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

[Ram]

Absolutely not, because then you can only get healthcare that is as good as the money you have left over to spend on it, and if you can't afford health care, then you have none. That is absolutely one of the biggest problems with health care in this country.

This notion that rich people should get better care than everyone else, and poor people should get poor health care, and that your income should be able to determine the quality of care you receive overall, is old-world and incredibly silly compared to the rest of modernized society.

"Absolutely not, because then you can only get healthcare that is as good as the money you have left over to spend on it, and if you can't afford health care, then you have none. That is absolutely one of the biggest problems with health care in this country."
But again, how is this different from food? If I can't afford to get higher quality food, then I won't, and yet food isn't socialized and you guys are not asking for it to be.

"This notion that rich people should get better care than everyone else, and poor people should get poor health care, and that your income should be able to determine the quality of care you receive overall, is old-world and incredibly silly compared to the rest of modernized society."
Income determines the quality of food you receive, too.

 

[Ram]

Guys I absolutely love this discussion we're having, like honestly. Could we organize a skype/zoom whatever call to discuss more? It's hard to reply and have convos with people by typing back and forth. Thoughts?
@Marlow @CrimsonShadow @ItsYaBoi

 

[Ram]

When person A makes 100 times the salary of person B, C, and D, I think it's fine. Especially if the stuff they're being asked to help pay for is to provide basic needs like healthcare, education, social security, and safety net programs so that kids and the elderly aren't dying of starvation.

Yes and no. A lot of the time your choices on schools, healthcare, services, groceries, are tied into the region you or your family can afford to live in. This also assumes that there's a perfect supply/demand and price relationship for these services, and that wealth and income is always closely tied to someone's actual value and production, which I don't think is true.

"When person A makes 100 times the salary of person B, C, and D, I think it's fine. Especially if the stuff they're being asked to help pay for is to provide basic needs like healthcare, education, social security, and safety net programs so that kids and the elderly aren't dying of starvation."
My question to you is: why do you care what person A's salary is? Why is that any of your or my business?

 

[ItsYaBoi]

If I smoke myself to death you should pay for it?

Assuming they developed it through their own fault his logic is sound.

Yep, and I would pay for it with a MINISCULE amount of tax each month. Guess what that bit of my tax also pays for? Kids dying of cancer and people involved in car accidents through no fault of their own.

The point is null and void when you weigh up how much good can come from universal healthcare. There will always be people taking advantage of a system or people who completely disregard their health and use it etc. But every system everywhere has a small minority who misuse/abuse it, it doesn't mean that those systems should never be in place and thus fuck over the vast majority who use them correctly.

 

[Marlow]

If I smoke myself to death you should pay for it?

Assuming they developed it through their own fault his logic is sound.

So tax cigarettes at a higher rate. A lot of health issues are not "developed through their own fault".

 

[Ram]

So tax cigarettes at a higher rate. A lot of health issues are not "developed through their own fault".

The problem with this mentality is that there are a LOT of things that are not good for your health. Should we also raise the taxes on those things?

 

[Arqwart]

I really miss when this thread was just taking huge dumps on FChamp.
Good times.

FChamp did a bad and is trash for it.

 

[Marlow]

My question to you is: why do you care what person A's salary is? Why is that any of your or my business?

I don't specially care what Person A's salary is, I care about providing basic goods and services to a society.

 

[Marlow]

The problem with this mentality is that there are a LOT of things that are not good for your health. Should we also raise the taxes on those things?

Yes. They're called excise taxes. I think they actually make a lot of sense from a "free market" perspective, because if you think about it it helps align the cost of an activity with doing the activity.

 

[RoboCop]

They deal with the consequences of their actions. Also, with things like Kickstarter and GoFundMe, they can try and raise finances that way.

