i think white people are open minded towards black people. it’s just that there’s a lotta baggage with black culture. so, they whites might be less likely to hire blacks or place them in housing, or whatever. i would call that discrimination. not racism. it’s discrimination because the factor that is being used to make a decision is skin color, not the content of the person’s character. but i dont think it’s prejudicial in an unreasonable way. white people are only human and often fear blacks, and it’s understandable that whites dont want to associate with much of black culture given there’s so much toxicity included often times.
i think it’s reasonable to say if there’s discrimination there has to be racism as if they’re one and the same. i just dont like to say there’s so much racism given how open minded whites are. i can even understand if someone thought my distinction between discrimination and racism was a stupid distinction.
when folks talk about quality of care, they usually mean wait times are worse in the rest of the world. (every other developed country covers everyone at half the cost that we do) the thing is, we know this isn’t true just by lookin at the supply of doctors. we have a doctor shortage…. which means we suffer when it comes to wait times compared to other countries. doctors like to specialize to make more money… so we do slightly better with specialized care. if you dont believe this basic supply and demand statistic, just look at the study done by ‘the commonwealth’, a healthcare think tank, that measured wait times, and concluded exactly what i just said.
we have ten percent of people uninsured. we know that they still receive care, just not as much. so adding ten percent more people to coverage isn’t going to change much, even if they weren’t already using care.
no matter how you look at it, this universal healthcare equals wait times thing, is a myth.
theists say God could have caused the universe. atheists say the universe could have caused itself. but the problem is we have reasons to think otherwise.
1. lower energy states come from higher energy states. something had to cause the first maximum energy state of the universe. as far as we know it from our reality, an energy state greater than the universe must have caused it to occur, because we have no reason to think the universe could have caused itself given it had a maximum energy state as a beginning.
2. existence should have an infinite beginning given it looks like there’s an infinite end. i acknowledge there could be a finite end, but from what we can tell existence will be forever more even if it’s emptiness. an infinite ending of our universe cannot have a finite beginning that we see. something else must be the infinite beginning. if i’m wrong, how can a finite beginning cause an infinite end? how does that series play out out of nowhere?
i acknowledge that there could be evidence that contradict these principles… the problem is that we see no such evidence in the universe, all we have is speculation that these presumed principles are faulty.
anyone who really knows me knows that healthcare is my biggest issue. it should be affordable for everyone, as a right, at least in prosperous countries. but i’ve been becoming to see, that our political system is hopeless. politicians sell out to the highest bidder. i means, we should be able to cover everyone at half the cost like every other developed country does, with less wait times and better care…. but our system is too engrained. all those other countries built their systems from scratch, and we’d be fighting to change a major existing infrastructure, our status quo. what would happen if we did pass medicare for all or a public option? well, people would have care, but we couldn’t force corrupt politicians into making it affordable for the people and government…. it’s very possible that they could bankrupt us. we might get universal care, but they wouldn’t fight the industry, and we could go bankrupt.
see, the biggest reason we spend more than every other country, is because we let providers charge to much. it’s a fact that that’s the biggest reason. health insurance is also overemphasized, given insurance companies are a pointless middleman that charges thirty percent on the dollar for administrative costs and profit, whereas medicare only charges three percent for adminstrative costs.
so what should we do? keep what we got, and grow healthcare costs at less than inflation for a set period of time. we can’t just take axes to costs, as it’d shock the system. but we can grow slower than we otherwise would until costs are better managed. plus, we can deemphasize insurance to make it non profit so there’s no profit motive. see, most other countries aren’t single payer anyway… they just deemphasize insurance and make it nonprofit. thus, we’d be in line with most other countries too.
we can do those two thing without doing medicare for all or a public option. those choices are too risky, given our politicians propensity to be corrupt. we can have half the healthcare industry provided by private sectior as currently exists, but they just dont get charged so much. forty percent of the population gets government healthcare, medicare medicaid CHIP etc, or a small amount of these are insure themselves. these major engrained structures can remain.
i’m open to addressing the uninsured, the remaining ten percent of people, just not changing the whole system. id be open to getting the poor in states that didn’t expand obamacare, covered with obamacare. that wouldn’t do much to move needles but would be a big help for them. i’d be open to putting well off people who dont qualify for obamacare into a medicaid plan, where their costs are rationed but they receive good care, that way no one is uninsured. id expect rich people to reimburse all their costs if they are in medicaid though, and i’d suppose they’d be able to afford it.
in case anyone doesn’t realize it, that’s how other countries are half as expensive. they regulate prices. also, existing healthcare through government is regulated. medicare pays a third less than insurance for healthcare costs, and medicaid pays a third of what medicare pays. all im proposing is doing more of this, to be in line with other countries.
