1. Do you want a universal basic income and universal healthcare?
2. Are you worried about how many people will lose jobs due to automation?
3. Are you worried about the environment?
4. Do you blame Republicans, at least in part, for the problems in the US?
(Aug 10, 2019 08:03 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]1. Do you want a universal basic income and universal healthcare?
2. Are you worried about how many people will lose jobs due to automation?
3. Are you worried about the environment?
4. Do you blame Republicans, at least in part, for the problems in the US?
1. No.
2. No.
3. Yes.
4. No.
1. Eliminating employer health benefits would either leave many more uninsured or require some sort of universal healthcare scheme. No one seem interested in the former, and only the left interested in the latter.
3. Do you think that mining, farming, and consumerism are some of the main culprits?
(Aug 10, 2019 10:20 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]1. Eliminating employer health benefits would either leave many more uninsured or require some sort of universal healthcare scheme. No one seem interested in the former, and only the left interested in the latter.
That's because most people don't understand or even care how or why it was implemented.
Syne Wrote:3. Do you think that mining, farming, and consumerism are some of the main culprits?
Which environmental issue are you attempting to address?
1. No to universal income (not even sure how that would work in practicality) and a “maybe” to universal healthcare, if everyone had equal quality of care. I think the problems lie in the medical system, not just with large insurers. Pharmaceutical companies need to bring their prices down, and I think more competition in healthcare in terms of treatment facilities would create lower prices at the beginning point of healthcare. Insurance companies also need to make costs more affordable. I would prefer these changes to take place over a universal healthcare initiative.
2. Not really
3. Yes
4. No
1. Yes is the simplest response to this question but actually it's more complicated than that. Everyone needs to have some coverage. The current system doesn't work well, largely for the same reason that military spending is out of control.
2. No. Change is inevitable and generally positive. People use to pull plows and had to change and most ended up with better jobs.
3. Yes.
4. Not really I blame the unresponsive system which is mainly responsible due to undue corporate influence.
(Aug 10, 2019 10:49 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ] (Aug 10, 2019 10:20 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]1. Eliminating employer health benefits would either leave many more uninsured or require some sort of universal healthcare scheme. No one seem interested in the former, and only the left interested in the latter.
That's because most people don't understand or even care how or why it was implemented.
Syne Wrote:3. Do you think that mining, farming, and consumerism are some of the main culprits?
Which environmental issue are you attempting to address?
So would you want an individual mandate, forcing even healthy people to buy private health insurance, but without any employer contribution?
Whatever environmental issue worries you.
(Aug 10, 2019 10:49 PM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]1. No to universal income (not even sure how that would work in practicality) and a “maybe” to universal healthcare, if everyone had equal quality of care. I think the problems lie in the medical system, not just with large insurers. Pharmaceutical companies need to bring their prices down, and I think more competition in healthcare in terms of treatment facilities would create lower prices at the beginning point of healthcare. Insurance companies also need to make costs more affordable. I would prefer these changes to take place over a universal healthcare initiative.
2. Not really
3. Yes
4. No
(Aug 10, 2019 11:02 PM)Seattle Wrote: [ -> ]1. Yes is the simplest response to this question but actually it's more complicated than that. Everyone needs to have some coverage. The current system doesn't work well, largely for these same reason that military spending is out of control.
2. No. Change is inevitable and generally positive. People use to pull plows and had to change and most ended up with better jobs.
3. Yes.
4. Not really I blame the unresponsive system which is mainly responsible due to undue corporate influence.
So everyone seems to basically agree about healthcare and the environment, huh?
Would everyone agree that universal basic income, universal healthcare, environmentalism, and blaming Republicans (or the capitalism they promote) are mostly leftist/socialist agendas?
(Aug 11, 2019 12:28 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ] (Aug 10, 2019 10:49 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ] (Aug 10, 2019 10:20 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]1. Eliminating employer health benefits would either leave many more uninsured or require some sort of universal healthcare scheme. No one seem interested in the former, and only the left interested in the latter.
That's because most people don't understand or even care how or why it was implemented.
Syne Wrote:3. Do you think that mining, farming, and consumerism are some of the main culprits?
Which environmental issue are you attempting to address?
So would you want an individual mandate, forcing even healthy people to buy private health insurance, but without any employer contribution?
Whatever environmental issue worries you.
(Aug 10, 2019 10:49 PM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]1. No to universal income (not even sure how that would work in practicality) and a “maybe” to universal healthcare, if everyone had equal quality of care. I think the problems lie in the medical system, not just with large insurers. Pharmaceutical companies need to bring their prices down, and I think more competition in healthcare in terms of treatment facilities would create lower prices at the beginning point of healthcare. Insurance companies also need to make costs more affordable. I would prefer these changes to take place over a universal healthcare initiative.
