What's new

F Champ Receives Lifetime Ban, Racism in the FGC/USA, and Other Prevalent Social Discussions

Marlow

Premium Supporter
Premium Supporter
My issue with this is system is that person A may never have any serious medical issues/expenses, person B may have some serious medical issues/expenses, and person A, B, and also C, D, and E, must all pay for each other.
That's exactly how insurance works, for what it's worth.

The thing is, most of the time the very nature of these medical issues means that you would have no knowledge beforehand whether you'll be person A, B, C, D, or E.

I'd suggest reading up on the concept of the Veil of Ignorance. "Imagine that you have set for yourself the task of developing a totally new social contract for today's society. How could you do so fairly? Although you could never actually eliminate all of your personal biases and prejudices, you would need to take steps at least to minimize them. Rawls suggests that you imagine yourself in an original position behind a veil of ignorance. Behind this veil, you know nothing of yourself and your natural abilities, or your position in society. You know nothing of your sex, race, nationality, or individual tastes. Behind such a veil of ignorance all individuals are simply specified as rational, free, and morally equal beings. You do know that in the "real world", however, there will be a wide variety in the natural distribution of natural assets and abilities, and that there will be differences of sex, race, and culture that will distinguish groups of people from each other. "




Wouldn't it make more sense that each individual/family unit not be forced to pay for some government-issued medical coverage that may or may not address their particular medical needs, and instead have more of their own money (through lower taxes) to spend on whatever amount/type of medical coverage they want/need?
That only works if you assume that people will always have some kind of affordable option based on their income level, and that everyone's income level is based soley on their own choices. I don't think this is an accurate reflection of the real world. This why I think a lot of libertarian Free Market economic policies fail. They work fine in theory, but not in the real world.
 

RoboCop

The future of law enforcement.
Administrator
Premium Supporter
Okay.

I am very much interested in people being financially capable of handling sudden/unexpected medical emergencies (heck, even regular/expected medical expenses). And obviously, you are interested in that too. We have different perspectives on how to achieve this.

My perspective: shrink government, lower taxes, let people keep more of the money they have earned. By doing this, you are allowing them greater opportunities to decide what they do and don't want to spend their money on. In turn, they can save-up more of their hard-earned money (instead of paying it away in taxes), or even preemptively get some/additional medical insurance. Overall, by allowing people to keep more of the money they have earned, I believe they will be better prepared (financially speaking) to handle medical expenses.

My understanding of your perspective: tax everyone, allowing for everyone to have some level of government-issued healthcare coverage. My issue with this is system is that person A may never have any serious medical issues/expenses, person B may have some serious medical issues/expenses, and person A, B, and also C, D, and E, must all pay for each other. Wouldn't it make more sense that each individual/family unit not be forced to pay for some government-issued medical coverage that may or may not address their particular medical needs, and instead have more of their own money (through lower taxes) to spend on whatever amount/type of medical coverage they want/need?
Phew, this is an in-depth topic and there's no way we'll be able to dig to the bottom in any reasonable time, but I'll try to cover as much as I can. I'm also no expert on taxes or our medical system, so anyone please correct anything I say that's not totally accurate.

Due to the excessive cost of our broken medical system, the "lower taxes" route simply isn't enough to help the people who need it. After all, the people who need the most help are already paying the least taxes, so it disproportionately helps the richer citizens who don't need the help. And the amount it saves the people who do need the help isn't actually enough to help them. So, it's pretty much lose/lose and leads to a worsening income gap. There's also the issue that rich people and corporations simply don't pay their fair share of taxes. See: The Panama Papers. Here's a list of major companies that either paid no taxes, or even paid negative taxes in 2018.

My perspective is that I'm not knowledgeable enough about the details of the issue to be able to propose any kind of worthwhile solution. I believe access to healthcare should be a basic human right in any developed nation, and I don't believe people with more money should have access to better healthcare than poor people. Our basic rights are "life. liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", and I don't believe any of those are possible without adequate healthcare, thus adequate healthcare needs to be a basic human right.

