Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomm
Florida. Dad has been in the insurance industry for 35 years and brother has been in it for 17. It was done properly. Eventually she joint a group plan and dropped her rate to $200 a month. She’s very happy with this plan as covered is significantly better. The system can benefit people, sure but someone else has to pay for it - my family was carry the latter burden. ACA again is trash IMO and will never have my support. We disagree. Moving on.
|
Someone else was already paying for it before. When there is no mandate people just don't get insurance and then use the emergency room, and the bill is passed on to people with private insurance. The only system that makes sense is a medicare-for-all system where everyone has to contribute something and everyone is in the same group, so prices can be negotiated lower. What is your alternative? Should we deregulate healthcare and get rid of medicare? Should we allow hospitals to refuse care and insurance providers to deny plans to anyone they want? Where would you like to see more deregulation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomm
Propaganda with evidence and history diagrams? okay. Sure. You clearly didnt read it.
|
I read it and gave clear counter arguments. I even linked an article saying they are raising their rates! What more can I do? I think you just want to have your head in the sand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomm
Then what made you go off on multiple different tangents?  |
Did you even read the article I was responding to or just the headline because every sentence of my response to the article was a response to the article and not a tangent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomm
Read the first line of the article... Takes two to tango bro. I’d move, free market ftw.
|
Aww, just as I suspected. What you missed in my articles is that this isn't isolated to any one area. In fact, they said "in large portions of the US", and your suggestion to just move is ridiculous. It doesn't change the fact that an area can have a local monopoly, which should be illegal, but it isn't. I wonder why that is?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomm
This is very tinfoil hat of you. He also has Space X there too soooo. I’m sure there was a multitude of reasons but I’m not going to assume anything, I’d rather listen to what has been said not make assumptions.
|
It isn't tinfoil hat because it isn't a conspiracy. Like the article says, he has a track record of doing just that like he did with a solar panel plant in New York. It is referred to as a pattern of behavior, which is saying one thing on social media, but doing the opposite. The man has literally been fined because his social media comments directly and intentionally manipulated the stock price because he was upset at short sellers. Like Newson said, he isn't concerned about Tesla threatening to leave. California is the largest car market in the US, and proportionally a huge market for EVs in the world, but especially the US. There are ramifications to leaving California, and there are benefits to setting up another plant in the middle of the US in the second largest market and largest truck market besides taxes, regulations and cheaper labor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomm
I’m providing a counter point that allows you to decide what you think the balance should be. It’s not a false dichotomy, it’s food for though that’s highlighting the positive impacts of cheap goods. It’s been proven that some people don’t want to be off government support programs. There are far too many variables to correlate those statistics. My point is to show how cheap food is necessary to feed the less fortunate. And they probably will never leave the programs because people like free money.
|
No, if you look up a false dichotomy then that literally is what you were proposing, as if it is either Walmart exists, and we have cheap goods, but shitty wages and less small businesses, or Walmart doesn't exist and consumers have to pay more for goods. Wrong! That is a false dichotomy, and it isn't an either/or situation.
"Proven that some people don't want to be off government support programs." I'm sure some people don't. And? That really doesn't say much. Are you saying many people, the majority of people, a large chunk of people? "People like free money". And you don't like free money? What type of statement is that? Stating the obvious, but you are connecting it with programs, so you are saying people like poverty if it means some free money. I'm sure some would say yes, but again, are you saying this is prevalent? Can you back that up with some statistics, but that statement sounds like a conservative talking point more than anything based in fact. Care to read some facts on who is actually getting the bulk of government aid? I'll give you a sneak peak because I doubt you will read it: it is people who paid into the programs who are collecting back their own money like senior citizens and disabled people:
https://www.americanprogress.org/iss...blic-benefits/
Again, the US wouldn't need to spend money on food stamps if Walmart paid people more, so those employees didn't need or didn't qualify for food stamps. Does this look like Walmart employees want to have low wages and stay on food stamps? Walmart has a history of subverting unionization, but we know why don't we?
Walmart Workers Picket 1,600 Stores Demanding Higher Wages And Full-Time Work
https://www.ibtimes.com/walmart-work...e-work-1730599
https://populardemocracy.org/news/ho...s-not-unionize
