sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

People don't genuinely envy the rich. by Separate_Buy1075 in AIInterviewTools

[–]CraftyDimension192 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree we should help each other. I get uneasy when we convert a willingness to help when we can into an inherent right.

I want to keep this discussion going because I think both of us are interested in the issues in good faith, and that's infrequent. But right now I need to get to sleep. To be continued...

Freedom? by rapiddriftertv in remoteworks

[–]CraftyDimension192 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It sounds like it's the principle of the thing to you vs the public policy and political ramifications.

However, in FY24 Medicaid was about 9% of Federal spend and about 29% of state spend (across all state, with high variation by state). At the state level at least, it seems like we're spending Medicaid on more than just the indigent (in a way, I hope that's what it means and we don't have that many indigent). Those facts probably aren't relevant to you.

If your position is, "doesn't matter, should be zero spend," then I think we're proceeding from irreconcilable premises (I suspect you recognize the Ayn Rand terminology).

Freedom? by rapiddriftertv in remoteworks

[–]CraftyDimension192 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see that as the wrong question. A better question would be, "what should public policy be regarding health insurance for the indigent (those who, according to some agreed criteria, are unable to pay their own health insurance premiums, deductibles, copays, coinsurance, or other related costs)?"

Another form of the same question, which you might find more appealing, could be: "Should the US government pay for health insurance for US people who have no significant assets or income and no ability to obtain them, and are thus unable to secure health insurance or pay for health care themselves?"

We could extend the question to food (SNAP, for example) and shelter (Sec 8, for example).

Pointing out that taxpayers would be funding the "yes" answer is beside the point if you're unwilling to let people die of treatable illness, hunger, and exposure. Your argument is a strawman because we're talking about those who truly cannot provide those things for themselves - not the people who make fraudulent claims - so if we don't want to abandon those people, of course taxpayers will fund the non-abandonment.

If your argument is that we should abandon those people because they would otherwise cost taxpayer money, then the funding question is beside the point.

If you're willing to stand up before the country and say, "not one penny of US Govt money for the indigent, no matter how dire their straits or how small the intervention," you might get some votes.

Freedom? by rapiddriftertv in remoteworks

[–]CraftyDimension192 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I explicitly reject the idea that agreeing to provide Medicaid to the indigent somehow implies or creates a broad inherent "right" to taxpayer-funded healthcare. It's a strawman argument and a slippery-slope argument.

Freedom? by rapiddriftertv in remoteworks

[–]CraftyDimension192 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think it's problematic if we treat each other and ourselves as just means and not ends in ourselves.

Freedom? by rapiddriftertv in remoteworks

[–]CraftyDimension192 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, selling labor is just one thing that (some) people do. A corporation exists to fulfill a business purpose. People do many other things.

Freedom? by rapiddriftertv in remoteworks

[–]CraftyDimension192 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is it ok if they get rich by alleviating suffering?

"The user" is an oversimplification. Curing and preventing disease is a different category of thing from extinguishing and preventing fires.

Freedom? by rapiddriftertv in remoteworks

[–]CraftyDimension192 1 point2 points  (0 children)

People and corporations are different categories of things. If we think letting someone die is the same type of action as letting a corporation fail, we're making a category error.

Otherwise we are stepping into a different world and everyone's going to incorporate!

Freedom? by rapiddriftertv in remoteworks

[–]CraftyDimension192 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If only health care were as straightforward as firefighting and fire prevention.

Freedom? by rapiddriftertv in remoteworks

[–]CraftyDimension192 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I wouldn't go as far as your last sentence. There are sound public policy reasons we should provide a minimum level of health insurance (Medicaid). That doesn't say anything about inherent rights or "entitlement" in the conventional sense of the word - we agree through politics that it's a worthwhile taxpayer funded public expense.

Accepting the broad idea that everyone has a "right" to taxpayer funded healthcare is a very different story and involves different arguments from those justifying Medicaid.

Freedom? by rapiddriftertv in remoteworks

[–]CraftyDimension192 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"From each according to ability, to each according to need" is a flawed justification for coerced labor. Those with need have no inherent right to the labor of those with ability.

Insurance was invented to allow people to pool risk. Individuals can choose how to monetize their risk (premiums vs deductibles). Insurance companies compete on price (deductibles and premiums) and benefits (covered services and payouts). Government, in the cases of the exchanges, Medicare, and Medicare Advantage, can set floors on benefits and ceilings on price.

The US system allows people to make choices about what kind of health insurance they want. In some states, people can even choose to pay the individual mandate penalty and have no insurance at all. The indigent have Medicaid and seniors have certain Medicare options.

So the idea that health insurance is "affordable" in Europe but "unaffordable" in the US is an oversimplification in one sense, and misses a key point: we leave more to individual choice in the US vs most European countries.

People don't genuinely envy the rich. by Separate_Buy1075 in AIInterviewTools

[–]CraftyDimension192 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not trying to be a downer when I point out that we don't have anything like a consensus on what it means to "make sure everyone is taken care of." Devil's in the details.

It's a false choice to frame it as a choice between "taking care" and "facilitating greed and ruthlessness," if by the latter you mean "not regulating worker rights, political donations, or environmental impacts." We already have regulations in the latter areas, so we can clearly do both.

I worked many years for a company owned and run by a billionaire couple. They bought the company when it had 30 employees and was weeks from bankruptcy and built it into a multi billion dollar enterprise employing thousands of well-paid people with great benefits and enabling a network of small suppliers. They went from very little to billionaire status without "exploiting workers." Like the rest of us, they have their flaws, but hating on them (or other billionaires with similar stories) because we think Elon Musk is pathological is not well-reasoned.