As far as the "person a, b, c , etc" argument, I believe that's diluted when you consider our 209 million adult citizens. Will there be people who never need healthcare? Sure, a tiny percent. Will there be people who need excessive healthcare? Of course. But when those expenses are spread out among all 209 million+ taxpayers, it becomes a non-issue. Get rich people and corporations to pay their fair share of taxes and it becomes even less of an issue.
 

ItsYaBoi

Noob
I'll meet you with the good outweighing the bad.

The main point im trying to make is if you advocate for universal health care you have a social responsibility to be as healthy as you can. I said nothing on kids dying of cancer wtf I'm talking about people killing themselves. Shit drivers pay higher rates too
I’m glad you see the obvious good outweighing the bad.

And yes I agree people should strive to be healthier - but they should regardless of universal healthcare. Too many people disregard their own health and wellbeing nowadays, and it’s a real shame.

I never said you mentioned kids dying of cancer, I was putting some examples of what and who universal healthcare would help.
 

Dankster Morgan

It is better this way
I’m glad you see the obvious good outweighing the bad.

And yes I agree people should strive to be healthier - but they should regardless of universal healthcare. Too many people disregard their own health and wellbeing nowadays, and it’s a real shame.

I never said you mentioned kids dying of cancer, I was putting some examples of what and who universal healthcare would help.
Right I gotcha. I'm not a very emotionally driven guy. I'm very empathetic but I'm far from naturally sympathetic and have to make concentrated efforts to do so. I do love people but one of the only ways I feel I have the natural talent to express that is to help people improve their health in functional ways more so than another person who can be helpful in a different way. I'm glad we could meet in the middle on something dude
 

Ram

Buluc Chabtan
Phew, this is an in-depth topic and there's no way we'll be able to dig to the bottom in any reasonable time, but I'll try to cover as much as I can. I'm also no expert on taxes or our medical system, so anyone please correct anything I say that's not totally accurate.

Due to the excessive cost of our broken medical system, the "lower taxes" route simply isn't enough to help the people who need it. After all, the people who need the most help are already paying the least taxes, so it disproportionately helps the richer citizens who don't need the help. And the amount it saves the people who do need the help isn't actually enough to help them. So, it's pretty much lose/lose and leads to a worsening income gap. There's also the issue that rich people and corporations simply don't pay their fair share of taxes. See: The Panama Papers. Here's a list of major companies that either paid no taxes, or even paid negative taxes in 2018.

My perspective is that I'm not knowledgeable enough about the details of the issue to be able to propose any kind of worthwhile solution. I believe access to healthcare should be a basic human right in any developed nation, and I don't believe people with more money should have access to better healthcare than poor people. Our basic rights are "life. liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", and I don't believe any of those are possible without adequate healthcare, thus adequate healthcare needs to be a basic human right.

As far as the "person a, b, c , etc" argument, I believe that's diluted when you consider our 209 million adult citizens. Will there be people who never need healthcare? Sure, a tiny percent. Will there be people who need excessive healthcare? Of course. But when those expenses are spread out among all 209 million+ taxpayers, it becomes a non-issue. Get rich people and corporations to pay their fair share of taxes and it becomes even less of an issue.
"And the amount it saves the people who do need the help isn't actually enough to help them."
How do you know this, though? How do you know that the government-issued healthcare coverage IS enough to help them? It would be great if we had some numbers to compare the two.

"I believe access to healthcare should be a basic human right in any developed nation, and I don't believe people with more money should have access to better healthcare than poor people. Our basic rights are "life. liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", and I don't believe any of those are possible without adequate healthcare, thus adequate healthcare needs to be a basic human right."
Okay, in response to this point, I'd like to ask you about food: food is just as, if not more, important than healthcare, right? However, there is no "universal food" that is government-issued. There are grocery stores, where you can get differing qualities of food products depending on how much you are willing to spend: higher-quality foods are more expensive, lower-quality foods are cheaper. However, no one in this thread has mentioned that adequate food needs to be a basic human right. Do you mind addressing this?

