Heavy (arm chair shrinks)

[Ethan]

"Japanese history might call it terrorism." (referencing Dolittle) - http://forums.utopia-game.com/showth...mp-2016/page13

[Disclaimer - slightly drunk American, so reality distortion field in full effect]

Afaik the Japanese are unlikely to ever apply that label to anything done in WW2, sine they're still hung up on the damage the perceive themselves to have done. Even worse, there's some pretty heinous stuff went down on their watch, so when it comes to labeling they'll be particularly gun-shy. Plus the Pax Americana actually worked fairly Roman-ly on them. (Pax - beat it till it stops fighting back.)

They've got some other weird quirks that crop up from time to time due to that era. Ever wonder why the really black, world ends (for real, not just threat of it), type anime is mostly coming out of Japan? They've stared into the abyss...

Fun tidbit - afak, 'tis only within the last decade that Japan's military has been allowed to fire in anger before they'd already suffered casualties. Think about it - you almost surely need some of your own people *dead* before you'll consider firing back?!


Germany has some serious hangups too - and 'tis producing some tidal waves now, while it'd mostly laid dormant for a while. At root the Brexit went though cause Merkel *will not back down* on refugees and open borders. A lot of that is due to her personal experience in the cold war, but some of that is the shame and dishonor still felt by Germany for Hitler. For a long time there's been little or no (public) honor in serving in the German component of the Nato forces.


Now - I'm too close to the action over in the US to make a truly fair assessment... but ever wonder why we are such arrogant {jerks}? We won, and won big, and almost made it look easy once you gloss it all over with some time and self serving narrative. At the same time, we're running scared from the fact that we're the only country to ever use nukes. (You want a sign of how deep the warp is? I agree with that decision, and hope I'd have the guts to do it again if it ever was like that again. And yes, I know it risks killing us all.)


BTW, now that I think of it in terms of what type of utopia kingdom I'd like to play, I'd pick the hangups of the UK - got the **** kicked out of them, hung in there, and shear grit pulled it out in the end. Pre-Brexit, of course, I'd want nothing to do with them after that stunt. Worse than Drumpf (er, Trump, where'd that come from again?), and that takes some doing. (Irony is I love about 60% of the guy's style, and only hate maybe 20% of it - while my vote goes to someone who I usually think makes dead fish look good on style and honesty points. The cross of voting rationally, bleh.)


So, lets have some other drunken quasi-philosophical spewings, eh? (New England - 'tis like ya'll, no valid other word for it, so I'll steal it.)



Side notes:

Ya, I know cold war thinking somewhat. Yes, I am too young. I just read a lot. Seriously, my first thought on 9/11 was if *Worcester* was safe - the assumption being nukes might fly. Concluded if Worcester was being Nuked, was no point in surviving it, was the end of the world. Serious staring into the abyss there.

Also, I actively vote for sleezebags under the US's current system. 'Tis what's needed to get {stuff} done. Never seen credible electoral reform yet, so hold my nose and vote the party line, eh? Hate Burnie btw - knew from day one he was lying about universal healthcare (probably to himself as well, but that office does't get a pass merely for self delusion) and a few others were nearly as bad. Maybe I'm on path to the dark (R) side or something, but Hillary's type of dishonesty is tolerable and about the best we'll get from our current system, while Bernie is actively offensive to me.

Also - brandy is also 80 proof, so slightly drunk is an epic understatement by now. See if you can spot where the ice creme - whipped creme vodka - brandy mix kicked in. Nothing for the winner though, I honestly don't know myself lol. Now time for another drink! (And, since the thread is heavy, I'll raise said glass to my maternal grandfather - for a number of years quite alcoholic. No, not a plea for help, my therapist will be back in about a month, and I've got good reason. If I'm still getting smashed *regularly* by end of age 69 though, someone get me help.)

[noobium]

How was Bernie "lying about universal health care"? The ACA is broken as **** for anyone earning a living, and the super poor don't get much. The poorest underclass gained nothing and arguably lost. The only problem with Bernie is that he's a New Dealer in a time where the welfare state is done, and it's never coming back.

I expect to be dead in the next few years thanks to the horrible leadership of this country, one way or another. Probably dead for no good reason whatsoever. It's the pattern of my miserable life after all, being bullied around by stupid, stupid people propped up by elites who want the world to be a living hell.