I've been avoiding posting in this thread because, holy shit, what a tangled mess of misinformation and nonsense. But good god, this might be the most ignorant and callous post I've seen since joining this site in 2011. True story: plenty of people in this country aren't rich enough to afford our insane medical system, and it's through no fault of their own. The hardest working people I know are also the poorest. People working for minimum wage 70 hours per week just to be able to pay for a shitty apartment and feed their families simply aren't mathematically capable of putting aside enough money every month to pay for a major medical emergency. All it takes is one major illness, one traffic accident, hell, just slipping on some ice and falling the wrong way, and bam, you're wiped out for life. That's fucked up and you should be legit ashamed for your comment. Your move, creep.

 

[Ram]

I've been avoiding posting in this thread because, holy shit, what a tangled mess of misinformation and nonsense. But good god, this might be the most ignorant and callous post I've seen since joining this site in 2011. True story: plenty of people in this country aren't rich enough to afford our insane medical system, and it's through no fault of their own. The hardest working people I know are also the poorest. People working for minimum wage 70 hours per week just to be able to pay for a shitty apartment and feed their families simply aren't mathematically capable of putting aside enough money every month to pay for a major medical emergency. All it takes is one major illness, one traffic accident, hell, just slipping on some ice and falling the wrong way, and bam, you're wiped out for life. That's fucked up and you should be legit ashamed for your comment. Your move, creep.

Could we discuss further in private messages?

EDIT: I'm more than happy to have a discussion with you. But I will never call you names or swear at you or anything like that, and I would appreciate the same level of respect from your end.

 

[Lt. Boxy Angelman]

I really miss when this thread was just taking huge dumps on FChamp.
Good times.

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.

 

[Dankster Morgan]

So tax cigarettes at a higher rate. A lot of health issues are not "developed through their own fault".

Yeah im talking about the ones that are though. I specifically mention that.

 

[Dankster Morgan]

Yep, and I would pay for it with a MINISCULE amount of tax each month. Guess what that bit of my tax also pays for? Kids dying of cancer and people involved in car accidents through no fault of their own.

The point is null and void when you weigh up how much good can come from universal healthcare. There will always be people taking advantage of a system or people who completely disregard their health and use it etc. But every system everywhere has a small minority who misuse/abuse it, it doesn't mean that those systems should never be in place and thus fuck over the vast majority who use them correctly.

Small minority? You think the amount of money we spend on obesity related conditions is small? Obviously those with pre existing conditions they didnt cause should be helped out in any and every way.

 

[Marlow]

Also, with things like Kickstarter and GoFundMe, they can try and raise finances that way.

They can try, but is there any proof that those systems would work better for everyone than what Government does now? It's debatable, but I'd say no.

 

[RoboCop]

Could we discuss further in private messages?

EDIT: I'm more than happy to have a discussion with you. But I will never call you names or swear at you or anything like that, and I would appreciate the same level of respect from your end.

I'm not particularly interested, as I've got a lot on my plate right now (which is the main reason I've avoided posting in this thread and getting sucked down a wormhole). But not really sure what there is to discuss. As it stands, you've got to be significantly financially well off to survive a disaster like an illness or accident. That part's not really debatable and I think most of us can agree on that. Even an ambulance ride in the US is enough of a financial burden to dissuade most people from using one.

So, the only thing to discuss, really, is whether that's a fair and adequate system or not. I don't think it is. If you do, then great, we'll just have to disagree about it. My issue with your comment wasn't that we apparently disagree about the system, but with your flippant write-off of the very real and very serious fact that many, if not most, non-rich citizens would be financially ruined by a medical distaster, and through no fault of their own.

 

[Ram]

I'm not particularly interested, as I've got a lot on my plate right now (which is the main reason I've avoided posting in this thread and getting sucked down a wormhole). But not really sure what there is to discuss. As it stands, you've got to be significantly financially well off to survive a disaster like an illness or accident. That part's not really debatable and I think most of us can agree on that. Even an ambulance ride in the US is enough of a financial burden to dissuade most people from using one.