Your points about the corporations are interesting. I would say this though: the more favorable the conditions are for a company to do business, the more we as a society benefit. I believe this for 2 reasons: (1) we as the consumers will be charged less for the company's goods/services, (2) the more local employees the company will hire (compared to out-sourcing their employment).
 

Ram

Buluc Chabtan
The consequences of their actions? Yeah, it’s YOUR fault if you get cancer. Get the ABSOLUTE fuck out of here with this garbage logic.
When I say consequences, I meant whether they did or did not save-up money or preemptively purchase medical coverage.
 

Juggs

Lose without excuses
Lead Moderator
So tax cigarettes at a higher rate. A lot of health issues are not "developed through their own fault".
The fact that people think that most of the time, bad health is a consequence of bad choices shows a massive amount of ignorance on the subject. Yes, it CAN be, such as poor diet, lack of exercise, or bad habits such as smoking and/or drinking. But most of the time it’s not a result of “poor decisions” that “lead to cancer” or health issues that you had absolutely zero control over. It also shows you have never had to deal with anyone you know, close family member or otherwise, suffering from an illness they had no control over.
 

Marlow

Premium Supporter
Premium Supporter
The consequences of their actions? Yeah, it’s YOUR fault if you get cancer. Get the ABSOLUTE fuck out of here with this garbage logic.
I don't think he meant it to be as harsh as it sounded, but I understand your response.

@Ram One reason why I brought up cancer is that my mom passed away from cancer several years ago. She never smoked, never did drugs, rarely if ever drank, lived a very active and healthy lifestyle. Then she got cancer, and that was that. Life is unfair. The insurance company sent us a bill for $20K. Luckily they adjusted it down, and we're in a good enough financial position to afford it.

I'm not bringing this up for sympathy, just saying that a statement like "the consequences of their actions" can come off pretty harsh to someone who has lost a loved one or knows someone going through something like a cancer which is not their fault.
 

Ram

Buluc Chabtan
@Marlow @Juggs
Yes I see where you guys are coming from. I did clarify what I meant by "consequences of their actions" above. But in any case, I did not in any way mean to make light or make fun of the very real and tragic situations that family of yours had to go through. I apologize if my post was insensitive.
 

Marlow

Premium Supporter
Premium Supporter
Okay, in response to this point, I'd like to ask you about food: food is just as, if not more, important than healthcare, right? However, there is no "universal food" that is government-issued.
Food stamps.

There are grocery stores, where you can get differing qualities of food products depending on how much you are willing to spend: higher-quality foods are more expensive, lower-quality foods are cheaper. However, no one in this thread has mentioned that adequate food needs to be a basic human right. Do you mind addressing this?
It hasn't specifically come up, but "food deserts" are an issue, generally affecting low income individuals. I would say access to healthy affordable food is also a basic right, and should be supported in some way.
 

Marlow

Premium Supporter
Premium Supporter
When I say consequences, I meant whether they did or did not save-up money or preemptively purchase medical coverage.

How are people supposed to save up money when education prices are high, rent is high, medical insurance costs are high, and lower/middle class wages are struggling to keep up over time?
 

CrimsonShadow

Administrator and Community Engineer
Administrator
Income determines the quality of food you receive, too.
In the US, it does, which is why quality is so low overall.

The point I was making is that it's not this way in every country. For example, in Italy, I can buy a regular tomato of a taste and quality that I'd need to search for some fancy organic farmer's market taste-bred stuff for in the US, to even get close. In the regular Italian supermarket.

I can also go to a regular Italian restaurant on the street there and get a meal with simple ingredients (like pasta, basil, pesto) that tastes miles better than a $50 "Italian restaurant" meal in the US. For cheap.

