting Lenin and Stalin and Mao is an indication they would institute some kind of authoritarian regime (presumably low on the ideology measure as well).
But that’s me guessing at what everybody else thinks. For myself I guess I do figure the socialists tend to have somewhat idealistic/naive conceptions about affecting political change (i.e. potentially low on efficacy) but all the hard-nosed cynical Democratic political operatives seem pretty fucking incompetent, too. Feels like nobody knows anything about how to make things happen, and the actual outcomes are decided mostly by chance or circumstance. This is what Democrats robbing their supporters of the actual history of change does smh. Most of what we take for granted today (weekends, overtime, not being locked inside burning buildings, etc) that was achieved (mostly in the first half of the 20th century and before) was won by socialist guided organized labor engaging in organized mass civil disobedience. Democrats are functionally the people that shepherded people away from the functioning socialist approach to change and toward the lib/Dem one you recognize is shit now. Show nested quote +On ideology I just don’t feel like I understand what socialists want enough to even say anything conclusively about it. + Show Spoiler +Certainly the realities of Soviet or Maoist rule seem pretty grim, maybe less so than the monarchist or colonialist regimes they were meant to replace but not obviously superior to liberal democracies, either. But also those were/are pretty much entirely undemocratic regimes, and socialist revolutionaries in the US always seem to think their system will be democratic. Which leads me to the question you decided to put off until later: how exactly are you supposed to get widespread support for a program that requires so much challenging self-education, and if you could, why would you need to overthrow liberal democratic governments just to establish a new system that’s apparently still democratic? Show nested quote +Like, why are we even still talking about my vote? + Show Spoiler +I didn’t vote for Biden in the primary and it made no difference. I did vote for Kamala in the general and it made no difference. I’m well aware my vote is insignificant, I mostly only bothered to fill the thing out for some of the propositions that apparently are also gonna fail (fucking hell, this state). You and I seem to be in agreement that meaningful change is only gonna come from non-ballot-related activities, so why do we keep talking about whether I bubble in that first question or not? Why do you even care? Same reason as Kwark and the rest of the Harris/Democrat supporters: Show nested quote +On November 08 2024 22:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2024 15:37 KwarK wrote:On November 08 2024 15:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2024 14:04 KwarK wrote:On November 08 2024 13:04 Salazarz wrote:On November 08 2024 11:46 Razyda wrote:On November 08 2024 10:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2024 10:40 Falling wrote:On November 08 2024 08:00 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I do think it's silly to find Trump an unacceptable person to vote for but a reasonably acceptable person to give control of the most lethal military in the world after he said he would be a day 1 dictator.
It may avoid charges of hypocrisy, but strikes me as pretty irresponsible
EDIT: Especially after the Supreme Court already gave him immunity to do practically anything he wants legally The dictator on day one rhetoric is yet another reason why I am a never-Trumper (from afar as I can't vote, for obvious reasons.) It's disqualifying even if it was just a metaphor or however it might sanewashed by Trump loyalists. I don't see any way to be consistent and call oneself a believer in limited government who is conserving the constitution, not as a principled conservative, not even as a pragmatic one. However, until and unless he becomes a dictator on day one, I think it is premature to treat him as a dictator though the electorate did indeed give him control to the most lethal military in the world. But it was not me who is giving him anything. I think it is premature because generally speaking I think the most effective way to remove a dictator is to shoot or otherwise kill them though I guess you could forcibly remove him instead. I'm not prepared to do any of that Minority Report style. Are you? If you actually believe he attempted an insurrection, then taking care of him might have been the first thing Biden should have done as president and let the immunity thing come to the court that way (if the CIA/FBI/NSA/ST6/whatev somehow was traced back to him). Then, once Biden knew he would be immune from prosecution for pursuing justice for treason, that was another pivotal chance passed. Now, he knows this treasonous insurrectionist (set aside the fascism for the moment if one wishes) is going to get what he was after during his treasonous insurrection attempt, and he's got a chance to stop that from happening. If I believed Trump was a treasonous insurrectionist (let alone also a fascist with the whole project 2025 crew in tow) as a never-Trump conservative (dunno if that's a close enough descriptor for you) I would support Biden enacting patriotic justice based on that alone. I just quote this post, but GH to put last few pages of your posts in context of your usual stance: Liberals will descend to fascism - now you advocating for Democrats to become a fascist to stop Trump. Lesser evilism = bad, but Democrats becoming fascist is better than Trump becoming president, therefore in this case lesser evilism good. Sort of makes sense - you can then claim "told you Democrats will become fascists". You come across much more dictatorial than Trump ever did (bolded parts). You are not afraid that Trump can become dictator, you are angry that you wont (or whatever Secretary you happened to be infatuated with). Arresting a guy for leading a coup is not fascism, it's just following the laws. Plenty of randos in the crowd that stormed the capitol got criminal charges. The way I see it, there's a huge disconnect in messaging and actions of the Dems. Either Trump is all the things they say he is, and then them not dealing with him is a massive failure to uphold the law and security of the country; or he is not, in fact, all the things they say he is and they're just trying to push people into voting for them because 'big bad orange will get ya' otherwise. It's the first. They trusted in institutions that couldn't be relied upon. Sooo the same thing they are doing by handing Trump/Project 2025 control of the most lethal military in the world? That' should work out well /s We can ignore all the warnings people got that this would happen, and just go with "fool me once, shame on you, fool me 542 times..." Also, to be fair, the institution of the Supreme Court did give Democrats the power to hold him accountable. Unfortunately, Democrats are even less reliable than Trump's Supreme Court. Dunno why you keep holding this stuff against me as if I'm running the Democrats. ...supporting them. They ostensibly derive their power from you and voters like you. From a liberal democratic pov, you and people like you need to extract better than that from them. Alternatively, you and voters like yourself need to extract them and replace them with people that will do better than make the same mistake for the 543rd time of trusting institutions and norms to control Trump/Project 2025's openly fascist ambitions. I'd prefer you and voters like yourself just join revolutionary socialist orgs and go from there, but if you all insist on keeping your lib-Dem politics, the WORLD needs you to demand better from your leaders RIGHT NOW, EN MASSE, in every venue possible. Which ties into the issue with you and other libs/Dems not having a line for when you'd have to stop supporting Democrats since clearly even genocide doesn't cross it. Show nested quote +On November 08 2024 10:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2024 08:52 KwarK wrote:On November 08 2024 06:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2024 05:33 WombaT wrote:
If the Democrats framed Trump as a shitbag who’d shortly fuck off, let’s figure out some messaging to counter him, that’s one thing. Kinda my position
But they want to simultaneously frame him as a Fascist threat to democracy, while also doing nothing to block his ascent to power What is terrifying to me is that libs/Dems are just going to retcon the "Trump is a fascist that will destroy democracy" thing, as we see happening now. Then insist no matter how authoritarian Trump gets, that he's not actually a fascist dictator, because then electoralism wouldn't be worth shit and they are lesser evil absolutists. They'll be the one's explaining " actually this bipartisan mass deportation bill is a win because we got some more weapons for Israel and Ukraine!" Then " Oh, turns out there's no where that will take the ~10,000,000+ people we Democrats and Republicans rounded up, guess we'll have to make these camps a bit more permanent" Then " Oh you know who could do the work? These people illegals we rounded up! It's okay if they don't want to, we can legally force them" and so on....That's just one of the lib/Dem to fascism examples but there's more. Before anyone tells me "oh Democrats wouldn't let Trump enslave undocumented immigrants, put them in work camps, and violently punish those that refuse". Genocidal Democrats are already building the cop cities across the country that could fill/staff the prison camps while actively voting against ending slavery in California in 2024 (Harris NEVER mentioning this being on her ballot is actually unbelievable to me). FOH. This is all happening right in front of our faces and libs/Dems are just like "man this hot tub is nice, smells a bit like spices though...". I don't anticipate defending or apologizing for anything Trump does, though it's possible he might be tricked into something good. I'm still pissed at him for shit from 2016. Though one thing I will say for him is that he's never hidden what he is. Even back then he was openly stating that he'll accept the results of the election if he wins and refuse to accept them if he loses. The scorpion never claimed he was anything other than a scorpion. I have more venom and contempt for those who decided that they didn't have enough scorpions in their lives. ... What I'm describing is a bipartisan mass deportation aka ethnic cleansing effort that would be rationalized by you and other lib/Dems, much like you all just did with your/Harris/Biden's support of the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. To ChristianS point, when GENOCIDE doesn't pass for "consequences bad enough it’s worth abandoning that first principle (the one about the president being whoever won the election)." it begs the question of what is? So far you guys have given me nothing, so I have to believe Trump and Democrats enslaving 10,000,000 immigrants wouldn't be it either. You voting for someone that couldn't even mention that there was an opportunity to stop enslaving her fellow Californians from her home state when the whole country was looking at her, is emblematic of how problematic that is.
