AOC Calls Democrats Sea Sponges

[CmdrKing]

And after they're patched up. 'Sir, we have saved your life... only to ruin it. Enjoy paying off this $5k-$10k medical bill!'

not exactly. 5-10k is closer to the cost of a non-life-threatening emergency procedure. For example I had to get a dislocated shoulder tended to at the ER a couple years back and it ran around 7500.
I mean as a quick anecdote because I knew where to find it, youtuber Maven of the Eventide had a baby a few months back and posted her bill summary: https://twitter.com/ElisaInTime/status/ ... 4008678401
Anything truly critical will quickly approach or exceed $100,000. Truly inescapable amounts of debt.

Of course that's injuries, childbirth, and other emergency care. Where yes, technically speaking a hospital is required to service you. If you still have access to a hospital with an ER.

Uninsured but don't qualify for medicare? Got the big C or another chronic illness? Welp, guess you'll die.

And that's without even touching on drug costs, the shameful state of drug research, that moral bankruptcy that is church-owned hospitals, and god knows what else.

Capitalistic healthcare is an unsustainable nightmare and everyone who's read the stats knows it. But the vultures already have their claws in, so barring a sudden surge of integrity in the Democrats it's not going anywhere.

[Admiral X]

Modern guns are be used for more easily killing more people while killing one person with fire extinguisher is more difficult than that. You can easily stop some one who tries to kill you with fire extinguisher but you can't stop some one who tries to kill you with gun.

Sure you could, with a gun of your own.


youtu.be/SNgNBsCI4EA

[Yukaphile]

Talk about simplistic. You cling to the illusion of false security. Can you carry a gun with you 24/7? You'd probably say yes. Let's have open carry. Send terror into any possible monsters out there, ignoring that that also terrifies completely innocent people who are too soft-hearted to ever murder somebody, and meanwhile, it presumes you can't be taken by surprise, even inside a hospital with your buddies who all have fully loaded machine guns strapped to their chests. It's all so quick, it only takes a second. Goddamn it, this is why I always remember why I could never be a Libertarian. For people so big on "civil liberties," it's ironic they preach values that spread mass terror and murder very quickly. At least I can respect Libertarians refuse to subscribe to that bullshit "collective guilt" nonsense that's just left-wing feel-good political correctness. But this? Just... SMH

[Admiral X]

Open carry is like having a big sign pasted on you that says "shoot me first!" Concealed carry is where it's at. And the nice thing about it is that in order for it to work, you don't actually need everyone to carry, you just need enough to keep would-be criminals guessing. Of course it's not 100% foolproof, but it's better than nothing.

[Yukaphile]

Well, thank you once again for being more reasonable than my young Libertarian friend on Discord.

[ProfessorDetective]

And after they're patched up. 'Sir, we have saved your life... only to ruin it. Enjoy paying off this $5k-$10k medical bill!'

not exactly. 5-10k is closer to the cost of a non-life-threatening emergency procedure. For example I had to get a dislocated shoulder tended to at the ER a couple years back and it ran around 7500.
I mean as a quick anecdote because I knew where to find it, youtuber Maven of the Eventide had a baby a few months back and posted her bill summary: https://twitter.com/ElisaInTime/status/ ... 4008678401
Anything truly critical will quickly approach or exceed $100,000. Truly inescapable amounts of debt.

Of course that's injuries, childbirth, and other emergency care. Where yes, technically speaking a hospital is required to service you. If you still have access to a hospital with an ER.

Uninsured but don't qualify for medicare? Got the big C or another chronic illness? Welp, guess you'll die.

And that's without even touching on drug costs, the shameful state of drug research, that moral bankruptcy that is church-owned hospitals, and god knows what else.

Capitalistic healthcare is an unsustainable nightmare and everyone who's read the stats knows it. But the vultures already have their claws in, so barring a sudden surge of integrity in the Democrats it's not going anywhere.

Hell, I lowballed it.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

It's the truth. My Socialist friend in Peru has said he's too conservative, and he is, on guns, on a host of other issues. You want the proof? Clinton was pure centrist, and he voted the same way she did 93% of the time.

As in he want to ban or doesn't want to ban guns?

Banning guns is considered a leftist position

as for not banning guns, communist revolutionaries that want to ban guns are f*cking dumb. How are you supposed to have your revolution without guns?

Maybe because they aren't communist revolutionaries? My country went trough civil war with one side being communists. After that it was social democrats that changed things better by working withing system while there was bad blood before Winter War that united people as one to fight common enemy.

When the "Democratic Socialists" of America start advocating the elimination of the minimum wage and the privatization of the pension system, I'll start listening.

Wait though, as undisputedly left-wing people, why would they do that?

Sweden is the gold standard for successful "democratic socialism" and they have no minimum wage and a privatized pension system, plus other things like a tax system that burdens the middle class and private individuals over corporations.

As opposed to USA were rich get tax cuts for cost of regular Americans that don't even have access to basic things like healthcare because everything is so privatized and large corporations that alongside with richest 1% own your politicians need to profit from it. Those taxes that those of us in Nordic Countries have to pay are used to benefit people by providing government funded services. Including proper education for our children as well as option for public healthcare.