Meanwhile Obama is doing everything he can to start a war with Russia over stupid, stupid bull****. Probably start the third world war. Another war started by stupid, stupid people who should have been dragged out and shot a long time ago.

[Ethan]

Unless I radically misunderstood him, he was basically offering "vote for me, get single payer universal healthcare as a fundamental right". (And to a degree, if that's the perception, that's the truth, even if it isn't what he said. Sucks not being able to even define yourself.)

Then look that the sustained, bitter, almost caused a shutdown fight, opposition over the weak, watered down, big insurance handout version Obama actually got. And he (Bernie) has the guts to claim he has a magic bullet that'll make a self described *socialist* idea that's far left of that go though? Dang, *I* remember a time where "bloody pink commie" was only slightly dated, and you want the "personal liberty" nation to sign on to actual government run healthcare? I'll see men on Mars first. (Thanks Elon)

Now, I've got a funny personal experience and I honestly don't know the warp it produces, but my corp healthcare plan is almost untouched by the ACA. But my wife rode on her parents plan though college *because* of ACA, so 'tis been only good for me. Ya, I know 'tis broken and we're blind eyeing our poor to death (like, poverty no seriously kills people, a lot, in the US) - but it is better than in was before ACA, and so I'm not going to blame the good for not being great.

You can blame me for being part of the problem for mostly supporting status quo, but I overall believe the US is doing pretty ok, and have no intention of tilting at windmills when I believe (have delusions) I matter *at all* on issues I consider important. Not so much my vote (my state is blue, so as long as we keep enough blue sheeple 'tis all good) but my moral stance.


Aka - I'd consider voting libertarian in protest except that's the same as giving a half vote for Trump, and I *am* that worried about him. Can we get Wigs back? Or Bull Moose, he was good people, even if his style is a straight (pre-)rip of Trump.


Now - why do you think you'll be dead in a few years? I'd have guessed you're of an age where that wouldn't represent natural causes, so how do you figure on going? Even accounting for acceptable hyperbole, that's a strong claim. Nukes with Russia - is that even a serious threat? If you're blaming Obama for that, who won a (mostly undeserved, I grant) nobel peace prize, I can't imagine what you think of Hillary (calling her a terrain feature it just too familiar to me, so no Hil/Hill even when drunk), who's clearly more hawkish afaict (as far as I can tell), never mind Trump, who I'd have to imagine might literally keep you awake at night from worry.


Now, I'm surprisingly hawkish myself, which always kinda startles me. But about Russia/Putin - I just don't see how a semi-dictatorship with democratic trappings should be respected the same way say, most of Europe, should be. So ya, I might get us all killed, but Hillary's got the chops to not blow stuff up with people that can actually hurt us back. (And now I get lynched by the other americans for pointing out that 9/11 didn't even really hurt, although the freakout we did to ourselves afterwards did. So ya, not worried about Syria (for example) hurting the US in a manner that matters for anything other that US public opinion.)


ok, sleeping before I pass out in the middle of a sentence/song. I wonder if this post will even make sense tomorrow, but meh.

[noobium]

You grossly underestimate just what a disaster many people are living through due to globalization. Globalization's losers live like illegal aliens in their own home countries, constantly facing police brutality for imagined slights against the neoliberal order. I almost got rounded up last year as part of the street-cleaning neoliberals champion, only a matter of time before the same happens again or worse.

Start a war over ****ing Syria and I'm sure Americans will accept an ever stronger police state and purging of undesirables like me. They have to reduce global population and get rid of useless eaters like me, after all.

[StratOcastle]

The vote is contrived and navigated. Its numbers are largely real but guided but crude mind manipulation.

Let's be real. The reason no president actually has power is because Kennedy was a demonstration of what happens to course changers. The pressure was even on Eisenhower but it might've tripped a full-scale backlash against the powers that be.

Before you convict me of paranoia(which I confess to, but hold as damn close to reality) we need only refer to recent presidential elections that were incredibly close. I was in those lines in the '04 election and we know Ken Blackwell(Ohio) was at the helm when 30 some voting machines weren't distributed in the heavily democratic metro area.