Sure, the Democratic Party derives political power and legitimacy from people like me or Kwark or DPB being willing to vote for them. The US government derives power and legitimacy from our labor, tax dollars, etc. If we were to stop being willing to vote for them, they’d pivot to whatever position allowed them to maximize their support from whoever continued to engage with the political system; if we were to stop working or paying taxes the US government would pivot to deriving its power and legitimacy from whoever continued to engage with the economic system.
You’re fundamentally opposed to making moral arguments on a “compared to the alternative” basis, but personally I’m going to be more interested in plans which achieve better outcomes, which requires choosing among available alternatives. Political abstention is one of those available alternatives but I have yet to hear even a theoretical mechanism by which it would achieve better outcomes for anyone. If I didn’t give a shit about achieving better outcomes for people, and just to keep my name or reputation or immortal soul unsullied by association with horrible stuff, I can see how political abstention would help me. But when this stuff has real, enormous consequences for other people’s lives it’s hard for me to feel good about just trying to not get my hands dirty.
But anyway, haven’t we been here before? Haven’t we already done this? I don’t want to talk about trolley problems, particularly at a moment when it’s already clear to both of us that neither of us have any influence over whether the lever gets pulled or not anyway. Like, I agree that Kamala should have voiced support for the amendment, and more generally that CA liberals are responsible for a state that continues to enact regressive and exploitative policies while pretending everything would be progressive and wonderful if national politics went their way. I have no control over that. Supposedly leftists have proposed courses of action outside electoral politics that might ameliorate things, why don’t we talk about those? Doesn’t that sound more productive?
|
On November 09 2024 02:49 Sadist wrote:
Oblade you can check for what procedures cost in other countries.
MRIs for example. How about heart surgery? Everyone knows the US system is corrupt. Its nothing to do with Americans being more expensive to treat, we pay more and get less.
Are you telling me it costs more to get heart surgery at a hospital that was more expensive to build, staffed by people who make more per year, equipped with stuff that costs more to develop, paid for by insurance pooled with people who are 45% obese, who are more likely to have heart conditions, meaning have more heart conditions?
The US system is corrupt so we should entrust it to a government who lets doctors ship every grandparent with a cough to get an MRI to cash in on the free government bucks. Okay.
If price transparency is your thing, Republicans have pushed for it.
On November 09 2024 02:49 Sadist wrote:
Health insurance sucks, what we need is Health Care. Its not insurance if you have a chronic condition.
Medicare is not bankrupting the country either. We need to fix it and let Medicare negotiate prices if a drug maker wants to enter the US market.
Medicare is $900 billion a year that's not just pharmaceuticals.
On November 09 2024 02:49 Sadist wrote:
Also we already take care of the most expensive people anyway. Triple the tax for medicare and id still come out way ahead compared to insurance. Also we could finally divorce health insurance from employment which should be a crime.
What do you mean "triple the tax" for Medicare?
On November 09 2024 03:02 Sadist wrote:
So for my european friends, not only does it suck to lose your job or be laid off in the US, you also lose your health insurance. You get the "great"option of keeping your insurance through COBRA but you have to pay your employer premium out of pocket (which most people dont even know about ) but its typically in the range of $500-$1000 depending on if you have a family. This is in addition to what you normally pay (i pay somewhere around $450 for my wife and myself). So not only do you get fucked because you are out of work and if you are lucky you get unemployment, you get fucked by being out of pocket for your health insurance to the tune of $1000-$1500 a month. Thats not even counting copays, deductables, etc.
What you described is not a unique function - in a country with public healthcare your employer is paying a premium/tax while employing you that you become responsible for if you want to have healthcare while lacking employment.
You could also sign up at healthcare.gov.
|
On November 09 2024 03:03 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2024 02:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 09 2024 01:51 ChristianS wrote:On November 09 2024 01:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 09 2024 00:11 ChristianS wrote:On November 08 2024 10:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2024 10:11 ChristianS wrote:On November 08 2024 10:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2024 08:52 KwarK wrote:On November 08 2024 06:45 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] What is terrifying to me is that libs/Dems are just going to retcon the "Trump is a fascist that will destroy democracy" thing, as we see happening now. Then insist no matter how authoritarian Trump gets, that he's not actually a fascist dictator, because then electoralism wouldn't be worth shit and they are lesser evil absolutists. They'll be the one's explaining " actually this bipartisan mass deportation bill is a win because we got some more weapons for Israel and Ukraine!" Then " Oh, turns out there's no where that will take the ~10,000,000+ people we Democrats and Republicans rounded up, guess we'll have to make these camps a bit more permanent" Then " Oh you know who could do the work? These people illegals we rounded up! It's okay if they don't want to, we can legally force them" and so on....That's just one of the lib/Dem to fascism examples but there's more. Before anyone tells me "oh Democrats wouldn't let Trump enslave undocumented immigrants, put them in work camps, and violently punish those that refuse". Genocidal Democrats are already building the cop cities across the country that could fill/staff the prison camps while actively voting against ending slavery in California in 2024 (Harris NEVER mentioning this being on her ballot is actually unbelievable to me). FOH. This is all happening right in front of our faces and libs/Dems are just like "man this hot tub is nice, smells a bit like spices though...". I don't anticipate defending or apologizing for anything Trump does, though it's possible he might be tricked into something good. I'm still pissed at him for shit from 2016. Though one thing I will say for him is that he's never hidden what he is. Even back then he was openly stating that he'll accept the results of the election if he wins and refuse to accept them if he loses. The scorpion never claimed he was anything other than a scorpion. I have more venom and contempt for those who decided that they didn't have enough scorpions in their lives. You'll notice in that post I don't anticipate you defending or apologizing for anything Trump does either. What I'm describing is a bipartisan mass deportation aka ethnic cleansing effort that would be rationalized by you and other lib/Dems, much like you all just did with your/Harris/Biden's support of ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. To ChristianS point when GENOCIDE doesn't pass for "consequences bad enough it’s worth abandoning that first principle (the one about the president being whoever won the election)." it begs the question of what is? So far you guys have given me nothing, so I have to believe Trump and Democrats enslaving 10,000,000 immigrants wouldn't be it either. If the question is “what would the circumstances be under which I would take up arms against my government?” I hope you’ll appreciate that I don’t take the question lightly and don’t necessarily have a comprehensive answer for you right this moment, but I’m certainly pondering what exactly the answer might be. I’m not sure if that’s the question you’re asking, though. "Take up arms" is a bit dramatic, I'm at "what would the circumstances be under which I would join a revolutionary socialist organization" (or "I would read like 50% of a book by a socialist", edit: or just "I would stop voting for Democrats") and have been for YEARS waiting on you guys to have an answer to where you draw the line if not genocide for just that much. I’m imagining various scenarios about Trump carrying out some or all of the atrocities he promised to commit, and your question is “how bad would that have to get for you to agree never to vote for Democrats again?” Do you get how it doesn’t seem like a responsive question? If I promised that right this moment, it wouldn’t change the path a bit because I’m just one CA voter, and if voters en masse made the same promise, surely it would just embolden Republicans to commit atrocities without fear of electoral consequence. The obvious conclusion is that no amount of promising not to vote for Democrats is capable of stopping Republicans from committing atrocities, no? You had to skip "what would the circumstances be under which I would join a revolutionary socialist organization" to get to the edit about voting. You should have started there. But the “how bad would that have to get for you to agree never to vote for Democrats again?” besides being a bit of a transmutation, is a decades old question that precedes us. You speak to the timeliness as if I haven't been putting that question in one form or another to you and libs/Dems here for years without you all ever having anything resembling an answer. Most people just lob childish insults, or talk about any inane/bad faith thing (even on reasonable topics) they can with the oBlade types because as we know, they can't help themselves. You and the person you tried to elect President had the chance to discuss ending the enslavement of your fellow Californians and neither of you mentioned it 1 time afaict. I don't think people appreciate how fucked up that is on so many levels. I don't mean that as a personal indictment of you (I absofuckinglutely do of Harris), but of such deep systemic problems that it probably barely crossed your radar. It'd be bad enough if it was passing despite Harris NEVER mentioning how she was voting on ending the enslavement of her fellow Californians (let alone pushing for it), but it is failing. That makes it so much more unforgivably bad. + Show Spoiler +Maybe it would be helpful to pivot a bit to a related subject: a word socialists often like to use is “revisionism.” As I understand it, it dates back to a late 19th century German socialist named Eduard Bernstein, and the concept is “we don’t need a revolution, we’ll just form political parties, win votes, and enact legislation to bring about socialism.” Socialists don’t exactly use the term as a compliment; indeed, it’s the punchline to the joke about socialists that Drone posted a while back: + Show Spoiler [Drone’s joke] +There's also this joke, which comes in various ways - just copy pasting the first one I found: Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "The proletariat love you. Do you believe in the proletariat?"