we spend twenty four percent of our GDP on taxes. the average OECD country spends 33 percent. most think that means our taxes are low. not exactly. our healthcare system is 18 percent our GDP, and half of that is already from taxes, the rest from the private sector. so, given every other developed country has universal healthcare, if you added the private sector healthcare onto our taxes, we would be matching the rest of the developed world. so why can they afford to have more social services? 1. our healthcare costs twice as much as the rest of the developed world 2. our military is bigger than the next ten biggest countries combined 3. we’ve been borrowing against social security for decades, and now it’s starting to become time to pay all that back.
so if we did raise taxes on people, we might be getting more services, but we’d also be paying more than the rest of the world, all due to us having bad accounting.
so it’s accurate to say we pay less in taxes, but that misses the larger context.
dr. jeffrey long wrong a book, ‘evidence of of the afterlife’. a smart and capable doctor writing a book like that should be sufficient to establish evidence, but i know some peeps are too stubborn to leave it at that.
let’s look at some lines of evidence:
philosophically, it’s just plain stupid to argue that it’s common for people to hallucinate elaborate afterlife stories when they die. why would this even happen? drugs, dreams, and other hallucations dont cause people to hallucinate elaborate afterlife stories in any other aspect of life… why should we assume there’s something special about dying that causes this?
out of body experiences are commonly verified as accurate, to the point of almost always being accurate. doctors and professionals are often some people verifying things that occurred when someone was dead, when what the dead person knew was impossible to know. if ya’ll want a start in researching out of body experiences, ‘evidence for the afterlife’ by doctor jeffrey long does a short literature review of some highlights. there’s lots of studies that look at the accuracy of those experiences and they’re always shown to be accurate. there’s whole scientific journals out there dedicated to this stuff, the evidence is basically too overwhelming to just ignore. even the AWARE study where they tried to measure out of body phenomenon, had two examples where someone who was dead knew what happened out of their body. and there was some measurement of auditory ability when they were dead. now, yes this isn’t the level of evidence that leaves no room for doubt, and this isn’t exactly being able to be measured in a lab on demand…. but this is all evidence that is being measured and can be repeated. it’s basic science.
dead family members. when people experience beings on the other side, the beings met are almost always dead and almost always family members. if this was just a random hallucination, there should be many more examples of living people and people other than family members. this consistency is a strong point.
there are plenty of examples of blind people seeing when they die, often for the first time ever. the examples who people who are coming to grips with a new sense, it takes time to process and that’s exactly what we see.
-another good piece of evidence is that when experiencers are surveyed, they say their ‘life reviews’ are always accurate, 100% of the time. if this was just a brain going hay wire, we’d expect lots of false memories.
-i think this also goes along with the idea that if this was a brain going hay wire, people would experience lots of random images, like a hallucination or dream. instead, they see lucid clear after life experiences that they have no doubt about and that are more real to them than their earthly lives.
-also, people often see images in their life review, that they’ve long forgotten. it’s not as likely just a brain going hay wire if it’s showing the whole life even the forgotten stuff.
-it’s also good evidence that the same sorts of NDEs happen to people who have never heard of these experiences, and to children who are too young to know about it either.
-it’s also good evidence, that across all cultures, the themes in the experiences happen the same. that is, tunnels, light being, life reviews and such… all these things happen at the same rate regardless of country or culture. i realize humans are similar, so the argument that we just have similar experiences is possible. but if this just a brain going hay wire, it wouldn’t be so consistent and would be a lot more like random images or random experiences.
more on consistency.
-almost every person who has these experiences after the exerperience then believes in the afterlife. if these were just hallucaionations, you’d expect this not to so consistent.
-it’s also worth noting, that a majority of atheists even come back believing in God… it’s almost never the case that theists end up becoming atheists. the atheists who dont convert, just had no special insight on the matter, the ones who gain knowledge of something end up becoming believers. (this is also a line of evidence for the existence of God)
-it’s very rare to find a non christian religion NDEs by the way. the experiences are so rare, that i challenge anyone to find just a few of them. the only ones i’ve seen are too open to interpretation to draw too many conclusions from.
the skeptic arguments against NDEs being authentic are at best hunches, it lacks specificity in science. there’s no known afterlife gene or something in our brain that we know of that would cause this. yes, we are all similar so maybe our survial gene is facilitating all this. but like i said, it’s all just a big hunch. we have lots of science and scant evidence to support skeptics. there’s simply not enough evidence to be a skeptic about whether there is even evidence to begin with. this is all evidence, so skeptics have a repubuttable presumption against them and they are bad and providing actual evidence to support their claims.
philosophically, if it’s common for people to experience elaborate afterlife stories when they die, that’s prime facie evidence that an afterlife might exist. even if i were to admit that an afterlife isn’t most probable… it’s objectively possible based on that evidence and all the other lines i’ve provided. that’s why it’s objectively irrational to say there’s not even evidence for an afterlife.
it’s consensus science that where there’s more guns, or more people have them, that there’s more murders than places that dont have guns.
it’s consensus that where there’s more gun control, there’s less murder.