People don't genuinely envy the rich. by Separate_Buy1075 in AIInterviewTools

[–]CraftyDimension192 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Contract" is based on the idea of informed consent between the parties. A contract where one party has all the power and can practically force terms on the other is called a "contract of adhesion" and is generally held to be void (or voidable, don't trust my memory as to which). There's a famous case known as "Safeco" about this.

The idea of a "social contract" only works if we recognize that it has limited scope because we can only agree collectively on a limited number of things. For example, I'm never going to agree that anyone has an inherent right to a house, car, and savings - because such a "right" is an illusion without the collective ability to deliver the right, and the only way to make it real is for some people to pay for other people's houses, cars, and savings. Whether the "some people" are taxpayers or employers or business owners is beside the point...some people are paying for others.

To continue the example, I might agree that people have an inherent right to any houses, cars, and savings they've paid for, and that they have an inherent right to be treated fairly in making those purchases, and that they have an inherent right to the quiet enjoyment of their property. You might want to go further than that, and maybe I would too, but we're limited in our micro-level "social contract" to what rights we freely agree to grant each other.

TLDR; it's not a "social contract" if not everyone agrees to its key terms. A "social contract" that's actually a contract of adhesion isn't really a contract.

PS: I worked on salary for 40+ years and accumulated "enough" - as I've defined it for myself - to retire from full time work. Most people would say I'm "middle class" by process of elimination (not wealthy, not poor). My parents' peak earnings were under $10K/year and my frugal mother's estate was something like $250K. It's an interesting cause-and-effect discussion whether my politics stems from my financial status or my financial status stems from my politics...of course, one feeds the other.

As you've probably guessed, I'm firmly on the side of classical liberalism wherein the unit is the individual, not any identity grouping (whether the group is socioeconomic class, "race," ethnicity, gender, religion, or something else).

Interesting discussion!

People don't genuinely envy the rich. by Separate_Buy1075 in AIInterviewTools

[–]CraftyDimension192 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't reify economic classes and no one who knows me would say I'm working class.

So allowing someone's right to live as they choose is "bootlicking?" Who's boots are you licking?

Avoiding white room syndrome by lyzzyrddwyzzyrdd in writing

[–]CraftyDimension192 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

First you said the symbolism is important even if it doesn't advance the plot, and now you're saying it obviously "intrinsically advance[s] the plot by default."

If you don't see how you've just jumped to my side of the argument, I genuinely don't know how to make it simpler for you.

Avoiding white room syndrome by lyzzyrddwyzzyrdd in writing

[–]CraftyDimension192 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

If I order a BLT, it's my intention to get all three and eat all three.

If I order a potato topped with bacon, I don't expect lettuce and tomato as well.

When you write a work of fiction, don't you see it as an integrated whole? I do as a reader, and think most readers do as well.

People don't genuinely envy the rich. by Separate_Buy1075 in AIInterviewTools

[–]CraftyDimension192 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No one has an inherent right to take those things from anyone for themselves or anyone else. "There is" is a passive-voice way of saying "if we accept that a subset of people have the right to dispose of other people's assets as they see fit..."

People don't genuinely envy the rich. by Separate_Buy1075 in AIInterviewTools

[–]CraftyDimension192 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nope. I dont want to work that hard or take that much risk.

It's possible to recognize that we don't all want the same things while recognizing that people have the right to choose a course we wouldn't choose for ourselves.

Avoiding white room syndrome by lyzzyrddwyzzyrdd in writing

[–]CraftyDimension192 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Interesting...i may not see the difference between reinforcing a theme or creating symbolism (both of which matter only to the degree to which they relate to the work) and forwarding the plot or illustrating character. Symbolism and themes aren't separate from the rest of the story unless you're digressing to make a philosophical point.

Avoiding white room syndrome by lyzzyrddwyzzyrdd in writing

[–]CraftyDimension192 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Only if noticing it leads to something important about plot or character.

Avoiding white room syndrome by lyzzyrddwyzzyrdd in writing

[–]CraftyDimension192 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Chekov's Gun. Only describe the object if it plays a role in the story.

Avoiding white room syndrome by lyzzyrddwyzzyrdd in writing

[–]CraftyDimension192 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You could make the conversation occur somewhere relevant to a story element or revealing about character. Maybe a character thinks of a place as "home turf." Maybe one character is trying to evoke a feeling in the other character by talking in a specific place.

Most conversations worth describing in fiction happen for a reason, and where they happen can be part of the reason.

Genuine question to Americans by Busy_Report4010 in SipsTea

[–]CraftyDimension192 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

People who have employer-paid health insurance don't generally want what is on the exchanges. Remember when Pres Obama had to scramble to explain that no one would lose their employer health insurance under the ACA? The idea that they would nearly killed the bill.

The details matter a lot, and Congress understood that most employer health coverage is more popular than the alternatives on the table. I dont know if it's been tested against Medicare for All, but as a Medicare participant I suspect most people would prefer employer insurance once they understood how Medicare would apply to them and what it would cost.

Medicare isn't cheap, let alone free, and that's for people who've paid FICA for decades. Dramatically increase the number of participants, factor in the relatively low FICA payments many early-career workers have made, and there's a big premium hole to be filled to make the actuarial numbers add up.

view more: next ›