He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a communist or a socialist?" He said, "A communist." I said, "Me, too! Marxist-Leninist or anarchist?" He said, "Marxist-Leninist." I said, "Me, too! What kind of thought?" He said, "Trotskyist." I said, "Me, too! Intersectional Trotskyist or Classical Trotskyist?" He said, "Intersectional Trotskyist." I said, "Me, too! Socialist Action (United States), Socialist Alternative (United States), or Socialist Equality Party (United States)?"
He said, "Socialist Action (United States)." I said, "Me, too! Socialist Resurgence splinter group, or Socialist Action mainline?" He said, "Socialist Resurgence splinter group." I said, "Me, too!"
"Socialist Resurgence committee of 2019, or Socialist Resurgence committee of 2021?" He said, "Socialist Resurgence committee of 2021." I said, "Die, bourgeois revisionist!" And I pushed him over. Lenin spends no small amount of time in What is to be Done tearing into Bernstein and Revisionism, and yet for all his sarcasm and scorn, I have trouble enumerating what exactly would be his explanation of why socialism cannot be enacted by electoral campaigns in a liberal democracy. He’s not a vanguardist, he doesn’t think the proles are too dumb to get it and you need a small cadre of radicals to stage a coup and give them their dictatorship against their will. So if you’re going to have to convince the masses of your program, why would it be an unacceptable route to elect representatives who pass bills and amendments? To be clear, I’m not asking this because I think the conclusion is wrong. Now especially, but even after 2020 I didn’t have a ton of faith in our democratic process as an effective engine for change or political decision-making. Kwark et al. are going on about how dumb it is that voters would blame Biden for inflation and such when it’s trivial to analyze why inflation happened and whether Biden did a good job combating it; but the fact remains, voters overwhelmingly make decisions on the basis of those kinds of factors. Where can you go with that besides questioning the premise of government based on elections decided by this electorate? If a fairly simple analysis like “why does inflation happen?” is way beyond what we can expect of the average voter, I certainly don’t think you can expect a majority of them to undergo the kind of revolutionary socialist self-education you’re begging everyone in the thread to find time for. But… then what? Are we back to vanguardism? Lenin eventually got somewhere with this stuff, but I’m not particularly thrilled to follow the path of early 20th century Russia (neither how they got to revolution, nor where they when after it). I want to keep this manageable so the rest can wait. Let's take back a step and focus on "what would the circumstances be under which I would join a revolutionary socialist organization". I obviously favor Revolutionary Socialism (as developed primarily by Black radicals mostly after WWII) but how about just a socialist org? We could include DSA which still does plenty of voting for Democrats? I get people are busy, but "democracy" in any meaningful sense of the word isn't just voting every couple years based on a party you have no influence on. + Show Spoiler +I mean, I guess the generic answer is “people (including myself) will sign onto a political project if they think it seeks better outcomes than the alternatives and has a reasonable chance of achieving them.” When exactly to focus on ideology (“seeks better outcomes”) and when to focus on efficacy (“has a reasonable chance of achieving them”) is a constant dilemma with no simple solution, and different posters might place their objections to socialist organizations on one or the other (or both), but I’m guessing for most folks around here, they think revolutionary socialists have almost no chance of ever taking power in America (extremely low on the efficacy measure), and if they did, they worry all the quoting Lenin and Stalin and Mao is an indication they would institute some kind of authoritarian regime (presumably low on the ideology measure as well).
But that’s me guessing at what everybody else thinks. For myself I guess I do figure the socialists tend to have somewhat idealistic/naive conceptions about affecting political change (i.e. potentially low on efficacy) but all the hard-nosed cynical Democratic political operatives seem pretty fucking incompetent, too. Feels like nobody knows anything about how to make things happen, and the actual outcomes are decided mostly by chance or circumstance. This is what Democrats robbing their supporters of the actual history of change does smh. Most of what we take for granted today (weekends, overtime, not being locked inside burning buildings, etc) that was achieved (mostly in the first half of the 20th century and before) was won by socialist guided organized labor engaging in organized mass civil disobedience. Democrats are functionally the people that shepherded people away from the functioning socialist approach to change and toward the lib/Dem one you recognize is shit now. On ideology I just don’t feel like I understand what socialists want enough to even say anything conclusively about it. + Show Spoiler +Certainly the realities of Soviet or Maoist rule seem pretty grim, maybe less so than the monarchist or colonialist regimes they were meant to replace but not obviously superior to liberal democracies, either. But also those were/are pretty much entirely undemocratic regimes, and socialist revolutionaries in the US always seem to think their system will be democratic. Which leads me to the question you decided to put off until later: how exactly are you supposed to get widespread support for a program that requires so much challenging self-education, and if you could, why would you need to overthrow liberal democratic governments just to establish a new system that’s apparently still democratic? Like, why are we even still talking about my vote? + Show Spoiler +I didn’t vote for Biden in the primary and it made no difference. I did vote for Kamala in the general and it made no difference. I’m well aware my vote is insignificant, I mostly only bothered to fill the thing out for some of the propositions that apparently are also gonna fail (fucking hell, this state). You and I seem to be in agreement that meaningful change is only gonna come from non-ballot-related activities, so why do we keep talking about whether I bubble in that first question or not? Why do you even care? Same reason as Kwark and the rest of the Harris/Democrat supporters: On November 08 2024 22:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2024 15:37 KwarK wrote:On November 08 2024 15:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2024 14:04 KwarK wrote:On November 08 2024 13:04 Salazarz wrote:On November 08 2024 11:46 Razyda wrote:On November 08 2024 10:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2024 10:40 Falling wrote:
[quote]
The dictator on day one rhetoric is yet another reason why I am a never-Trumper (from afar as I can't vote, for obvious reasons.) It's disqualifying even if it was just a metaphor or however it might sanewashed by Trump loyalists. I don't see any way to be consistent and call oneself a believer in limited government who is conserving the constitution, not as a principled conservative, not even as a pragmatic one.