it’s basically. irrefutable that non-gun murders are in line with the rest of the world, but gun murders are wildly out of whack. if this was a bad person problem, not a gun problem, then non-gun murders would be out of whack too. dont need scientific study for this though, this is such common sense, and it’s obvious that you are just regurgitating stupid gun nut talking points, that there is something obviously wrong with your critical thinking skills.
gun control won’t stop mass shootings, as people can just regular guns, or a few of them, and go on a rampage. but it might help some. if it’s too hard to get a gun (fewer guns, more restrictions), people are more likely to give up. that helps a little.
or, like sandy hook, if they dont have assault rifles, they won’t be able to shoot hundreds of spray shots with such ease in a few minutes. obviously, the benefit greatly outweighs the cost of confiscating assault rifles, given they’re almost never needed for self defense.
gun control is mostly about lessening the amount of times someone gets mad and happens to have a gun when they do, less about mass schooting. i saw two strangers kill each other in road rage before, which obviously wouldn’t have happened if they didn’t have guns.
if you tell someone they can’t have a gun, not everyone who is denied will run out and get one. if they dont have a gun when they are mad, they are less likely to kill someone than if they had a knife or other weapon. it might be possible to 3d print guns, but not everyone who is denied a gun is willing to go to that level of desperation.
this is all common sense. u need to work on your critical thinking and drop the propaganda.
is it possible for there to be a purpose for suffering? yes. it can help us make progress to end suffering. we are co creators in that sense. it can give people the perspective to appreciate no suffering. as jesus said, the man wasn’t born with health problems because of something him or his parents did, but to give glory to God when he’s one day disease free.
also, asking why we still have suffering is like asking why darkness exists. that’s just the way it is. can we have just light? i dont think that is possible in our reality. same way, suffering may need to exist in this reality too.
of course, a person can just insist that if it’s possible for suffering not to exist but does, then it isn’t necessary. a person could rationally cling to that principle, but they have to admit that they might be wrong if everything i say is true, and they need to admit that the alternative view that i present is completely realistic. What if God and heaven exist, and the reality is how i present it? then the skeptic is just clinging to philosophy that has no basis in reality. the words and thoughts, the pointless ramblings, of mere men.
every other country covers everyone at half the cost, with better wait times. so it can be done here too. the thing is, they started from scratch and built their healthcare systems from the ground up… not trying to redo a country like ours with a third of a billion people in it. what could happen if we tried to make it universal? the most obvious problem would be that the democrats dont do anything to get costs down first, or they cave when costs are contained with a medicare like pricing system. (which sets limits on how much can be spent) and speicial interests complain about it. the republicans could repeal any taxes that are used to pay for a new system. so it’s definitely possible to bankrupt us based on health care… is what i’m getting at.
how do other countries spend half as much as we do? they mostly get it down to that level by regulating how much the government is willing to pay for each procedure, they regulate costs. they also minimize the role of insurance, which helps given insurance is a middle man that pays a third just in adminstrative costs instead of the two percent that medicare pays. (some hospitals have more staff to take care of billing than they do nurses, for instance)
if we’re not doing more of these cost containing things, we’re headed in the wrong direction.
if we dont do anything about costs, we could end up bankrupt switching to something universal. we only have ten percent of folks who are uninsured… which means it’s not earth shattering if we didn’t cover those few extra people. it would be earth shattering to borrow money to pay for it. that’s why the emphasis shouldn’t be on universal care, it should be on getting costs contained.
sometimes it is wise to be skeptical if a public option or universal plan could work… we’re trying to redo an embedded system, and politicians are good at fucking things up. it’s rational to only focus on getting costs contained…that’s the biggest problem.
i would think five to ten percent of their income would be sufficient, per year, for ten years. no loans, just payments in the future. the government can give schools a net present value of estimated future payments, and collect the payments on income taxes.
this would incentavize colleges to make their students economically viable grads, which is what the end goal is anyway. they would focus more on practical skills. they might decide that four years and excessive unneeded classes aren’t necessary, making it more efficient again. (though the government can require some very basic courses, like generic psychology and generic sociology and generic science etc etc and basic math and reading and writing) this also requires that students dont just get a free ride, but that they chip in on their own education, which would appeal to conservatives. students with not much intelligence or potential would be saw for who they are, and they would be found to be maximized to their potential by the school. majors that are worthless wont get as much money, and that would cause the system to adapt… maybe only the cream of the crop students should be doing humanities, and their would be a punishment of less money to both the student and school for allowing low skill students to go into the humanities. maybe a philosophy major will end up at mcdonalds, and neither he nor the school will benefit much. maybe the school wont accept stupid kids in the humanities.
the well off grads would pay more, who are the most economically viable ones. and the less economically viable ones would pay less. there’s a certain justice to that, if that happens to fit your political ideology.
this proposal is an example of the kind of concrete solutions that politicitians should be working on. the beurocrats in washington have lost the policy in politics.
The Law of Love 