Now I'm no democrat, but I was clearly aware of the war mongering administration we had in office. You must remember that we were there when the cold war ended. Redistribution of taxes from military juggernauts was due to the people. As older men we know much better. This was never the intension. The banks, the war machine, the concentration of power is all that matters.

We stir up crap on the Russian border for thousands of miles and expect them to behave. Sure they could be as bad as us, but we never got to the table to relax the pressure. We have our media condemning the UK as stupid and driving down their credit rating because they won't conform to the machine. Europe is in the throws of systematic dismantling of it's social progress for capitalistic gains. You are considered a racist for desiring to salvage a cultural medium between slavery and elitism.

Besides ~

I ran into some of these guys that believe they're above it at the smoke shop. Young, well built, well bred fellas(straight noses, foreheads) with a sanctimonious attitude they couldn't contain. They wanted help choosing a first cigar and I graciously helped. But when I shook their hands they were soft and weak. I'm not a big man but I work for a living. These hands will be crushed by the unsympathetic. These attitudes must climb above or be lost, because they lack moral fortitude. They have no idea, but they think they do.

[pathetic sheep]

Then look that the sustained, bitter, almost caused a shutdown fight, opposition over the weak, watered down, big insurance handout version Obama actually got. And he (Bernie) has the guts to claim he has a magic bullet that'll make a self described *socialist* idea that's far left of that go though? Dang, *I* remember a time where "bloody pink commie" was only slightly dated, and you want the "personal liberty" nation to sign on to actual government run healthcare?

FYI there is a difference between "single payer" and "socialized medicine". The government runs socialized medicine. Single payer systems would run almost identical to what you see at a doctor in the U.S. Currently your doctor's office submits a bill to an insurance company. With single payer the same clinic sends a bill to uncle sam. You would probably use a drivers license (or other I.D.) instead of submitting an insurance card.

The U.S. Army could be called a "socialized army". The soldiers work directly for the federal government. Citizens do not have to send money to a insurance company for national security insurance. The FBI, state department, and commerce department are also "socialized". People do not talk about the army as "our socialized army" because the alternative is dumb enough to be unworthy of serious discussion.

Socialized meds: United Kingdom, Finland, Spain, Isreal, Cuba...
Single payer: Canada, France...

[Zauper]

FYI there is a difference between "single payer" and "socialized medicine". The government runs socialized medicine. Single payer systems would run almost identical to what you see at a doctor in the U.S. Currently your doctor's office submits a bill to an insurance company. With single payer the same clinic sends a bill to uncle sam. You would probably use a drivers license (or other I.D.) instead of submitting an insurance card.

The U.S. Army could be called a "socialized army". The soldiers work directly for the federal government. Citizens do not have to send money to a insurance company for national security insurance. The FBI, state department, and commerce department are also "socialized". People do not talk about the army as "our socialized army" because the alternative is dumb enough to be unworthy of serious discussion.

Socialized meds: United Kingdom, Finland, Spain, Isreal, Cuba...
Single payer: Canada, France...

Your argument is that Canada is single payer instead of socialized medicine because of what, exactly? Because each province is a separate payer? That would seem to argue it's not a national single payer system. Yet, the government (fed + provincial) are the ones setting the rules and paying.

Unless, of course, you have private insurance, in which case you get better care.

Or France, where the government sets the price for care and pays -- that's not socialized? Why, because doctor's aren't directly employed by the government? Is that your argument? How then, do you handle the provision that allows the NHS in England to pay for care at private hospitals, rather than public hospitals? Doesn't that run counter to a truly socialized system? Similarly, how there are both private and public hospitals in Spain, and that the waittime for non-emergency procedures in Spain is less if you have private insurance? Finland's private sector portion of their health system?....etc. None of these systems are truly single payer or socialized.

Point being, trying to label and make distinct single payer (especially when Bernie's proposal was Medicare for all, if I recall correctly) vs socialized seems silly.

The only possible way to have a non-socialized single payer system would be something like the TRICARE model where you bid out the contract management to a private company who in turn sets pricing/etc, but even that would be a bit tricky. TRICARE got renamed, didn't it? Whatever it's called now.