However, until and unless he becomes a dictator on day one, I think it is premature to treat him as a dictator though the electorate did indeed give him control to the most lethal military in the world. But it was not me who is giving him anything. I think it is premature because generally speaking I think the most effective way to remove a dictator is to shoot or otherwise kill them though I guess you could forcibly remove him instead. I'm not prepared to do any of that Minority Report style. Are you? If you actually believe he attempted an insurrection, then taking care of him might have been the first thing Biden should have done as president and let the immunity thing come to the court that way (if the CIA/FBI/NSA/ST6/whatev somehow was traced back to him). Then, once Biden knew he would be immune from prosecution for pursuing justice for treason, that was another pivotal chance passed. Now, he knows this treasonous insurrectionist (set aside the fascism for the moment if one wishes) is going to get what he was after during his treasonous insurrection attempt, and he's got a chance to stop that from happening. If I believed Trump was a treasonous insurrectionist (let alone also a fascist with the whole project 2025 crew in tow) as a never-Trump conservative (dunno if that's a close enough descriptor for you) I would support Biden enacting patriotic justice based on that alone. I just quote this post, but GH to put last few pages of your posts in context of your usual stance: Liberals will descend to fascism - now you advocating for Democrats to become a fascist to stop Trump. Lesser evilism = bad, but Democrats becoming fascist is better than Trump becoming president, therefore in this case lesser evilism good. Sort of makes sense - you can then claim "told you Democrats will become fascists". You come across much more dictatorial than Trump ever did (bolded parts). You are not afraid that Trump can become dictator, you are angry that you wont (or whatever Secretary you happened to be infatuated with). Arresting a guy for leading a coup is not fascism, it's just following the laws. Plenty of randos in the crowd that stormed the capitol got criminal charges. The way I see it, there's a huge disconnect in messaging and actions of the Dems. Either Trump is all the things they say he is, and then them not dealing with him is a massive failure to uphold the law and security of the country; or he is not, in fact, all the things they say he is and they're just trying to push people into voting for them because 'big bad orange will get ya' otherwise. It's the first. They trusted in institutions that couldn't be relied upon. Sooo the same thing they are doing by handing Trump/Project 2025 control of the most lethal military in the world? That' should work out well /s We can ignore all the warnings people got that this would happen, and just go with "fool me once, shame on you, fool me 542 times..." Also, to be fair, the institution of the Supreme Court did give Democrats the power to hold him accountable. Unfortunately, Democrats are even less reliable than Trump's Supreme Court. Dunno why you keep holding this stuff against me as if I'm running the Democrats. ...supporting them. They ostensibly derive their power from you and voters like you. From a liberal democratic pov, you and people like you need to extract better than that from them. Alternatively, you and voters like yourself need to extract them and replace them with people that will do better than make the same mistake for the 543rd time of trusting institutions and norms to control Trump/Project 2025's openly fascist ambitions. I'd prefer you and voters like yourself just join revolutionary socialist orgs and go from there, but if you all insist on keeping your lib-Dem politics, the WORLD needs you to demand better from your leaders RIGHT NOW, EN MASSE, in every venue possible. Which ties into the issue with you and other libs/Dems not having a line for when you'd have to stop supporting Democrats since clearly even genocide doesn't cross it. On November 08 2024 10:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2024 08:52 KwarK wrote:On November 08 2024 06:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2024 05:33 WombaT wrote:
If the Democrats framed Trump as a shitbag who’d shortly fuck off, let’s figure out some messaging to counter him, that’s one thing. Kinda my position
But they want to simultaneously frame him as a Fascist threat to democracy, while also doing nothing to block his ascent to power What is terrifying to me is that libs/Dems are just going to retcon the "Trump is a fascist that will destroy democracy" thing, as we see happening now. Then insist no matter how authoritarian Trump gets, that he's not actually a fascist dictator, because then electoralism wouldn't be worth shit and they are lesser evil absolutists. They'll be the one's explaining " actually this bipartisan mass deportation bill is a win because we got some more weapons for Israel and Ukraine!" Then " Oh, turns out there's no where that will take the ~10,000,000+ people we Democrats and Republicans rounded up, guess we'll have to make these camps a bit more permanent" Then " Oh you know who could do the work? These people illegals we rounded up! It's okay if they don't want to, we can legally force them" and so on....That's just one of the lib/Dem to fascism examples but there's more. Before anyone tells me "oh Democrats wouldn't let Trump enslave undocumented immigrants, put them in work camps, and violently punish those that refuse". Genocidal Democrats are already building the cop cities across the country that could fill/staff the prison camps while actively voting against ending slavery in California in 2024 (Harris NEVER mentioning this being on her ballot is actually unbelievable to me). FOH. This is all happening right in front of our faces and libs/Dems are just like "man this hot tub is nice, smells a bit like spices though...". I don't anticipate defending or apologizing for anything Trump does, though it's possible he might be tricked into something good. I'm still pissed at him for shit from 2016. Though one thing I will say for him is that he's never hidden what he is. Even back then he was openly stating that he'll accept the results of the election if he wins and refuse to accept them if he loses. The scorpion never claimed he was anything other than a scorpion. I have more venom and contempt for those who decided that they didn't have enough scorpions in their lives. ... What I'm describing is a bipartisan mass deportation aka ethnic cleansing effort that would be rationalized by you and other lib/Dems, much like you all just did with your/Harris/Biden's support of the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. To ChristianS point, when GENOCIDE doesn't pass for "consequences bad enough it’s worth abandoning that first principle (the one about the president being whoever won the election)." it begs the question of what is? So far you guys have given me nothing, so I have to believe Trump and Democrats enslaving 10,000,000 immigrants wouldn't be it either. You voting for someone that couldn't even mention that there was an opportunity to stop enslaving her fellow Californians from her home state when the whole country was looking at her, is emblematic of how problematic that is. + Show Spoiler +Sure, the Democratic Party derives political power and legitimacy from people like me or Kwark or DPB being willing to vote for them. The US government derives power and legitimacy from our labor, tax dollars, etc. If we were to stop being willing to vote for them, they’d pivot to whatever position allowed them to maximize their support from whoever continued to engage with the political system; if we were to stop working or paying taxes the US government would pivot to deriving its power and legitimacy from whoever continued to engage with the economic system.
You’re fundamentally opposed to making moral arguments on a “compared to the alternative” basis, but personally I’m going to be more interested in plans which achieve better outcomes, which requires choosing among available alternatives. Political abstention is one of those available alternatives but I have yet to hear even a theoretical mechanism by which it would achieve better outcomes for anyone. + Show Spoiler + If I didn’t give a shit about achieving better outcomes for people, and just to keep my name or reputation or immortal soul unsullied by association with horrible stuff, I can see how political abstention would help me. But when this stuff has real, enormous consequences for other people’s lives it’s hard for me to feel good about just trying to not get my hands dirty.
But anyway, haven’t we been here before? Haven’t we already done this? I don’t want to talk about trolley problems, particularly at a moment when it’s already clear to both of us that neither of us have any influence over whether the lever gets pulled or not anyway. Like, I agree that Kamala should have voiced support for the amendment, and more generally that CA liberals are responsible for a state that continues to enact regressive and exploitative policies while pretending everything would be progressive and wonderful if national politics went their way. I have no control over that. Supposedly leftists have proposed courses of action outside electoral politics that might ameliorate things, why don’t we talk about those? Doesn’t that sound more productive?
"Not voting for Democrats" Isn't political abstention. I know you know that and strawman it that way disingenuously on purpose. You should stop that.
You should have some control over that. There are people that go to the Democrat meetings and make the policies from the local to the national level (though for Democrats it typically flows the other way nowadays). That could be you just as easily as anyone else (but for the whole Hamster Wheel + Show Spoiler +1. There's a problem
2. Politicians won't fix it
3. Need to replace the politicians with ones that will
4. Can't replace the politicians because of how the system works
5. Need to fix the system
6. Politicians won't fix it (because it benefits them)
7. Repeat ad nauseam.
As to talking about "proposed courses of action outside electoral politics that might ameliorate things" being more productive, it is with socialists. It is with (edit:most some)reasonable social democrats. Not so much with libs/Dems that are primarily just looking to shit on them in order to rationalize their continued support of genocide and the rest.
|
On November 09 2024 01:31 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2024 00:22 Billyboy wrote:On November 08 2024 22:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2024 15:37 KwarK wrote:On November 08 2024 15:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2024 14:04 KwarK wrote:On November 08 2024 13:04 Salazarz wrote:On November 08 2024 11:46 Razyda wrote:On November 08 2024 10:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2024 10:40 Falling wrote:
[quote]
The dictator on day one rhetoric is yet another reason why I am a never-Trumper (from afar as I can't vote, for obvious reasons.) It's disqualifying even if it was just a metaphor or however it might sanewashed by Trump loyalists. I don't see any way to be consistent and call oneself a believer in limited government who is conserving the constitution, not as a principled conservative, not even as a pragmatic one.