2. Not really
3. Yes
4. No
(Aug 10, 2019 11:02 PM)Seattle Wrote: [ -> ]1. Yes is the simplest response to this question but actually it's more complicated than that. Everyone needs to have some coverage. The current system doesn't work well, largely for these same reason that military spending is out of control.
2. No. Change is inevitable and generally positive. People use to pull plows and had to change and most ended up with better jobs.
3. Yes.
4. Not really I blame the unresponsive system which is mainly responsible due to undue corporate influence.
So everyone seems to basically agree about healthcare and the environment, huh?
Would everyone agree that universal basic income, universal healthcare, environmentalism, and blaming Republicans (or the capitalism they promote) are mostly leftist/socialist agendas?
(Aug 11, 2019 12:28 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ] (Aug 10, 2019 10:49 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ] (Aug 10, 2019 10:20 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]1. Eliminating employer health benefits would either leave many more uninsured or require some sort of universal healthcare scheme. No one seem interested in the former, and only the left interested in the latter.
That's because most people don't understand or even care how or why it was implemented.
Syne Wrote:3. Do you think that mining, farming, and consumerism are some of the main culprits?
Which environmental issue are you attempting to address?
So would you want an individual mandate, forcing even healthy people to buy private health insurance, but without any employer contribution?
Whatever environmental issue worries you.
(Aug 10, 2019 10:49 PM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]1. No to universal income (not even sure how that would work in practicality) and a “maybe” to universal healthcare, if everyone had equal quality of care. I think the problems lie in the medical system, not just with large insurers. Pharmaceutical companies need to bring their prices down, and I think more competition in healthcare in terms of treatment facilities would create lower prices at the beginning point of healthcare. Insurance companies also need to make costs more affordable. I would prefer these changes to take place over a universal healthcare initiative.
2. Not really
3. Yes
4. No
(Aug 10, 2019 11:02 PM)Seattle Wrote: [ -> ]1. Yes is the simplest response to this question but actually it's more complicated than that. Everyone needs to have some coverage. The current system doesn't work well, largely for these same reason that military spending is out of control.
2. No. Change is inevitable and generally positive. People use to pull plows and had to change and most ended up with better jobs.
3. Yes.
4. Not really I blame the unresponsive system which is mainly responsible due to undue corporate influence.
So everyone seems to basically agree about healthcare and the environment, huh?
Would everyone agree that universal basic income, universal healthcare, environmentalism, and blaming Republicans (or the capitalism they promote) are mostly leftist/socialist agendas?
No, environmentalism is something that everyone should be concerned with. How it's addressed can be debated.
Universal Basic Income is something that I've heard the right bring up about as often as the left. The right tend to see it as a way of limiting what those in need are given.
Making sure that everyone has healthcare isn't a left/right thing. Most other countries see it as a basic right. How you implement it can be debated.
Who is going to blame Republicans other than Democrats? Who is going to blame Democrats other than Republicans?
Most problems in the real world aren't left/right or Democrats vs Republicans. It isn't that black and white. Only the most rigid would think that way.
The Republican Party has done a masterful job in only one regard. Of course the wealthy support it because it leaves more money in their pockets.
The red hat wearing MAGA idiots that support it are only cutting their own throats. The Republican Party is appealing to their ignorance and bigotry for their own gain.
(Aug 11, 2019 12:44 AM)Seattle Wrote: [ -> ] (Aug 11, 2019 12:28 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Would everyone agree that universal basic income, universal healthcare, environmentalism, and blaming Republicans (or the capitalism they promote) are mostly leftist/socialist agendas?
No, environmentalism is something that everyone should be concerned with. How it's addressed can be debated.
"Should" is not "is".
Quote:Universal Basic Income is something that I've heard the right bring up about as often as the left. The right tend to see it as a way of limiting what those in need are given.
Where? Who?
Quote:Making sure that everyone has healthcare isn't a left/right thing. Most other countries see it as a basic right. How you implement it can be debated.
Most other countries don't have perfect analogs to right/left in the US. As a political agenda, it is a left thing in the US.
Quote:Who is going to blame Republicans other than Democrats? Who is going to blame Democrats other than Republicans?
Someone who blames both. Remember, I asked "at least in part".
(Aug 10, 2019 08:03 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]1. Do you want a universal basic income and universal healthcare?
2. Are you worried about how many people will lose jobs due to automation?
3. Are you worried about the environment?
4. Do you blame Republicans, at least in part, for the problems in the US?
1 No/yes
2 yes
3 yes
4 yes