On the other hand, you could argue that much like many of those countries, the US has a partially socialized medicine system (the VA) sitting alongside their private medicine systems, and that traditional Medicare operates as a single payer for the ~40M beneficiaries it covers. Though looking at the trends in Medicare, you'd see that traditional Medicare is falling in popularity vs private (MA) options. Drug coverage, of course, gets funky.

[Ethan]

"I'm not a big man but I work for a living." - StratOcastle

All due respect (and yes, for once that is meant totally straight, see below), but "work" in the physical sense is obsolete due to robots/computers. Why take pride in that? You value a certain physical minimum as required for all truly valuable people. (Who was it that spoke of small souled men? PC be damned, I'm drunk - we all hold some to be less than ourselves, I'll at least cotton to it when smashed.) I have trouble disagreeing seeing as I consider, despite my flabby 40 pound waist donut, my stamina to be a virtue.

Though I consider it a virtue in myself, but not a vice to lack it in others. (Open invitation, what's that say about me?)

But let's pretend rationality. (The kind that argues that 'tis only pet abuse to kill anyone under 2. Have a F'in field day with that one.) Why is physical capability the least bit relevant to Homo sapiens cyborgis? We've created computers that far exceed our own capabilities in most maters, 'tis only a matter of time till they come for your job too. (Heck, they'd come for mine if I wasn't the one making them do what they do... and I'm sure Google is working on that.) What need we for physical ability other than a desire to live longer? (Which, 'tis looking like, might rapidly become the main goal of the US, to be fair.)

Have you ever considered sacrificing your bad eye (assume it has fallen to 20/50 or worse) for a computer monitor socket? Cause, other than obsolescence and the inability to drive, I'd take it. And I'm that weird dude that avoided coffee till age 32 due in part to worries about mind altering drugs. (It does some bad things, but I'm over the hill, so time to start cheming it up to stay sharp eh?) That (computer eye socket), I predict within my remaining lifetime, though maybe not yet as a designer choice item like botox. (Coming up on 33, so normalize the extending lifespans to a 50 year timeline for me.)

All of which is to say, as stuck in the past as I am, you're sounding a whole lot more "back in my day" that I do to me StratO. Take a hard look in at yourself - I doubt you're actually that hardline, just a case of future shock. (I did get asked once if I was a Mennonite - was just laziness in shaving lol.) This thread is supposed to be heavy, don't go bringing self-delusion in without expecting a sharp rebuff.


Relating to my respect for StratO - we played together in TFC for a brief bit. His forum answers/ramblings aren't some act, that's the real StratO there, though he tones it down a hair for the kingdom's sake. (Read his posts carefully and you'll see he knows he does that, and obliquely mentions it from time to time.) Based on my posts/personality/etc, there's no particular reason we should match up well at all - almost polar opposites on many issues. But 'tis a bit like the (US) civil war - you don't hate the other guy at all, you admit his honor and integrity. You (we) just disagree is all. And I can attest that he's effective - his "wrongness" is perfect as right as my own "rightness", so bleh, go figure that.


So - a bottle and a mixed in (note the time lag, don't go calling for interventions yet. Wondering where the extra tolerance came from though - 28 proof bottle ain't light, but the mixed matched the last time killing a bottle, was only half feeling it till then.), and I'm trying to decide which religion to claim. Which is to say, most of this post is Satinism (as the RCC's theology ought to define it), but usually I think that means I pick Martianism (Stranger in a Strange Land) to be less alarming. Plus that's what wine usually does to me. Closest to real religion is actually Game 7 2004, which turning off 2 innings in was perhaps the greatest test - although was to go hike in Ishi with my dad, so maybe that agues that I've actually got my priorities straight. He turned it off in a scarily black space, now that I think about it, but not my business to fix him beyond the impact on me.)



And to at least keep one item in the politics arena - why not uncap the House of Rep from the "artificial" cap of 435? Didn't it start at 10,000 per rep? Lot harder to "bribe" (special interest) a majority if they only have to explain themselves to 10k people. Kinda awkward since you probably want those without sub-committee posts to keep working at least 3/4 time in the real world, but 'tis details in a thread like this.

And a hint to the whole 2 year old offhand - why is killing chimps in France murder?