However, until and unless he becomes a dictator on day one, I think it is premature to treat him as a dictator though the electorate did indeed give him control to the most lethal military in the world. But it was not me who is giving him anything. I think it is premature because generally speaking I think the most effective way to remove a dictator is to shoot or otherwise kill them though I guess you could forcibly remove him instead. I'm not prepared to do any of that Minority Report style. Are you? If you actually believe he attempted an insurrection, then taking care of him might have been the first thing Biden should have done as president and let the immunity thing come to the court that way (if the CIA/FBI/NSA/ST6/whatev somehow was traced back to him). Then, once Biden knew he would be immune from prosecution for pursuing justice for treason, that was another pivotal chance passed. Now, he knows this treasonous insurrectionist (set aside the fascism for the moment if one wishes) is going to get what he was after during his treasonous insurrection attempt, and he's got a chance to stop that from happening. If I believed Trump was a treasonous insurrectionist (let alone also a fascist with the whole project 2025 crew in tow) as a never-Trump conservative (dunno if that's a close enough descriptor for you) I would support Biden enacting patriotic justice based on that alone. I just quote this post, but GH to put last few pages of your posts in context of your usual stance: Liberals will descend to fascism - now you advocating for Democrats to become a fascist to stop Trump. Lesser evilism = bad, but Democrats becoming fascist is better than Trump becoming president, therefore in this case lesser evilism good. Sort of makes sense - you can then claim "told you Democrats will become fascists". You come across much more dictatorial than Trump ever did (bolded parts). You are not afraid that Trump can become dictator, you are angry that you wont (or whatever Secretary you happened to be infatuated with). Arresting a guy for leading a coup is not fascism, it's just following the laws. Plenty of randos in the crowd that stormed the capitol got criminal charges. The way I see it, there's a huge disconnect in messaging and actions of the Dems. Either Trump is all the things they say he is, and then them not dealing with him is a massive failure to uphold the law and security of the country; or he is not, in fact, all the things they say he is and they're just trying to push people into voting for them because 'big bad orange will get ya' otherwise. It's the first. They trusted in institutions that couldn't be relied upon. Sooo the same thing they are doing by handing Trump/Project 2025 control of the most lethal military in the world? That' should work out well /s We can ignore all the warnings people got that this would happen, and just go with "fool me once, shame on you, fool me 542 times..." Also, to be fair, the institution of the Supreme Court did give Democrats the power to hold him accountable. Unfortunately, Democrats are even less reliable than Trump's Supreme Court. Dunno why you keep holding this stuff against me as if I'm running the Democrats. Not running, just supporting them. They ostensibly derive their power from you and voters like you. From a liberal democratic pov, you and people like you need to extract better than that from them. Alternatively, you and voters like yourself need to extract them and replace them with people that will do better than make the same mistake for the 543rd time of trusting institutions and norms to control Trump/Project 2025's openly fascist ambitions. I'd prefer you and voters like yourself just join revolutionary socialist orgs and go from there, but if you all insist on keeping your lib-Dem politics, the WORLD needs you to demand better from your leaders RIGHT NOW, EN MASSE, in every venue possible. Perhaps they derive their power from people like you who chase away possible supporters of their cause so that you can stay on your soap box and feel superior. How long have you been posting like this? A decade? How many people have joined you so far? Might be time for a new approach. Or maybe your goal is to win internet arguments and you don't actually care, but man is the repetition and never getting past the doom part getting tired. In the same span Donald Trump has been elected President twice, and this time with both houses and a Supreme Court stacked in his favour. So how’s that working out? One may disagree with GH’s positions and that’s fair enough, at the other side of ledger, one can direct something of the same criticism of repetition elsewhere.
A heck of a lot better than a civil war that will take a long ass time to end and very likely end with authoritarian rule by whatever group emerges.
If someone was really worried about Trump winning it, they would not be unable to contain their joy on election night.
The left (and center in the US) needs to unite not bicker about whos the most righteous.
On November 08 2024 22:56 WombaT wrote:
As a general observation when did skepticism about Big Pharma move from being generally the purview of the left to at least being as common on the right?
Was it purely Covid?
It seems to make much less sense anyway. The left’s is, especially within the US system embedded in profit motive forming an obvious potential conflict of interest.
But the right don’t seem to have many innate problems with for-profit-healthcare, indeed many believe it improves quality through competition.
But for some reason this rationale doesn’t apply to Big PharmaTM? Someone make it make sense yo
People have given lots of great answers but one piece I didn't see is that there is big money in it for themselves. From infowars, to Russell Brand and everyone in between are making bank off selling or promoting their own "natural" (untested un proven) supplements, cures, and so on to just about everything and everything.
|
What you described is not a unique function - in a country with public healthcare your employer is paying a premium/tax while employing you that you become responsible for if you want to have healthcare while lacking employment.
What are you talking about? This is rubbish. Universal healthcare means you get healthcare even when unemployed, and your company generally does not have to pay anything. There might be other taxes for employing people, but they dwarf compared to the cost of US health insurance.
What drives up the cost of US healthcare is how unequal it is, but also entire industries with thousands of employees which EU countries do not need, like hyper complex billing and enormous insurance companies, which do nothing for health directly.
|
On November 09 2024 03:24 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +What you described is not a unique function - in a country with public healthcare your employer is paying a premium/tax while employing you that you become responsible for if you want to have healthcare while lacking employment. What are you talking about? This is rubbish. Universal healthcare means you get healthcare even when unemployed, and your company generally does not have to pay anything. There might be other taxes for employing people, but they dwarf compared to the cost of US health insurance. What drives up the cost of US healthcare is how unequal it is, but also entire industries with thousands of employees which EU countries do not need, like hyper complex billing and enormous insurance companies, which do nothing for health directly.
Universal does not mean you do not have to pay for it and it just magically appears out of thin air.
This was the entire reasoning behind the "individual mandate" for Obamacare that actually had no effect on premiums whether it existed or not.
|
On November 09 2024 03:06 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2024 02:49 Sadist wrote:
Oblade you can check for what procedures cost in other countries.
MRIs for example. How about heart surgery? Everyone knows the US system is corrupt. Its nothing to do with Americans being more expensive to treat, we pay more and get less.
Are you telling me it costs more to get heart surgery at a hospital that was more expensive to build, staffed by people who make more per year, equipped with stuff that costs more to develop, paid for by insurance pooled with people who are 45% obese, who are more likely to have heart conditions, meaning have more heart conditions? The US system is corrupt so we should entrust it to a government who lets doctors ship every grandparent with a cough to get an MRI to cash in on the free government bucks. Okay. If price transparency is your thing, Republicans have pushed for it. Show nested quote +On November 09 2024 02:49 Sadist wrote:
Health insurance sucks, what we need is Health Care. Its not insurance if you have a chronic condition.
Medicare is not bankrupting the country either. We need to fix it and let Medicare negotiate prices if a drug maker wants to enter the US market. Medicare is $900 billion a year that's not just pharmaceuticals. Show nested quote +On November 09 2024 02:49 Sadist wrote:
Also we already take care of the most expensive people anyway. Triple the tax for medicare and id still come out way ahead compared to insurance. Also we could finally divorce health insurance from employment which should be a crime. What do you mean "triple the tax" for Medicare? Show nested quote +On November 09 2024 03:02 Sadist wrote:
So for my european friends, not only does it suck to lose your job or be laid off in the US, you also lose your health insurance. You get the "great"option of keeping your insurance through COBRA but you have to pay your employer premium out of pocket (which most people dont even know about ) but its typically in the range of $500-$1000 depending on if you have a family. This is in addition to what you normally pay (i pay somewhere around $450 for my wife and myself). So not only do you get fucked because you are out of work and if you are lucky you get unemployment, you get fucked by being out of pocket for your health insurance to the tune of $1000-$1500 a month. Thats not even counting copays, deductables, etc.
