Hiku said:
EricHiggin said:
-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)
|
Simply put, you need to be able to explain your position if someone asks you to do so.
If it's based on another source, then be prepared to specify when asked.
If you cannot, or will not, then don't bring it up.
This is mainly to avoids misunderstandings on both ends.
EricHiggin said:
-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? |
The point is all the lives it saved before such a potential issue arises. And even during such a situation, more people would have access to the care they need, than with USA's current system.
Tying healthcare to work looks especially idiotic today, when people are forbidden to work/laid off from work, due to a virus that people need healthcare to deal with.
Why do you think more people having access to healthcare is pointless in case everyone can't get the help they need?
EricHiggin said:
------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. |
No, I agree that no one should be over-reliant on any one region for essential items. Today is an example of that. Protective gear (many are manufactured in China I'm sure) shortages in many countries. We can start taking steps to avoiding similar issues in the future.
But I don't see how that's an argument against universal healthcare.
|
Nothing wrong with providing more info and detail if it's legitimately called for. Just hope it's not used to deflect more often than not, and that those same type of individuals who ask for more sources/detail from some, also require it from others, especially when it comes to opinions.
---
The U.K. has universal healthcare, yet they're top 10 impacted by Covid right now. Based on pop and confirmed cases, there's been more death's in the U.K. even with their 'far superior' system. How can that be if it's really so much better? That system was also part of the reason they initially decided to try herd immunity, which was ridiculed.
https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/features/covid-19-coronavirus-top-ten-most-affected-countries/
---
The argument isn't directly against universal healthcare, it's more so questioning the implementation and execution. Not all that different than implementing supply chains and how poorly that's been shown to work out when there's snags in the system. The worse the snag, the worse the problem. What I'm saying is even if Trump let's say, installed universal healthcare within the first year, what good would that be right now if the items needed to provide that to all, weren't accessible to provide? What if people who were supposed to be taken care of and surviving, were dying, because the medical supplies weren't available?
A sports arena that offers a free seat night to all, would be useless to most people because the arena is only so big, and the closest people to the arena are most likely to get those seats. So what good did that free seat night do for me and the others that didn't get to make use of it? It's only truly useful if it can properly supply the demand, and clearly the supply chain needs to be fixed first, which coincidentally, Trumps been trying to do, bit by bit where his admin can.
There's a bunch of things that need to get figured out by America before they think about deciding to install universal healthcare. Quite a few of those things aren't even medically related, yet need to be decided upon regardless, and will force change elsewhere, that could potentially cause other problems. America isn't the only country who needs to think ahead and adjust their supply chain either. Tucker was focused on America here however.
PS1 - ! - We must build a console that can alert our enemies.
PS2 - @- We must build a console that offers online living room gaming.
PS3 - #- We must build a console that’s powerful, social, costs and does everything.
PS4 - $- We must build a console that’s affordable, charges for services, and pumps out exclusives.
PRO -%-We must build a console that's VR ready, checkerboard upscales, and sells but a fraction of the money printer.
PS5 - ^ -We must build a console that’s a generational cross product, with RT lighting, and price hiking.
PRO -&- We must build a console that Super Res upscales and continues the cost increases.
Currently Online 
