The US Politics |OT|

[EricHiggin]

Hiku said:

EricHiggin said:

-Guessing at how I would respond? That is really reaching, no? It's one thing if you're concerned about something I've said, but being concerned about how I could have or may converse in the future? I'm not going to try and change how people converse with me by guessing how they would likely react to me in the future or another timeline if it's not in a manner that would benefit me. They can say whatever they want to me as long as the mods don't have a problem with it, and if there's a problem, I would hope it applies equally to everyone.

I said if someone guesses what you're referring to. And when users did (which they had to because you didn't specify), you kept telling them it was wrong, but not why.

EricHiggin said:
-I only suggested they should watch the clip after numerous explanations.

This is your only response on the subject before repeatedly telling people "You didn't watch the clip/do your homework"
https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9112114

You said "is based on what Tucker points out about China having such leverage".

Responses for that were met with "Nope that's not it. Watch the video/again."
At that point when people asked you to specify, you should, rather than be upset that someone potentially didn't look through an entire 11 min clip properly enough, or twice, to be able to pinpoint the few seconds of it you were referring to, and what your interpretation of it was.

I also asked you to specify the sentence from Tucker, but you still didn't.
So I'll just move on. But I don't want to hear that I'm misunderstanding something about it.

So now I can respond to your explanation from page 358.

EricHiggin said:
Well yes. More people expecting speedy, quality, services, would put more pressure on the system. It has nothing to do with what would be better in terms of having healthcare or not, it has to do with planning ahead. What's the point in free health care if you can't get it when you need it?

The point is, even under this unlikely scenario you portrayed where China manages to cut off supplies without US having backup providers ready to cover for it, more people still have access to healthcare than they would under the current system.

Let's pretend China cuts off penicillin, and there's no backup supplier.

Current system: A certain amount of people don't have access to penicillin.
Universal Healthcare: The same amount of people don't have access to penicillin.

However, those same people (and other people) can still get treatment for other medical conditions. Many of whom could not under the current system.

EricHiggin said:
You don't invest the majority of your money in a single unstable stock. You spread it out, even if you have a little more dedicated to one specific objective.Those suppliers could instantly fill the demand? If the cut off happened when a serious illness fell upon the world, or worse, would that be seen as acceptable? Waiting to fill the demand while people needlessly perish due to the wait because most of the eggs were placed into one basket?

This sounds more like criticism towards being over-reliant on a potentially unreliable medical supplier, and seems to have little to no relevance to Universal Healthcare.

Each country adjusts the supply and demand process according to the needs of people, so shortages of crucial medical aid should not be a thing.
The amount of people in the US who are uninsured or under-insured is dwarfed compared to the amount of people in the rest of the world that are fully insured. So it's not like USA joining the rest of the world with Universal Healthcare is going to throw everything into chaos.
If there's any actual indication that this would happen, I'd like to hear some concrete evidence that points to this before I'd speculate on the matter.

But I want to point out that Tucker Carlson suggested a problem without actually analyzing the situation he described.
What would happen if China cut off supplies? What are USA's options in such an event? He left that out completely, which is irresponsible and unprofessional at best. That's just fear mongering without any given probable cause.

A couple of weeks ago I was ordering medicine for my grandma since she's bad with technology. I had done it for years, but now for the first time it said something like "Not available in Sweden any longer. Please contact support." So I did. And they told me that all that means is that they'll order it from a different supplier. And the very next day I got a notice saying it was ready to pick up.

That's the only time in my life I ever heard or experienced anything close to what Tucker is suggesting here.

-You were guessing at how I would reply to something, and seemed to have a problem with how I could have, potentially, responded.

"And if someone guesses what you're referring to, chances are you'd reply with "Nope, that's not it. Watch the video again and you'll understand.""

I didn't say that, you did. I eventually later on, after trying to explain things a few times, end up suggesting they watch the clip, "where did you get that from? He nor I am under that impression. Maybe you should watch the clip." Considering as I've already mentioned to you, I didn't remember where exactly in the clip that portion was, it's up to me now to go back through it all and find it for them? They have no obligation to have an idea where they are coming from before they begin a conversation with anyone?

-----

-Incorrect. The first reply is to a different individual. The next reply, which is to another individual is, "you either didn't watch the clip or you didn't understand it based on that reply."

I don't tell them they have to watch the clip, I simply point out based on what they said, they didn't understand, possibly because they didn't watch the clip.

They follow up with this, "then enlighten me.  How does the leverage change given the product volume doesn't change?"

And I respond with, "the leverage, based clearly on what is said in the clip, has nothing to do with product volume. You obviously didn't do your homework, again, it seems."

What's wrong with my response? They asked another question about product volume and I explain it has nothing to do with that, which they would know if they watched the clip. Even you say you don't see the connection, so why would they if they watched it? (I'm not talking about the "clip" when I mention homework again, I'm referring to a fairly recent prior conversation with them btw)

Tucker is pointing out the leverage China has over America by being such an important supplier, in many ways. Then he specifies based on the point he's making. Is that what you're looking for?

-----

-I don't get it. I already explained it. "It has nothing to do with what would be better in terms of having healthcare or not, it has to do with planning ahead. What's the point in free health care if you can't get it when you need it?" What's not clear about that?

-----

-Tucker is just asking a question about a general what if scenario. You can't honestly tell me you think there's zero possibility that there could at some point, end up a shortage of medical supplies because of the reliance on China. Tucker didn't elaborate because he didn't have to. It's definitely possible, even if unlikely. So he has a point, even if you don't think it means much based on the likelihood.