What you described is not a unique function - in a country with public healthcare your employer is paying a premium/tax while employing you that you become responsible for if you want to have healthcare while lacking employment. You could also sign up at healthcare.gov.
I'm not sure if it has been mentioned. But partly why you have such a obesity problem is the lack of universal health care. When everyone is paying for each other they all sudden start caring more about those making the system more expensive and governments start putting in rules and incentives that help to change the tide.
Is it perfect? Of course not. Is it a hell of a lot better than what you got? Yes of course it is.
|
On November 09 2024 03:29 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2024 03:06 oBlade wrote:On November 09 2024 02:49 Sadist wrote:
Oblade you can check for what procedures cost in other countries.
MRIs for example. How about heart surgery? Everyone knows the US system is corrupt. Its nothing to do with Americans being more expensive to treat, we pay more and get less.
Are you telling me it costs more to get heart surgery at a hospital that was more expensive to build, staffed by people who make more per year, equipped with stuff that costs more to develop, paid for by insurance pooled with people who are 45% obese, who are more likely to have heart conditions, meaning have more heart conditions? The US system is corrupt so we should entrust it to a government who lets doctors ship every grandparent with a cough to get an MRI to cash in on the free government bucks. Okay. If price transparency is your thing, Republicans have pushed for it. On November 09 2024 02:49 Sadist wrote:
Health insurance sucks, what we need is Health Care. Its not insurance if you have a chronic condition.
Medicare is not bankrupting the country either. We need to fix it and let Medicare negotiate prices if a drug maker wants to enter the US market. Medicare is $900 billion a year that's not just pharmaceuticals. On November 09 2024 02:49 Sadist wrote:
Also we already take care of the most expensive people anyway. Triple the tax for medicare and id still come out way ahead compared to insurance. Also we could finally divorce health insurance from employment which should be a crime. What do you mean "triple the tax" for Medicare? On November 09 2024 03:02 Sadist wrote:
So for my european friends, not only does it suck to lose your job or be laid off in the US, you also lose your health insurance. You get the "great"option of keeping your insurance through COBRA but you have to pay your employer premium out of pocket (which most people dont even know about ) but its typically in the range of $500-$1000 depending on if you have a family. This is in addition to what you normally pay (i pay somewhere around $450 for my wife and myself). So not only do you get fucked because you are out of work and if you are lucky you get unemployment, you get fucked by being out of pocket for your health insurance to the tune of $1000-$1500 a month. Thats not even counting copays, deductables, etc.
What you described is not a unique function - in a country with public healthcare your employer is paying a premium/tax while employing you that you become responsible for if you want to have healthcare while lacking employment. You could also sign up at healthcare.gov. I'm not sure if it has been mentioned. But partly why you have such a obesity problem is the lack of universal health care.
I don't know if I agree with this tbh. The UK has a huge obesity problem and we have universal health care free at the point of use.
|
On November 09 2024 03:29 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2024 03:06 oBlade wrote:On November 09 2024 02:49 Sadist wrote:
Oblade you can check for what procedures cost in other countries.
MRIs for example. How about heart surgery? Everyone knows the US system is corrupt. Its nothing to do with Americans being more expensive to treat, we pay more and get less.
Are you telling me it costs more to get heart surgery at a hospital that was more expensive to build, staffed by people who make more per year, equipped with stuff that costs more to develop, paid for by insurance pooled with people who are 45% obese, who are more likely to have heart conditions, meaning have more heart conditions? The US system is corrupt so we should entrust it to a government who lets doctors ship every grandparent with a cough to get an MRI to cash in on the free government bucks. Okay. If price transparency is your thing, Republicans have pushed for it. On November 09 2024 02:49 Sadist wrote:
Health insurance sucks, what we need is Health Care. Its not insurance if you have a chronic condition.
Medicare is not bankrupting the country either. We need to fix it and let Medicare negotiate prices if a drug maker wants to enter the US market. Medicare is $900 billion a year that's not just pharmaceuticals. On November 09 2024 02:49 Sadist wrote:
Also we already take care of the most expensive people anyway. Triple the tax for medicare and id still come out way ahead compared to insurance. Also we could finally divorce health insurance from employment which should be a crime. What do you mean "triple the tax" for Medicare? On November 09 2024 03:02 Sadist wrote:
So for my european friends, not only does it suck to lose your job or be laid off in the US, you also lose your health insurance. You get the "great"option of keeping your insurance through COBRA but you have to pay your employer premium out of pocket (which most people dont even know about ) but its typically in the range of $500-$1000 depending on if you have a family. This is in addition to what you normally pay (i pay somewhere around $450 for my wife and myself). So not only do you get fucked because you are out of work and if you are lucky you get unemployment, you get fucked by being out of pocket for your health insurance to the tune of $1000-$1500 a month. Thats not even counting copays, deductables, etc.
What you described is not a unique function - in a country with public healthcare your employer is paying a premium/tax while employing you that you become responsible for if you want to have healthcare while lacking employment. You could also sign up at healthcare.gov. I'm not sure if it has been mentioned. But partly why you have such a obesity problem is the lack of universal health care. When everyone is paying for each other they all sudden start caring more about those making the system more expensive and governments start putting in rules and incentives that help to change the tide. Is it perfect? Of course not. Is it a hell of a lot better than what you got? Yes of course it is.
Spell this out for me, are there countries in our pantheon of European socialist perfection that have fat taxes or something? What specifically are you referencing?
|
I think Shoe0nHead made a good video about the failures of the democratic party and campaign, not going to link it here since I assume it's been done before. The main topics are condescension towards men and inability to refrain from identity politics.
Also IMO forcing a VP with a historically bad approval rating who seems worse at normal human interactions than Sleepy Joe is a big own goal, or then I'm underestimating just how huge the incumbent boost is. Maybe if you believe the 81 million number, covid was strange time.
I think just from the lack of real outrage the silent majority were expecting this result, I know I did ever since Biden decided to run for second term.
fingers crossed for RFK jr to not get assassinated
e. I think the video title was The Man Problem
|
On November 09 2024 03:33 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2024 03:29 Billyboy wrote:On November 09 2024 03:06 oBlade wrote:On November 09 2024 02:49 Sadist wrote:
Oblade you can check for what procedures cost in other countries.
MRIs for example. How about heart surgery? Everyone knows the US system is corrupt. Its nothing to do with Americans being more expensive to treat, we pay more and get less.
Are you telling me it costs more to get heart surgery at a hospital that was more expensive to build, staffed by people who make more per year, equipped with stuff that costs more to develop, paid for by insurance pooled with people who are 45% obese, who are more likely to have heart conditions, meaning have more heart conditions? The US system is corrupt so we should entrust it to a government who lets doctors ship every grandparent with a cough to get an MRI to cash in on the free government bucks. Okay. If price transparency is your thing, Republicans have pushed for it. On November 09 2024 02:49 Sadist wrote:
Health insurance sucks, what we need is Health Care. Its not insurance if you have a chronic condition.
Medicare is not bankrupting the country either. We need to fix it and let Medicare negotiate prices if a drug maker wants to enter the US market. Medicare is $900 billion a year that's not just pharmaceuticals. On November 09 2024 02:49 Sadist wrote:
Also we already take care of the most expensive people anyway. Triple the tax for medicare and id still come out way ahead compared to insurance. Also we could finally divorce health insurance from employment which should be a crime. What do you mean "triple the tax" for Medicare? On November 09 2024 03:02 Sadist wrote:
So for my european friends, not only does it suck to lose your job or be laid off in the US, you also lose your health insurance. You get the "great"option of keeping your insurance through COBRA but you have to pay your employer premium out of pocket (which most people dont even know about ) but its typically in the range of $500-$1000 depending on if you have a family. This is in addition to what you normally pay (i pay somewhere around $450 for my wife and myself). So not only do you get fucked because you are out of work and if you are lucky you get unemployment, you get fucked by being out of pocket for your health insurance to the tune of $1000-$1500 a month. Thats not even counting copays, deductables, etc.