Good food isn't worth much more -- we drive up the cost artificially in the US by mass-breeding crops of lower quality to satisfy ease of reproduction and aesthetic markers that have nothing to do with taste or health.
 

Dankster Morgan

It is better this way
In the US, it does, which is why quality is so low overall.

The point I was making is that it's not this way in every country. For example, in Italy, I can buy a regular tomato of a taste and quality that I'd need to search for some fancy organic farmer's market taste-bred stuff for in the US, to even get close. In the regular Italian supermarket.

I can also go to a regular Italian restaurant on the street there and get pasta with simple ingredients (like pasta, basil, pesto) that tastes miles better than a $50 "Italian restaurant" meal in the US. For cheap.

Good food isn't worth much more -- we drive up the cost artificially in the US by mass-breeding crops of lower quality to satisfy ease of reproduction and aesthetic markers that have nothing to do with taste or health.
Thank you, if people ate some of the many low calorie dense foods that are nutrient dense theyd have to eat less anyways because the food they eat would be more satisfying.
 

Swindle

Philanthropist & Asshole
We can still take huge dumps on FChamp and have a discourse about the subjects that led to dumping on him in the first place at the same time. But it's self-defeating to condemn the racist bullshit, but not have the necessary discussions about what's at the root of the problem.
That’s reasonable.
But let’s add just a bit more dumping on FChamp, just to even it out.
 

RoboCop

The future of law enforcement.
Administrator
Premium Supporter
"And the amount it saves the people who do need the help isn't actually enough to help them."
How do you know this, though? How do you know that the government-issued healthcare coverage IS enough to help them? It would be great if we had some numbers to compare the two.

"I believe access to healthcare should be a basic human right in any developed nation, and I don't believe people with more money should have access to better healthcare than poor people. Our basic rights are "life. liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", and I don't believe any of those are possible without adequate healthcare, thus adequate healthcare needs to be a basic human right."
Okay, in response to this point, I'd like to ask you about food: food is just as, if not more, important than healthcare, right? However, there is no "universal food" that is government-issued. There are grocery stores, where you can get differing qualities of food products depending on how much you are willing to spend: higher-quality foods are more expensive, lower-quality foods are cheaper. However, no one in this thread has mentioned that adequate food needs to be a basic human right. Do you mind addressing this?

Your points about the corporations are interesting. I would say this though: the more favorable the conditions are for a company to do business, the more we as a society benefit. I believe this for 2 reasons: (1) we as the consumers will be charged less for the company's goods/services, (2) the more local employees the company will hire (compared to out-sourcing their employment).
Ok, let's look at 2 extremes, a minimum wage worker working 40 hours per week (assume $15/hour), and an average lawyer making $200 per hour, also 40 hours per week. MW = minimum wage, L = lawyer.

MW monthly income: $2,600, yearly: $31,200
L monthly income: $34,667, yearly $416,000

Let's say they both pay 10% income tax, so yearly taxes of $3,200 for MW and $41,600 for L. So, we reduce taxes. Let's say we cut them in half. We've now saved the MW worker $1,600 per year, but we've saved the L a whopping $20,800.

According to https://www.debt.org/medical/hospital-surgery-costs/, the average cost of a single day in a hospital is $3,949. So, by cutting taxes in half, the MW worker still can't afford to spend a single day in a hospital, while the L gets an extra 20 grand to play with every year.

The average elementary school teacher makes around $58,000 per year, so that same cut would save them $2,900; still less than the cost of a single day in the hospital. It's also telling that if you google "how much does a hospital stay cost", the first result is debt.org...

As far as food, yes there is. It's called Food Stamps. And the quality of food is not the same as the quality of healthcare. If I want to spend more to eat sushi, great, that's an indulgence. There's no such thing as an indulgence of health care, unless you count optional procedures like cosmetic surgery. It's a comparison that doesn't make sense. I suppose it hasn't been said because it doesn't need to be said, but of course access to food should be a right in any developed country.