So, the only thing to discuss, really, is whether that's a fair and adequate system or not. I don't think it is. If you do, then great, we'll just have to disagree about it. My issue with your comment wasn't that we apparently disagree about the system, but with your flippant write-off of the very real and very serious fact that many, if not most, non-rich citizens would be financially ruined by a medical distaster, and through no fault of their own.

Okay, so then I would love to discuss further so that I can potentially fill in gaps in my knowledge and hopefully come away from our convo better informed.

 

[RoboCop]

Okay, so then I would love to discuss further so that I can potentially fill in gaps in my knowledge and hopefully come away from our convo better informed.

That's fine, but why not have the conversation here? That way other users can contribute, and there are certainly other users who could stand to see that information. Nothing wrong with asking questions if you're genuinely interested in learning about the subject. That also prevents everything from getting filtered through my singular point of view.

 

[Marlow]

Yeah im talking about the ones that are though. I specifically mention that.

Is it perfectly fair? No. But I can live with a small amount of unfairness if it means helping others. Again, are people's wealth and income always fair compared to the amount of hard work they've done or job they perform? Very much no. Many of the world's best inventors, artists, and thinkers have died poor and penniless.

 

[Dankster Morgan]

Is it perfectly fair? No. But I can live with a small amount of unfairness if it means helping others. Again, are people's wealth and income always fair compared to the amount of hard work they've done or job they perform? Very much no. Many of the world's best inventors, artists, and thinkers have died poor and penniless.

Hard work is different than literally putting the fork or bottle or cigarette down. I never said not to help people in poverty either.

 

[RoboCop]

EDIT: I'm more than happy to have a discussion with you. But I will never call you names or swear at you or anything like that, and I would appreciate the same level of respect from your end.

I appreciate that, and please know that as harsh as my response might have sounded, it was all directed at what you wrote, and not at you personally. I very much disagreed with your comment, but I don't know the first thing about you as a person. The "your move, creep" is just a RoboCop quote. I wasn't actually calling you a creep.

 

[Ram]

I appreciate that, and please know that as harsh as my response might have sounded, it was all directed at what you wrote, and not at you personally. I very much disagreed with your comment, but I don't know the first thing about you as a person. The "your move, creep" is just a RoboCop quote. I wasn't actually calling you a creep.

Gotta get my movie quote knowledge more on-point lol
Thanks for explaining

 

[ItsYaBoi]

Small minority? You think the amount of money we spend on obesity related conditions is small? Obviously those with pre existing conditions they didnt cause should be helped out in any and every way.

So everybody else, kids dying of cancer, people involved in accidents, stab victims etc, should suffer because of you not wanting to also care for obese people? Is that what you’re saying? Or would you rather selectively decide who gets healthcare, so separate overweight people and deny them healthcare. Both scenarios are fucked up.

It becomes a slippery slope of callousness when you decide who gets to have healthcare and who doesn’t. That’s why it’s called universal healthcare and that’s what I’ve been advocating for in this very thread. Again, the good far outweighs anybody you may think is abusing/misusing it. Case in point, the NHS. Far less people misuse it than those who seriously need it.

 

[Ram]

That's fine, but why not have the conversation here? That way other users can contribute, and there are certainly other users who could stand to see that information. Nothing wrong with asking questions if you're genuinely interested in learning about the subject. That also prevents everything from getting filtered through my singular point of view.

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?

 

[Dankster Morgan]

So everybody else, kids dying of cancer, people involved in accidents, stab victims etc, should suffer because of you not wanting to also care for obese people? Is that what you’re saying? Or would you rather selectively decide who gets healthcare, so separate overweight people and deny them healthcare. Both scenarios are fucked up.

It becomes a slippery slope of callousness when you decide who gets to have healthcare and who doesn’t. That’s why it’s called universal healthcare and that’s what I’ve been advocating for in this very thread. Again, the good far outweighs anybody you may think is abusing/misusing it. Case in point, the NHS. Far less people misuse it than those who seriously need it.

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