What you described is not a unique function - in a country with public healthcare your employer is paying a premium/tax while employing you that you become responsible for if you want to have healthcare while lacking employment. You could also sign up at healthcare.gov. I'm not sure if it has been mentioned. But partly why you have such a obesity problem is the lack of universal health care. When everyone is paying for each other they all sudden start caring more about those making the system more expensive and governments start putting in rules and incentives that help to change the tide. Is it perfect? Of course not. Is it a hell of a lot better than what you got? Yes of course it is. Spell this out for me, are there countries in our pantheon of European socialist perfection that have fat taxes or something? What specifically are you referencing?
The UK has an insane sugar tax meaning sugar free drinks are significantly cheaper, introduced by our conservatives in response to the obesity epidemic.
|
United States41477 Posts
On November 09 2024 03:33 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2024 03:29 Billyboy wrote:On November 09 2024 03:06 oBlade wrote:On November 09 2024 02:49 Sadist wrote:
Oblade you can check for what procedures cost in other countries.
MRIs for example. How about heart surgery? Everyone knows the US system is corrupt. Its nothing to do with Americans being more expensive to treat, we pay more and get less.
Are you telling me it costs more to get heart surgery at a hospital that was more expensive to build, staffed by people who make more per year, equipped with stuff that costs more to develop, paid for by insurance pooled with people who are 45% obese, who are more likely to have heart conditions, meaning have more heart conditions? The US system is corrupt so we should entrust it to a government who lets doctors ship every grandparent with a cough to get an MRI to cash in on the free government bucks. Okay. If price transparency is your thing, Republicans have pushed for it. On November 09 2024 02:49 Sadist wrote:
Health insurance sucks, what we need is Health Care. Its not insurance if you have a chronic condition.
Medicare is not bankrupting the country either. We need to fix it and let Medicare negotiate prices if a drug maker wants to enter the US market. Medicare is $900 billion a year that's not just pharmaceuticals. On November 09 2024 02:49 Sadist wrote:
Also we already take care of the most expensive people anyway. Triple the tax for medicare and id still come out way ahead compared to insurance. Also we could finally divorce health insurance from employment which should be a crime. What do you mean "triple the tax" for Medicare? On November 09 2024 03:02 Sadist wrote:
So for my european friends, not only does it suck to lose your job or be laid off in the US, you also lose your health insurance. You get the "great"option of keeping your insurance through COBRA but you have to pay your employer premium out of pocket (which most people dont even know about ) but its typically in the range of $500-$1000 depending on if you have a family. This is in addition to what you normally pay (i pay somewhere around $450 for my wife and myself). So not only do you get fucked because you are out of work and if you are lucky you get unemployment, you get fucked by being out of pocket for your health insurance to the tune of $1000-$1500 a month. Thats not even counting copays, deductables, etc.
What you described is not a unique function - in a country with public healthcare your employer is paying a premium/tax while employing you that you become responsible for if you want to have healthcare while lacking employment. You could also sign up at healthcare.gov. I'm not sure if it has been mentioned. But partly why you have such a obesity problem is the lack of universal health care. When everyone is paying for each other they all sudden start caring more about those making the system more expensive and governments start putting in rules and incentives that help to change the tide. Is it perfect? Of course not. Is it a hell of a lot better than what you got? Yes of course it is. Spell this out for me, are there countries in our pantheon of European socialist perfection that have fat taxes or something? What specifically are you referencing?
The UK has sugar taxes on soft drinks and sin taxes alcohol for this reason. People’s behaviour can be shaped by incentives and disincentives. When the taxpayer picks up the tab for healthcare it makes an awful lot of sense for the public health to be addressed nationally as a matter of policy.
|
On November 09 2024 03:33 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2024 03:29 Billyboy wrote:On November 09 2024 03:06 oBlade wrote:On November 09 2024 02:49 Sadist wrote:
Oblade you can check for what procedures cost in other countries.
MRIs for example. How about heart surgery? Everyone knows the US system is corrupt. Its nothing to do with Americans being more expensive to treat, we pay more and get less.
Are you telling me it costs more to get heart surgery at a hospital that was more expensive to build, staffed by people who make more per year, equipped with stuff that costs more to develop, paid for by insurance pooled with people who are 45% obese, who are more likely to have heart conditions, meaning have more heart conditions? The US system is corrupt so we should entrust it to a government who lets doctors ship every grandparent with a cough to get an MRI to cash in on the free government bucks. Okay. If price transparency is your thing, Republicans have pushed for it. On November 09 2024 02:49 Sadist wrote:
Health insurance sucks, what we need is Health Care. Its not insurance if you have a chronic condition.
Medicare is not bankrupting the country either. We need to fix it and let Medicare negotiate prices if a drug maker wants to enter the US market. Medicare is $900 billion a year that's not just pharmaceuticals. On November 09 2024 02:49 Sadist wrote:
Also we already take care of the most expensive people anyway. Triple the tax for medicare and id still come out way ahead compared to insurance. Also we could finally divorce health insurance from employment which should be a crime. What do you mean "triple the tax" for Medicare? On November 09 2024 03:02 Sadist wrote:
So for my european friends, not only does it suck to lose your job or be laid off in the US, you also lose your health insurance. You get the "great"option of keeping your insurance through COBRA but you have to pay your employer premium out of pocket (which most people dont even know about ) but its typically in the range of $500-$1000 depending on if you have a family. This is in addition to what you normally pay (i pay somewhere around $450 for my wife and myself). So not only do you get fucked because you are out of work and if you are lucky you get unemployment, you get fucked by being out of pocket for your health insurance to the tune of $1000-$1500 a month. Thats not even counting copays, deductables, etc.
What you described is not a unique function - in a country with public healthcare your employer is paying a premium/tax while employing you that you become responsible for if you want to have healthcare while lacking employment. You could also sign up at healthcare.gov. I'm not sure if it has been mentioned. But partly why you have such a obesity problem is the lack of universal health care. When everyone is paying for each other they all sudden start caring more about those making the system more expensive and governments start putting in rules and incentives that help to change the tide. Is it perfect? Of course not. Is it a hell of a lot better than what you got? Yes of course it is. Spell this out for me, are there countries in our pantheon of European socialist perfection that have fat taxes or something? What specifically are you referencing?
It is present throughout everything, health is taught in school, tax breaks for healthy choices, cities designed for walking and biking and so on. Smoking was a big one where rules on advertising, taxing it more and so on made fast and real progress. To you fat tax, there is more and more momentum behind a sugar tax.
|
On November 09 2024 03:29 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2024 03:06 oBlade wrote:On November 09 2024 02:49 Sadist wrote:
Oblade you can check for what procedures cost in other countries.
MRIs for example. How about heart surgery? Everyone knows the US system is corrupt. Its nothing to do with Americans being more expensive to treat, we pay more and get less.
Are you telling me it costs more to get heart surgery at a hospital that was more expensive to build, staffed by people who make more per year, equipped with stuff that costs more to develop, paid for by insurance pooled with people who are 45% obese, who are more likely to have heart conditions, meaning have more heart conditions? The US system is corrupt so we should entrust it to a government who lets doctors ship every grandparent with a cough to get an MRI to cash in on the free government bucks. Okay. If price transparency is your thing, Republicans have pushed for it. On November 09 2024 02:49 Sadist wrote:
Health insurance sucks, what we need is Health Care. Its not insurance if you have a chronic condition.
Medicare is not bankrupting the country either. We need to fix it and let Medicare negotiate prices if a drug maker wants to enter the US market. Medicare is $900 billion a year that's not just pharmaceuticals. On November 09 2024 02:49 Sadist wrote:
Also we already take care of the most expensive people anyway. Triple the tax for medicare and id still come out way ahead compared to insurance. Also we could finally divorce health insurance from employment which should be a crime. What do you mean "triple the tax" for Medicare? On November 09 2024 03:02 Sadist wrote:
So for my european friends, not only does it suck to lose your job or be laid off in the US, you also lose your health insurance. You get the "great"option of keeping your insurance through COBRA but you have to pay your employer premium out of pocket (which most people dont even know about ) but its typically in the range of $500-$1000 depending on if you have a family. This is in addition to what you normally pay (i pay somewhere around $450 for my wife and myself). So not only do you get fucked because you are out of work and if you are lucky you get unemployment, you get fucked by being out of pocket for your health insurance to the tune of $1000-$1500 a month. Thats not even counting copays, deductables, etc.