[pathetic sheep]

Your argument is that Canada is single payer instead of socialized medicine because of what, exactly? Because each province is a separate payer? That would seem to argue it's not a national single payer system. Yet, the government (fed + provincial) are the ones setting the rules and paying.

Unless, of course, you have private insurance, in which case you get better care.

Or France, where the government sets the price for care and pays -- that's not socialized? Why, because doctor's aren't directly employed by the government? Is that your argument? How then, do you handle the provision that allows the NHS in England to pay for care at private hospitals, rather than public hospitals? Doesn't that run counter to a truly socialized system? Similarly, how there are both private and public hospitals in Spain, and that the waittime for non-emergency procedures in Spain is less if you have private insurance? Finland's private sector portion of their health system?....etc. None of these systems are truly single payer or socialized.

Point being, trying to label and make distinct single payer (especially when Bernie's proposal was Medicare for all, if I recall correctly) vs socialized seems silly.

The only possible way to have a non-socialized single payer system would be something like the TRICARE model where you bid out the contract management to a private company who in turn sets pricing/etc, but even that would be a bit tricky. TRICARE got renamed, didn't it? Whatever it's called now.

On the other hand, you could argue that much like many of those countries, the US has a partially socialized medicine system (the VA) sitting alongside their private medicine systems, and that traditional Medicare operates as a single payer for the ~40M beneficiaries it covers. Though looking at the trends in Medicare, you'd see that traditional Medicare is falling in popularity vs private (MA) options. Drug coverage, of course, gets funky.

You missed the definition. An example of single payer systems in the united states would be interstate highways and construction of government buildings. The feds pay the cash and privately owned corporation or proprietorship manages the work and hires employees. A carpenter framing a new building would not be a federal employee. The federal government does not own the drill. The government does own the buildings and the highway. The feds are the consumer of the product, the product is produced by the private sector. You and I could talk about setting up a construction company and then bidding on federal contracts.

The marine core is a good example of a socialized system. Marines are recruited and hired by the federal government. A marine's rifle and helmet are owned by the federal government. A marine's pay check is deposited in the bank by the federal government. It would be nonsense if you and I talked about establishing a marine amphibious force and bidding on missions. You could set up a mercenary company or security firm. Your private security force would not be the same as the marine core. You employee would not be a marine even (s)he cleans a rifle in the same way that a marine would clean a rifle.

Pavement poured by the army core of engineers may have the same properties as pavement poured by a contractor. The identical surface hardness does not tell you anything about socialized vs single payer.

Socialized [anything including medicine] and single payer systems often have similar effects. For example with either socialized medicine or single payer you might not have to worry about excessive medical bills [any system could have co-pays or limits depending on the set up]. Both single payer medicine and socialized medicine would eliminate the need for standard medical insurance. Both single payer and socialized medicine would be paid for by taxes.

In a bus and an airplane you sit in a seat and travel from one city to the next. In both cases someone else is driving. Despite the similarities, airplanes and buses are not the same thing. If you group your choices into walk, drive, and mass transit then buses and airplanes are mass transit. You may decide you hate mass transit and would rather walk. That is no reason to claim that buses can fly.

[Ethan]

Time to go mix a drink, and revive the thread. (Cause drunk previous me looks smart and slightly witty to currently drunk me. I think this means I'm pretty well drunk already, but the next one should ice it.)

So I was referencing over in the Trump thread an idea that seems to beg an interesting question. How many unknown Indian/African/Chinese/whatever peasants would need to die before you would volunteer to stand in (all of their) steads? Honest answers - I've already (politely) laid into Strato for what I considered insufficient thinking. (Although on rereading, I'm going to guess we've just got different value systems, such that he'd rebuff my position just as strongly.)

Probably need to flesh it out more, but I'm not so good on the story telling. So ideally rate (number) it in two categories, "emotional" and "abstracted".

For the emotional, I've not yet learned my mortality, so it can go as low as 1 to 1 for me. On the abstracted side of it though (the devil and god show up saying they've been forced to compromise on you making the choice) I'm probably at 100 to 1 or higher. Somewhere above that the guilt might actually get to me bad enough I'd "feel" the future pain and pick ending it instead.


[Or just tell me to stop drunken posting cause it isn't fun and revives old(ish) threads. No irony - I might even listen.]