Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Iwasahipsterbefore t1_j9mibkp wrote

Reply to comment by SnooPuppers1978 in Google case at Supreme Court risks upending the internet as we know it by dustofoblivion123

If its a service and passing laws threatens to affect the quality of life of the American people it should be nationalized and be a public utility.

So no really not a good argument

2

MINIMAN10001 t1_j9mve8t wrote

I mean nothing is more critical and endangering of life than healthcare yet the entire US political system is strictly against enacting nationalized healthcare.

Literally a matter of life and death and the whole nation turns a blind eye.

1

Iwasahipsterbefore t1_j9n3599 wrote

No arguments from me. My state has very limited single payer Healthcare, and people always say it's the absolute best healthcare they've ever gotten, and that they miss it when they make too much for it. Which is basically just having a job. At all.

1

wbsgrepit t1_j9qeu15 wrote

What state is this -- there is not an active single payer Healthcare sate in the USA as far as I know. Vermont passed a very neutered version of one in 2011 but it was disabled in 2014 because there was not enough power at the state level to force the cost savings and the cost became untenable.

2

Iwasahipsterbefore t1_j9qn87l wrote

Oregon. We've got two versions essentially, one for poor people and one for old people. Both are absolutely fantastic, and the only problem with the poor one is the drop-off limit should be like, tripled.

2

wbsgrepit t1_j9qobgm wrote

ahh thats not really single payer thats state funded Medicare/Medicaid plans -- similar in concept but not in scope or savings (where single payer fully locks out players and forces them to negotiate costs or lose the market access).

1

Iwasahipsterbefore t1_j9qozlw wrote

We do actually have some litigation in that direction, but it's all on the level of financial incentives rather than a true lockout. The incentives are strong enough and Healthcare companies are greedy enough that everyone generally plays ball, though

1

SnooPuppers1978 t1_j9ml09n wrote

What if nationalising it would make it run much worse? Govs are usually not very innovative.

0

Iwasahipsterbefore t1_j9mm3v1 wrote

And what if unicorns ate rainbows?

See I can do non-sequiters too

2

SnooPuppers1978 t1_j9mz6en wrote

Usually nationalising something like that wouldn't work because incentives aren't there to innovate and compete for the gov.

1

Iwasahipsterbefore t1_j9n2uvt wrote

Can you take a moment, read what you wrote, and actually fucking think about it for a second?

We're in this situation because the "incentives to innovate and compete" directly lead to YouTube recommending Isis training videos to people susceptible to wanting to join Isis because THAT MADE YOUTUBE THE MOST MONEY.

1