What you described is not a unique function - in a country with public healthcare your employer is paying a premium/tax while employing you that you become responsible for if you want to have healthcare while lacking employment. You could also sign up at healthcare.gov. I'm not sure if it has been mentioned. But partly why you have such a obesity problem is the lack of universal health care. When everyone is paying for each other they all sudden start caring more about those making the system more expensive and governments start putting in rules and incentives that help to change the tide. Is it perfect? Of course not. Is it a hell of a lot better than what you got? Yes of course it is.
I really don't think a public healthcare system would've stopped the obesity epidemic. Public healthcare wouldn't have prevented food deserts and a chronic addiction to junk food. It might have stopped the opioid epidemic before it began though... I'd assume playboy bunny Purdue girls would've been far less prolific if medicare had a monopoly, didn't approve opioids for everything, and even when they did, paid a lower, negotiated, price for them.
|
On November 09 2024 03:40 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2024 03:29 Billyboy wrote:On November 09 2024 03:06 oBlade wrote:On November 09 2024 02:49 Sadist wrote:
Oblade you can check for what procedures cost in other countries.
MRIs for example. How about heart surgery? Everyone knows the US system is corrupt. Its nothing to do with Americans being more expensive to treat, we pay more and get less.
Are you telling me it costs more to get heart surgery at a hospital that was more expensive to build, staffed by people who make more per year, equipped with stuff that costs more to develop, paid for by insurance pooled with people who are 45% obese, who are more likely to have heart conditions, meaning have more heart conditions? The US system is corrupt so we should entrust it to a government who lets doctors ship every grandparent with a cough to get an MRI to cash in on the free government bucks. Okay. If price transparency is your thing, Republicans have pushed for it. On November 09 2024 02:49 Sadist wrote:
Health insurance sucks, what we need is Health Care. Its not insurance if you have a chronic condition.
Medicare is not bankrupting the country either. We need to fix it and let Medicare negotiate prices if a drug maker wants to enter the US market. Medicare is $900 billion a year that's not just pharmaceuticals. On November 09 2024 02:49 Sadist wrote:
Also we already take care of the most expensive people anyway. Triple the tax for medicare and id still come out way ahead compared to insurance. Also we could finally divorce health insurance from employment which should be a crime. What do you mean "triple the tax" for Medicare? On November 09 2024 03:02 Sadist wrote:
So for my european friends, not only does it suck to lose your job or be laid off in the US, you also lose your health insurance. You get the "great"option of keeping your insurance through COBRA but you have to pay your employer premium out of pocket (which most people dont even know about ) but its typically in the range of $500-$1000 depending on if you have a family. This is in addition to what you normally pay (i pay somewhere around $450 for my wife and myself). So not only do you get fucked because you are out of work and if you are lucky you get unemployment, you get fucked by being out of pocket for your health insurance to the tune of $1000-$1500 a month. Thats not even counting copays, deductables, etc.
What you described is not a unique function - in a country with public healthcare your employer is paying a premium/tax while employing you that you become responsible for if you want to have healthcare while lacking employment. You could also sign up at healthcare.gov. I'm not sure if it has been mentioned. But partly why you have such a obesity problem is the lack of universal health care. When everyone is paying for each other they all sudden start caring more about those making the system more expensive and governments start putting in rules and incentives that help to change the tide. Is it perfect? Of course not. Is it a hell of a lot better than what you got? Yes of course it is. I really don't think a public healthcare system would've stopped the obesity epidemic. Public healthcare wouldn't have prevented food deserts and a chronic addiction to junk food. It might have stopped the opioid epidemic before it began though... I'd assume playboy bunny Purdue girls would've been far less prolific if medicare had a monopoly, didn't approve opioids for everything, and even when they did, paid a lower, negotiated, price for them.
I would not say stopped either, but I do believe the US would have a much healthier population with lower overall healthcare costs. It is not like other places don't have issues with obesity as well, just the US is by far #1!
The opioid crisis is another great example, but again I doubt goes away, just better than now.
|
So you had universal healthcare, then an obesity epidemic under it, and after the epidemic of obesity under universal healthcare, added a sugar tax - which disincentivizes the individual, or incentivizes companies to unsweeten or artificially sweeten their products, but does or doesn't amount to enough funding to pay for the difference in costs from chronically obese people everywhere that appeared during a period of universal healthcare?
For smoking it's demonstrable Americans were thinner when they smoked (I didn't say "because," but I did say "when") and concordantly healthier.
The US does tax cigarettes and is not barred from doing the same to other goods if that were warranted, irrespective of having universal healthcare or not.
The reason certain cities are or not "walkable" is not one of sidewalk infrastructure but another area of public policy altogether.
|
On November 09 2024 03:51 oBlade wrote:
So you had universal healthcare, then an obesity epidemic under it, and after the epidemic of obesity under universal healthcare, added a sugar tax - which disincentivizes the individual, or incentivizes companies to unsweeten or artificially sweeten their products, but does or doesn't amount to enough funding to pay for the difference in costs from chronically obese people everywhere that appeared during a period of universal healthcare?
For smoking it's demonstrable Americans were thinner when they smoked (I didn't say "because," but I did say "when") and concordantly healthier.
The US does tax cigarettes and is not barred from doing the same to other goods if that were warranted, irrespective of having universal healthcare or not.
The reason certain cities are or not "walkable" is not one of sidewalk infrastructure but another area of public policy altogether.
Of course the US could do the same policy, but the incentive and political will is not there. Guns are another big one, if you were more aware of the costs of repairing shot people, I suspect there would be more pressure to change the rules (now you are currently spending huge amount of government money on shooting victims but it is less known its gov spending it.)
|
Northern Ireland22819 Posts
On November 09 2024 03:27 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2024 03:24 Slydie wrote:What you described is not a unique function - in a country with public healthcare your employer is paying a premium/tax while employing you that you become responsible for if you want to have healthcare while lacking employment. What are you talking about? This is rubbish. Universal healthcare means you get healthcare even when unemployed, and your company generally does not have to pay anything. There might be other taxes for employing people, but they dwarf compared to the cost of US health insurance. What drives up the cost of US healthcare is how unequal it is, but also entire industries with thousands of employees which EU countries do not need, like hyper complex billing and enormous insurance companies, which do nothing for health directly. Universal does not mean you do not have to pay for it and it just magically appears out of thin air. This was the entire reasoning behind the "individual mandate" for Obamacare that actually had no effect on premiums whether it existed or not.
Nobody could be arsed saying ‘free at the point of use but ultimately paid for by taxation’ every single time, but anybody politically interested enough to even semi-coherently is entirely compos mentis on the funding not springing from thin air.
Ok, maybe Americans being even bigger fat fucks than us slovenly Brits moves the needle in costs and outcome somewhat, but to that degree?
And if we’re factoring in externalities, we gotta factor in some others.
How much added expenditure comes from folks without decent insurance not getting good, cheaper preventative care and requiring much more expensive invasive/emergency care later on?
Not unheard of in other systems, but not for the same reasons. But it adds to expenditure in both
Why indeed is the US the only country in the world where an opioid epidemic is actually a pertinent political topic?
As Slydie also mentioned, competition in the healthcare/insurance sector also drives up overheads, but without the associated cost reduction you often see in other market sectors.
|
Gunshot wounds can't even be close to obesity.
Traffic accidents are probably a waaaaaaaaaaaaaay bigger cost and it's a better example anyway. Most european countries have much longer driver education and stricter tests than the US and we spend a lot of time building as safe roads as possible and are also harder on drunk driving.
Always shocking how many Americans have been in traffic accidents. Not one of my friends have been in even a fender bender.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
