Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Teneb]

I swear for every dollar spent on medical RnD five goes to yet another TV commercial going "ASK YOUR DOCTOR ABOUT ANALDILDO TODAY"

I was sincerely disturbed when I saw some US ads for fucking heart medication in that exact tone.

Here is in the savage southlands of Brazil any medication that requires a prescription cannot have advertisement. Also other pharmaceutical companies are allowed to make generic versions of them (with names that are literally the name of the medical/chemical compound) and sell for cheaper. And pharmacy salesfolk are required by law to offer those. Absolutely barbaric, I can see why the US is numero uno.

[wierd]

Well.. Here it is. The next day.

What is the top story today?
YUP-- Sanders dared mention (Two years ago!) that sexism was a real thing in politics.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/14/politics/bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-2020/index.html


Or, for context--



Literally, the top news.  Same story as yesterday, of an event that happened **2** years ago, and which both parties stated was "polite and friendly" and which was "Predominantly about how to not derail their movement."

The take away?  Well, the press seems hell bent on asserting that it is "Sanders SEXIST!". Because wtf.


To make it worse yet-

About 2 sections down, they have this story:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ukraine-prosecutor-offered-information-related-to-biden-in-exchange-for-ambassadors-ouster-newly-released-materials-show/2020/01/14/cc45d19e-371e-11ea-9541-9107303481a4_story.html

Which is FANTASTICALLY more news-worthy, relevant to the times, and something that SHOULD be the headline.

But no.  "You are aware that women are harder to get elected, right?" (paraphrase) is the newsworthy thing.  Because bullshit identity politics is somehow more important, than you know-- ILLEGAL DEALINGS FROM THE EXECUTIVE VIS-A-VIS FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS.

Jesus H Fucking Christ on a mother fucking pogostick.  What is wrong with my country?


Oh-- and THIS ONE right after!
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-01-14/plane-dumps-fuel-on-students-on-school-playground-en-route-to-lax-officials-say

So, not only is Sanders' mentioning that sexism is a thing, and that it could derail their movement MORE important than an international intrigue, it is clearly more important than gradeschoolers geting baptized in JP4 in a school playground!


PRIORITIES NEWS PEOPLE-- PRIORITIES!

[sluissa]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Trekkin]

Destroying that system would significantly limit the world's ability to innovate vis-a-vis new medical technologies.

Ah, but aren't you a biased Big Pharma shill? Sitting there, in your blinged-out lab, working on funny stuff, like you're in that Margaret Atwood novel.

How dare you, sir. No worthwhile Big Pharma shill would ever condescend to sit like some sort of pleb; here at the Department of Actually Making All the Fake Drugs Suburban Moms Freak Out About Out Of Unethically Sourced Endangered Species we recline on small hillocks of gold like goddamn dragons, thank you very much.

[MrRoboto75]

PRIORITIES NEWS PEOPLE-- PRIORITIES!

Cloud Yells at Old Man

[wierd]

Destroying that system would significantly limit the world's ability to innovate vis-a-vis new medical technologies.

Ah, but aren't you a biased Big Pharma shill? Sitting there, in your blinged-out lab, working on funny stuff, like you're in that Margaret Atwood novel.

How dare you, sir. No worthwhile Big Pharma shill would ever condescend to sit like some sort of pleb; here at the Department of Actually Making All the Fake Drugs Suburban Moms Freak Out About Out Of Unethically Sourced Endangered Species we recline on small hillocks of gold like goddamn dragons, thank you very much.

Unless you are opulently reclined, while garbed in the finest silk, sipping on fine spirits matured in barrels made from endangered tree species, while berating underpaid lab techs (who do all your actual work for you, while you watch and titter in mirthful contempt),  it just isn't science, right? 

[wierd]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Perhaps it was Poe's Law-- The "For the children!" angle was meant with the greatest possible irony that can be mustered by a mere mortal. 

Considering that the press is the major offender of 'for the children!' dreck, (because of how inflammatory it is, and thus how well it sells), that the press put that BELOW both "international intrigue, AND "So uhm, you know women have a harder time being elected, right?" in things it thinks would get readers upset about (and thus sell eyeballs), it speaks fucking volumes about how out of control the identity politics angle is.


Rather than see the interaction between Warren and Sanders as what it truly was*, they want to paint it in the most sensational way possible, and amp it waaaaay up in the pipeline, trumping even TRUMP and "For the children."


* Sanders is a known pragmatist. He and Warren have more in common ideologically than they have differences of opinion. Sanders correctly points out that their movement (against the mainstream status quo of the establishment in government) is having great difficulty gaining and keeping traction, and that any stumbling block to it could result in failure of the movement-- This includes trying a hail-mary female presidential bid (because women are harder to elect than men, QED. Point out a single female US president.). Warren disagrees-- Says that a female winning the office will send a powerful message. Both agree that if either of them win, it's a win for their movement. Go on about their lives for 2 years.  It's not "Sanders SEXIST!".  It is "Sanders points out sexism in politics-- Worried that betting on female candidate can doom movement."  Sanders did not try to dissuade Warren from running; ergo, he is not the one being sexist. His concern is principally for the success of the movement he and Warren are pushing. The sexism he is rightly pointing out, is that of the electorate, which he has no control over, and is pointing out exists and needs to be considered, despite the chilling effects that has.  Warren asserts that the chilling effect is too great an ethical concession to concede to, and feels that it needs to stop, and is part and parcel with the movement. Such is the disagreement.

But that's much less salacious than "Sanders SEXIST!"

