Funny events in anti-woke world

[Dwarvenhobble]

No, it wouldn't. If she actually made a move towards her pocket after saying that, then pepper spray. If they had restrained her upon making the threat and searched her to see if she had a knife, that would have been justified. Self-defense legally requires you to meet the level of threat, not escalate it.

Yes it would justify it because the move was to push her back from them which would be out of effective range for a knife unless she tried to throw the thing.

Detaining and searching her would be a fucking minefield of risk as generally you'd want said search to be done by a female officer to reduce risk of accusations or claims. Without one present the more justified move would be to create distance

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Ok fine I'll take the bait.

I'd actually like to know what she was saying to the officers at the time because if you want justification it could easily be there.

"I have a a knife in my pocket you impotent little man and am going to stab you with it"

That would be easy provocation and justification right there.

And let me guess, this reporter said that her camera was a knife?

​

 

[Casual Shinji]

Again, y'all are asking the nazis why they agree with nazi tactics.

Here's your answer; They're nazis, so they like the nazi stuff that's happening in America.

 

[Agema]

snip

Dude, you support the party that wants the poor to die of easily preventable diseases. One of the saddest and most pitiful things about this forum is watching you fumble around for arguments to pretend that's not the case: not least because the implication of that is that you want the poor to die of easily preventable illnesses, too.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Again, y'all are asking the nazis why they agree with nazi tactics.

Here's your answer; They're nazis, so they like the nazi stuff that's happening in America.

Which Nazis Shinji?

 

[tstorm823]

Careful, there; you almost sound like you're arguing for single-payer healthcare, which as any Republican will tell you leads directly to SOCIALISM and bread lines and jackboots.

I'd argue for anti-trust and consumer protections first, but as I've said many times, even single-payer would be better than what we have.

Dude, you support the party that wants the poor to die of easily preventable diseases. One of the saddest and most pitiful things about this forum is watching you fumble around for arguments to pretend that's not the case: not least because the implication of that is that you want the poor to die of easily preventable illnesses, too.

You should be sad for even thinking any of that. Get your head back to reality.

 

[Agema]

You should be sad for even thinking any of that. Get your head back to reality.

The USA has systematically not covered, or undercovered, a huge proportion of its population for decades. The end result of that is that despite having one of the best healthcare system in the world for those who can pay a lot, it's overall health outcomes for the populace are one of the most dismal in the developed world. For some key indicators of population health, the USA is behind Cuba.

The Democratic Party have attempted healthcare reform on and off for much of this period. The Republican party however has offered nothing significant to resolve this over these long decades. The best you can do, and don't fucking bother because you've already tried - is pretend that because a blue state happened to put in a better state healthcare system whilst it had a Republican governor, your side has achieved anything at all.

Meanwhile your party has systematically attempted to derail or block every single attempt at reforms by your opponents. Even now, the basic plan amounts to nothing but attempting to quietly dismember the ACA - on the sly of course because the ACA has turned out to be popular, meaning that they don't want the hit from killing it in plain sight. They then intend on replacing it with... basically nothing. This is the fundamental reality of Trump now - for all the noise he's made about a new healthcare plan, he's done no real work on it except advance some half-cocked ideas that his own party don't even support.

And that really is all you have to offer. You want to ***** and moan about your country's healthcare, but only in the context of a major Democratic healthcare reform. Without the ACA, you'd be back to telling us that everything is fine even as loads of the poor sicken and die from easily preventable illnesses. Oh, you might say blah blah vertical integration and the massive prices blah, but talk is cheap and you'll just carry on backing a party that will never do anything about it.

 

[tstorm823]

Without the ACA, you'd be back to telling us that everything is fine even as loads of the poor sicken and die from easily preventable illnesses.

First, the poor get Medicaid.

Second, I'm curious what easily preventable diseases you think Americans are dying from in large numbers.

Our healthcare system isn't just one of the best for the rich, it's one of the best for everyone, at least as far as quality of care. The economy of it is probably the worst in the world. The issue isn't people neglected into mass preventable deaths, the issue is sucking the maximum amount of money out of everyone. Even the people who are somehow too young, healthy, and wealthy for government insurance while also not insured through work and encountering major medical debt are likely to just have most of it forgiven once the system has figured out the maximum amount of blood they can squeeze from the stone. It isn't poor care, it isn't lack of access, it's just the money that's the problem.

 

[Silvanus]

First, the poor get Medicaid.