Regular Americans do have access to health care. Is there another USA somewhere? We're woefully ignorant of geography, you know.

Thing is in USA healthcare costs lot of money and requires having insurance from one of many insurance companies because hospitals are purely privately owned as well as only option meaning that those that don't have money for those can't have healthcare at all. Or not enough to pay hospital bills and be able to have money for living. While that alone doesn't effect it no wonder USA has lot of homeless people.

We in Finland in other hand have both private healthcare as well as provincial healthcare that's cheaper because it's funded with tax money making sure that anyone can have healthcare when they need it while having option to choose between those two.

Then again while our politicians are no means unselfish either at least they aren't owned by those with money and working for those people unlike politicians in US.

Healthcare in the US can cost a lot of money, but regular people do have access to healthcare. And emergency rooms have a duty to treat anyone who comes in. So those without money do have access to healthcare.

And after they're patched up. 'Sir, we have saved your life... only to ruin it. Enjoy paying off this $5k-$10k medical bill!'

It could be. Or it could be less, or even more. There is also Medicaid, of course.

It's not a peer-reviewed journal or anything, but I've heard of Americans who, on being saved from a potentially fatal injury, will tell the surgeon "thank you, but I wish you hadn't done that." Guy had better life insurance than he did health insurance so it meant his family was plunged into debt.

I will at least give you the "access" point, since you insist on being pedantic.

[Darth Wedgius]

It's the truth. My Socialist friend in Peru has said he's too conservative, and he is, on guns, on a host of other issues. You want the proof? Clinton was pure centrist, and he voted the same way she did 93% of the time.

As in he want to ban or doesn't want to ban guns?

Banning guns is considered a leftist position

as for not banning guns, communist revolutionaries that want to ban guns are f*cking dumb. How are you supposed to have your revolution without guns?

Maybe because they aren't communist revolutionaries? My country went trough civil war with one side being communists. After that it was social democrats that changed things better by working withing system while there was bad blood before Winter War that united people as one to fight common enemy.

When the "Democratic Socialists" of America start advocating the elimination of the minimum wage and the privatization of the pension system, I'll start listening.

Wait though, as undisputedly left-wing people, why would they do that?

Sweden is the gold standard for successful "democratic socialism" and they have no minimum wage and a privatized pension system, plus other things like a tax system that burdens the middle class and private individuals over corporations.

As opposed to USA were rich get tax cuts for cost of regular Americans that don't even have access to basic things like healthcare because everything is so privatized and large corporations that alongside with richest 1% own your politicians need to profit from it. Those taxes that those of us in Nordic Countries have to pay are used to benefit people by providing government funded services. Including proper education for our children as well as option for public healthcare.

Regular Americans do have access to health care. Is there another USA somewhere? We're woefully ignorant of geography, you know.

Thing is in USA healthcare costs lot of money and requires having insurance from one of many insurance companies because hospitals are purely privately owned as well as only option meaning that those that don't have money for those can't have healthcare at all. Or not enough to pay hospital bills and be able to have money for living. While that alone doesn't effect it no wonder USA has lot of homeless people.

We in Finland in other hand have both private healthcare as well as provincial healthcare that's cheaper because it's funded with tax money making sure that anyone can have healthcare when they need it while having option to choose between those two.

Then again while our politicians are no means unselfish either at least they aren't owned by those with money and working for those people unlike politicians in US.

Healthcare in the US can cost a lot of money, but regular people do have access to healthcare. And emergency rooms have a duty to treat anyone who comes in. So those without money do have access to healthcare.

And after they're patched up. 'Sir, we have saved your life... only to ruin it. Enjoy paying off this $5k-$10k medical bill!'

It could be. Or it could be less, or even more. There is also Medicaid, of course.

It's not a peer-reviewed journal or anything, but I've heard of Americans who, on being saved from a potentially fatal injury, will tell the surgeon "thank you, but I wish you hadn't done that." Guy had better life insurance than he did health insurance so it meant his family was plunged into debt.

I will at least give you the "access" point, since you insist on being pedantic.

Thank you.

And that's terrible (the "thank you but I wish you hadn't done that" part), if it's happened, and, regardless, I agree that US health services are often inefficient. But just giving everyone insurance isn't really a very good answer, because it's only one tool to reduce cost. In the UK a doctor will earn much less than in the U.S., and I think (but cannot swear to) that diverges even more with specialists.

Nationalizing healthcare would let the federal government have a much better negotiating position, and of course it could establish outright price controls. And you can tell doctors to be happy with lower salaries, but there is a drawback.

The NHS has a much higher death rate for patients undergoing major surgery. There are fewer specialists. Pay people less for something and you shouldn't be surprised if fewer people will do it. The doctors can be just as good on that side of the pond, but, if you wait longer for surgery, your condition is apt to be more advanced by the time surgery gets there.

Everyone rations healthcare. In the U.S. it goes by ability to pay, and in nationalized healthcare it isn't done by ability to pay, but it's still rationed. Except that the wealthiest can go to the U.S., of course.