[SalmonGod]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Perhaps it was Poe's Law-- The "For the children!" angle was meant with the greatest possible irony that can be mustered by a mere mortal. 

Considering that the press is the major offender of 'for the children!' dreck, (because of how inflammatory it is, and thus how well it sells), that the press put that BELOW both "international intrigue, AND "So uhm, you know women have a harder time being elected, right?" in things it thinks would get readers upset about (and thus sell eyeballs), it speaks fucking volumes about how out of control the identity politics angle is.


Rather than see the interaction between Warren and Sanders as what it truly was*, they want to paint it in the most sensational way possible, and amp it waaaaay up in the pipeline, trumping even TRUMP and "For the children."


* Sanders is a known pragmatist. He and Warren have more in common ideologically than they have differences of opinion. Sanders correctly points out that their movement (against the mainstream status quo of the establishment in government) is having great difficulty gaining and keeping traction, and that any stumbling block to it could result in failure of the movement-- This includes trying a hail-mary female presidential bid (because women are harder to elect than men, QED. Point out a single female US president.). Warren disagrees-- Says that a female winning the office will send a powerful message. Both agree that if either of them win, it's a win for their movement. Go on about their lives for 2 years.  It's not "Sanders SEXIST!".  It is "Sanders points out sexism in politics-- Worried that betting on female candidate can doom movement."  Sanders did not try to dissuade Warren from running; ergo, he is not the one being sexist. His concern is principally for the success of the movement he and Warren are pushing. The sexism he is rightly pointing out, is that of the electorate, which he has no control over, and is pointing out exists and needs to be considered, despite the chilling effects that has.  Warren asserts that the chilling effect is too great an ethical concession to concede to, and feels that it needs to stop, and is part and parcel with the movement. Such is the disagreement.

But that's much less salacious than "Sanders SEXIST!"

Nevermind that Sanders spoke supportingly of a Warren bid for presidency as early as 2013.

[scriver]

Personally I've come to conclude that the "free" in "free healthcare" refers to it being freely available, not cost less. I'm a bit divided on the issue of this being brought up in discussions, though. On the one hand I think this is a sort of tactic to bring a discussion of the course of actually discussing the issue, which feels cheap and underhanded. On the other hand, however, I am sometimes a bit surprised by how some of my fellow countrymen seem to think of public healthcare in my country as taken for granted and not something we all make work by paying the cost together. There's a line to walk there in how to talk about it (assuming that how we talk about it reflect how we think about it) and I'm not sure I can draw that line out clear.

If I was to suggest a change of phrasing/terms for Americans I think I would put focus on it being publicly funded health insurance. I believe, with great uncrtaintly of how well I'm recalling it, that that was exactly how people here in the north approached it during the early 20th century (long before our current systems, which are usually later half of century I think) -- the idea that in lieu of predatory insurance companies people should come together and fund their own health insurance with the state as the administrator. Most people are at least acquaintanced with that the idea behind insurances is that the fee you pay goes to pay for the costs of those who need it (even though it might not be you who profit of nothing bad happens) and the idea that the more people pay in to the same insurance, the more powerful the insurance becomes (and thus one with the entire people  behind becomes very assertive). The biggest problem might then be to convince people that the state would be a better handler of this than a private business (of which the main arguments I think is check-ability and liability, and the target-of-obligation).

So in short moving the phrasing away from the partially incorrect "free healthcare" like you said and more towards leaning on the fact that this would be a "public (or tax-funded) health insurance". But yeah, its just some of my thoughts.

[Max™]

The main argument that the state should handle it is because the insurance industry is like a pack of hyenas that try to sell you on the idea of letting each hyena take a nibble from everyone regularly with the promise that, should another predator attack the herd, the hyena pack will step in and help the victim.

Oh, unless it's a lion, you need a different policy for lions which amounts to a whole ear over the next year but only for those who lose an ear, and angry water buffalo rampages aren't covered by the same policy, you need to get the "we get to eat your next baby" package to cover those events.

Note that pack of hyenas doesn't cover fire, drought, or poachers... and by accepting coverage you forfeit the right to seek damages in another court of jaw.

Though the vultures are always around to help you argue your case... oops, I mean carcass.

[sluissa]

I agree that it might be beneficial to word things in certain ways to sell the idea to certain people. But other things we already have in place are commonly called free even though they have costs associated with them that eventually get passed back to taxpayers somehow.

"Free" K-12 public education being the big one.

Other things are termed in different ways. "Public roads" being one that doesn't typically have the monkier "Free" attached to it.

Free/Public Libraries is one where I've heard it switched up commonly. Even when I had to pay a $10 fee to get a library card and check out books, I still consider the system to be "Free" personally.

I don't necessarily think it's wrong to term publicly funded healthcare as "free" as long as the direct fees passed onto the people using the system are minimal. And I don't think it's wrong to sell people on the idea that way either. It's all just arguing semantics.

After all, "Free samples" at the supermarket have their cost baked into the cost of the product they're trying to sell. If you end up buying the product you sampled, you paid for it, and for everyone else who sampled and who didn't buy the product.

[dragdeler]

-

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It's fucking wild how badly former Clinton staffers managed to sink Harris and now are sinking Warren. It's legitimately impressive how bad the Clintonite camp is at politics, and how good they think they are at politics because of a couple narrow victories in the 90s.

And Warren is a disgusting traitor to the left movement who's only still in this race to make sure Biden wins, capital recuperation in action, etc, etc.

[dragdeler]

-

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I suppose one can't exactly be a traitor to something they never believed in the first place.