Some of the poor receive medicaid, despite the efforts of the party you support.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

The economy of it is probably the worst in the world. The issue isn't people neglected into mass preventable deaths, the issue is sucking the maximum amount of money out of everyone. Even the people who are somehow too young, healthy, and wealthy for government insurance while also not insured through work and encountering major medical debt are likely to just have most of it forgiven once the system has figured out the maximum amount of blood they can squeeze from the stone. It isn't poor care, it isn't lack of access, it's just the money that's the problem.

All of this- every last step- could be solved by single-payer healthcare. It would be massively cheaper, since people would be less discouraged to seek care early on during an illness, with less-expensive preventative care rather than far-more-expensive treatments later in a disease, and also with the government's far stronger ability to negotiate prices.

Would you like to know who we have to blame for a great deal of the high cost of hospital care in the United States?

Ronald Reagan.

He signed EMTALA (the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act) into law, dictating that hospitals could not turn away patients because of an inability to pay. While this seems like a humane course on the surface, EMTALA does not grant any sort of compensation to hospitals for this, meaning that they must absorb the costs incurred by that patient if they are unable to pay.

And what does a business do with higher costs? It passes them on to everyone else. This is where you get $1,400 bottles of aspirin from- the hospital is trying to recoup costs so that it doesn't go out of business. It's an indirect tax on everyone in the country who needs medical care.

And this, too, could easily be remedied by single-payer healthcare. But Republicans, for decades, have been against that- and while they say that it's because SPH is a slippery slope to communism, the real root is a sadistic belief that the poor deserve to suffer for being bad people, ignoring the fact that those poor people are the entire underpinning of the American economy.

 

[Agema]

First, the poor get Medicaid.

Some of the poor get some coverage through Medicaid.

Our healthcare system isn't just one of the best for the rich, it's one of the best for everyone, at least as far as quality of care. The economy of it is probably the worst in the world.

I hate to break it to you, but healthcare economics is part of your healthcare system. When a load of people are priced out of your healthcare system, that's a feature of your healthcare system. And your party never does anything meaningful about it. Of course it doesn't: it's the pro-business and anti-tax party. Useless, lazy, poor bums are supposed to die rather than drain your money in taxes.

 

[Silvanus]

And your party never does anything meaningful about it.

Much less than nothing. It was Republicans that provided most of the votes against establishing Medicaid in 1965. It was Republican states that were last to opt into Medicaid. It was Republicans that stood against the expansion of Medicaid to cover all those below the poverty line in the ACA. It was Republican states that refused to implement those expansions after its passage. And it is the Republicans, in the 1BBB, now aiming to cut 12% of medicaid's funding, and restrict eligibility once more.

 

[tstorm823]

I hate to break it to you, but healthcare economics is part of your healthcare system.

So, you're not disputing that we have quality care available to everyone? Just want to clarify...

 

[Phoenixmgs]

You're rignt. Thousands of kids died to Covid. They should have done greater lockdowns and controls to protect more children

Covid-19 disruptions killed 228,000 children in South Asia, says UN report

A new UN report says interrupted health services caused hundreds of thousands of deaths in South Asia.

www.bbc.com

 

[Seanchaidh]

Quelle Surprise

 

[Seanchaidh]

So, you're not disputing that we have quality care available to everyone? Just want to clarify...

everyone with money is not everyone. and if you do not have money, then health care is not "able to be used or obtained; at [their] disposal."

 

[Agema]

So, you're not disputing that we have quality care available to everyone? Just want to clarify...

You have quality care available to everyone only in a narrow set of circumstances. This means a large number of people have limited or effectively no access to quality care in a wide range of circumstances important to their health.

 

[tstorm823]

You have quality care available to everyone only in a narrow set of circumstances.

everyone with money is not everyone. and if you do not have money, then health care is not "able to be used or obtained; at [their] disposal."

This isn't true. Healthcare is available. You might end up in debt, but the care is available.

 

[bluegate]

This isn't true. Healthcare is available. You might end up in debt, but the care is available.

"Hahahahaha.

Oh wait, you're serious? Let me laugh even harder, Hahahahaha."

---

Moving on to a different clown show as provided by the Republican Nazi Party.

Stephen Miller Melts Down as MAGA Is Blamed for Fire at Judge’s House

A judge’s $1.1 million beach home has gone up in flames.

www.thedailybeast.com

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

This isn't true. Healthcare is available. You might end up in debt, but the care is available.

"You can ruin your future to keep your life. This is acceptable."

Clown.

Moving on to a different clown show as provided by the Republican Nazi Party.

Stephen Miller Melts Down as MAGA Is Blamed for Fire at Judge’s House

A judge’s $1.1 million beach home has gone up in flames.

www.thedailybeast.com

"This has to be the left's fault somehow!"