Jump to content

Neomalthusian

non-Liberal
  • Content Count

    1,367
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Neomalthusian

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Alaska

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Which psychotropic drugs were they on, and for what disorder(s)/conditions? Present the evidence. A meme is not evidence. As to the title, it's not "always blacks" being violent. There are stats about violence and violent crime out there. Black men do commit a disproportionate amount of violence compared to other racial/ethnic groups. There has to be some organic desire to change, culturally, in some of these communities. Academia needs to stop pretending all these people are always victims of institutional racism and that our unfair legal system is always the reason why there's disproportionate black male criminal behavior. There may be some built-in racism in our society left over from generations past, but individual and cultural responsibility to act like upstanding pro-social citizens has to play a major part in this.
  2. "We are not taking a dime from corporate PACs." Harris' campaign website (as well as pretty much every other candidate's website) Politicians saying 'no' to corporate PAC donations are pulling a stunt
  3. HER ACTUAL POLICY PROPOSAL IS NOT EXCLUSIVE TO BLACK PEOPLE. THE CRITERIA ARE NOT ACTUALLY BASED ON SKIN COLOR. Read about it so that you don't have to keep asking silly questions. https://kamalaharris.org/homeownership-gap/ Note I am not at all whatsoever in support of the policy. It just gets annoying to see people throwing around opinions before bothering to read a few words.
  4. This is a far cry from reparations, despite the race-based rhetoric Harris is using to pitch it. A few things about this:1) It doesn't appear she would disqualify people from this based on race, but the rhetoric she uses to sell it bases it on race.2) The people her idea excludes are those who haven't lived in an historically red-lined area. Even though red-lining was done away with over 50 years ago, the only people who would be eligible for this are those in areas that were once red-lined by lenders. This seems like arbitrary favoritism (or perhaps not-so-arbitrary given the way people in these areas typically vote). Picking winners and losers in this arbitrary manner doesn't appeal to me.3) There's a useful purpose that down payments and closing costs serve. People who cannot for the life of them come up with a down payment or closing costs are typically poor. And people who are poor are at risk of not being able to pay a mortgage consistently over the next 30 years. Help with the down payment and closing cost is what ends up trapping people in mortgages who can't afford them. It might sound so benevolent to help them out with the down payment, but what you've also done is plunge them into six figures of debt. That's hazardous.Being denied for a mortgage is not necessarily some discriminatory injustice. It could be a huge favor. If the analysts at your bank say you are too high risk to lend to you, they might be correct, and they might be saving you from enormous debts you can't afford and from years upon years of financial nightmares later on. We should have learned all this from the mid-2000s.
  5. It's not actually race-based. The rhetoric she uses to pitch the idea makes it about race, but the actual proposal is not race-specific. It's specific to areas that were once red-lined by lenders over 50 years ago.
  6. You should stop quoting me in light of the fact you're unable to pay any attention to what I'm actually saying. I recommend you read and understand this before commenting further: Key Design Components and Considerations for Establishing a Single-Payer Health Care System
  7. Our own government-backed coverage nevertheless uses insurance companies for administration of claims/payment/etc., as I said earlier, so insurance companies are pretty well baked into how we pay for health care in this country. Any notion of abolishing all of that infrastructure only to have to turn around and re-create it in the form of the biggest government agency ever imagined is pretty much a non-starter. The issue is who pays what. Currently, that situation is highly unequal, and arbitrarily unequal at that. Some people pay diddly squat for platinum Rolls Royce coverage, others pay over a quarter of their income on health insurance premiums. Some on Medicaid pay jack squat and a few even abuse the privilege getting unnecessary care, others get stuck with outrageous emergency transport bills, balance-billing, out-of-network co-insurance bills, and so on. The inequality between one person and the next, even despite similar ages and incomes, can be extreme. There's no reason to defend a system with this sort of inequality in terms of who pays what. We want aggressive cost control to reduce health care costs, but we don't want anything to affect our access of quality. Those demands are fundamentally at odds. If aggressive government action reins in high health care costs, quality and/or access will be affected, and then people will protest the "crappy coverage" of the new government plan. If the new government plan maintains extremely broad access and high quality, then there's virtually no way to have cost control. We have to be realistic about the trade-offs.
  8. People who take themselves even a tiny bit seriously in having an opinion regarding health care reform in this country need to start paying attention to the details. Medicare For All has a long list of extremely important unanswered questions as to how it would be implemented. If anyone wants this sort of thing to be implemented, it's time to start sweating some of the details.
×
×
  • Create New...