As far as corporations, we unfortunately do not live in a fantasy land where corporations do the right thing. The more favorable the conditions are for a company to do business, the more the company benefits. Look up the companies that just received massive bailouts and still laid off their work forces. Or the companies in 2008 that took payouts and just gave it to their CEOs as benefits packages. Corporations work only for their best interest. A benefit for them does not mean reduced prices or better wages for us.

And just as a final note about the MW vs L, one could make the argument that the MW is working harder than the L. Yes, practicing law is stressful and requires advanced education and intelligence, but in this example both people are working 40 hours per week, the lawyer from a comfortable office, big house, around educated peers, with plenty of pocket money to spend on entertainment and services, and is arguably working a fulfilling job that they sought out, while the MW is standing for 8 hours per day at a soul-crushing dead end job, getting yelled at by customers, has a tiny apartment, and no money leftoever to spend on indulgences.
 
Last edited:

Lt. Boxy Angelman

I WILL EAT THIS GAME
That’s reasonable.
But let’s add just a bit more dumping on FChamp, just to even it out.
You've got yourself a deal.
I haven't even properly applauded Chris G finally getting hit with the nerf bat, either. Cancel culture is a hell of a thing when it works as intended and serves people up their karma.
I don't know if or when we'll ever see the tournament scene regroup and regenerate, but the issue of players who have long needed to be written off for their egregious behavior is something the elders need to deal with en masse before it does. I can only imagine the kind of atmosphere you could have at majors in the future once things play out further, depending on how far/not far it goes. But we need more action as far as people who are all around terrible for the FGC are concerned.
 

Marlow

Premium Supporter
Premium Supporter
One of the few places I actually do tend to agree with libertarians is the Tax Code. I think taxing corporations is inefficient, and in general I think the way the US taxes income is also quite inefficient. I'd rather they replace it with a Consumption or a Value Added tax. The downside of course is that consumption taxes tend to be regressive, but that can be fixed with tax credits. Maybe have a wealth tax as well, although it's somewhat debatable how effective those are.

Where I end up differing with Libertarians is that I'd like the tax to be high enough that the government can afford strong social programs like healthcare, unemployment, social security, and public education.
 

Ram

Buluc Chabtan
@RoboCop @Lt. Boxy Angelman @ItsYaBoi @CrimsonShadow @Marlow @Juggs @mrapchem @anyone else I've conversed with in this thread

I'm going to stop posting in this thread for now. I think I have communicated my points/positions on things enough, and at this point I would just be going in circles and repeating things I already said. I want to thank you guys for discussing things with me. Honestly, I think you guys have each raised some good points that I want to go away and think about, talk to friends about, etc., and see if I can refine/reevaluate my stance on certain things.

At the end of the day, I think we all come to this site because we love fighting games and MK and Injustice, and that's how I will continue to think of you guys, just some fellow FGC-ers. Even if I really disagree with any of your ideas about sociopolitical issues, that in no way negates/reduces my innate FGC-brethren respect for you guys. I hope that you feel the same about me.
 

Lt. Boxy Angelman

I WILL EAT THIS GAME
@RoboCop @Lt. Boxy Angelman @ItsYaBoi @CrimsonShadow @Marlow @Juggs @mrapchem @anyone else I've conversed with in this thread

I'm going to stop posting in this thread for now. I think I have communicated my points/positions on things enough, and at this point I would just be going in circles and repeating things I already said. I want to thank you guys for discussing things with me. Honestly, I think you guys have each raised some good points that I want to go away and think about, talk to friends about, etc., and see if I can refine/reevaluate my stance on certain things.

At the end of the day, I think we all come to this site because we love fighting games and MK and Injustice, and that's how I will continue to think of you guys, just some fellow FGC-ers. Even if I really disagree with any of your ideas about sociopolitical issues, that in no way negates/reduces my innate FGC-brethren respect for you guys. I hope that you feel the same about me.
Thankya, Ram. I wish more people were as open and communicative as you have been.