taiwan and japan has lit healthcare because every single procedure is listed in a book next to a price set by the government
2016 election live results
posted in
World Events
taiwan and japan has lit healthcare because every single procedure is listed in a book next to a price set by the government
Not sure why someone was banned here? Looks like some mods are more politically sensitive
Not sure why someone was banned here? Looks like some mods are more politically sensitive
EvrewsNot sure why someone was banned here? Looks like some mods are more politically sensitive
To be fair me Percy and viper only got like 1 hour bans but still the shit we got banned for was silly banter and we definitely should not have gotten banned for it..
[quote=Evrews]Not sure why someone was banned here? Looks like some mods are more politically sensitive[/quote]
To be fair me Percy and viper only got like 1 hour bans but still the shit we got banned for was silly banter and we definitely should not have gotten banned for it..
To be fair me Percy and viper only got like 1 hour bans but still the shit we got banned for was silly banter and we definitely should not have gotten banned for it..
Twitter is just a mass of people whining like petulant children. I didn't make enough popcorn for all this "If you voted for Donald Trump, you better unfollow me right now!" bullshit. I just hope all those terrible celebrities leave.
Twitter is just a mass of people whining like petulant children. I didn't make enough popcorn for all this "If you voted for Donald Trump, you better unfollow me right now!" bullshit. I just hope all those terrible celebrities leave.
KonceptWould those that you're mentioning as "uninsured" be those that are opting out of the program in favor of their own plans that benefit them more? Because I feel like if that's the demographic that can afford their own programs without many financial issues, then is there much of a reason to worry about them, since they are investing in a program that theoretically (or actually idk which tbh) would offer them more?
There is no "program" to opt out of.
The vast majority of Americans get health insurance through one of three places: A job or institution which provides such benefits, a family plan, or Medicare (seniors only) and Medicaid (below the poverty line only).
So if you have a chronic condition, your best bet is to be employed full time for a large firm or the government, be poor enough or old enough to qualify for Medicare or Medicaid, or be young enough to be on your parents' health plan which only exists if they are insured through work.
The demographic who can afford treatment for serious chronic illnesses without insurance is vanishingly small. Many people without these options go without insurance, which is ok for younger people, and not very ok for older people who have occasional health mishaps. That's also why people show up at the E.R. with unmanaged chronic conditions -- there is no money for insurance to treat chronic conditions, but the E.R. must take people who are sick, so people who don't have insurance end up letting minor things they can't afford turn into major things that require ambulances and surgery.
Also medical bankruptcy is the most common form of bankruptcy in the US.
I understand that through reading the article that you linked that there's a little more than meets the eye when it comes to this kind of business across state lines, but is there a real reason why there are contracts between the doctors and the hospitals that were mentioned? I'm asking because I'm genuinely curious to see if there could be a possible solution that's not happening just because of a few things
Insurance companies generally require you see specific doctors (a network), take specific medications (among those available for your condition), and physically visit specific clinics. The insurance company does some negotiating with those parties to lower costs for the insurance company -- you pay sticker price for anything outside of the "network". When I switched insurance, for example, I changed insulins from Novolog (Novo Nordisk) to Humalog (Eli Lilly). I also changed doctors and clinics. Not for any health reason, mind, but so that my insurance company could get a cheaper rate on my care. I personally had issues with dosing when I switched doctors and medications -- didn't wake up one morning and had to take a $5000 ambulance ride. We negotiated the collectors on my ambulance debt down to around $1500 and paid out of pocket.
These reasons among others are why there are so many young people uninsured. Because it's an expensive nightmare. Might as well go bankrupt if you're in a bad car accident or have a freakish heart attack. Also, it's one reason for rising insurance costs -- fewer healthy policy holders to subsidize the sick and chronically ill.
When the ACA was passed, it did a number of things:
- Allowed young people to stay insured through their family's policy for longer
- Fined people and businesses without insurance (adding healthy, otherwise un-insured people to the pool -- lowering costs ultimately for everyone)
- Prohibited insurance companies from dropping chronically ill polcyholders
- Offered subsidies for people struggling to pay high insurance premiums
It was specifically designed to allow those people who fall through the cracks to get insured and have access to healthcare. But unfortunately, there was no public option -- i.e. no expansion of medicare to people younger than 65. The penalties for staying uninsured were too low -- the healthiest in the pool who are supposed to subsidize care for everyone else simply pay the fine and stay uninsured. Republicans vigorously fought both when the bill was on the floor. Actually, no, Republicans fought vigorously on every provision of the ACA.
So, when HRC had specific policy proposals to expand medicaid, expand the ACA, and potentially offer a public option... There was some hope there.
Instead, we need to burn the whole thing and leave it up to the magic of business (tm) to lower our rates. We'll see, I guess, won't we?
[quote=Koncept]
Would those that you're mentioning as "uninsured" be those that are opting out of the program in favor of their own plans that benefit them more? Because I feel like if that's the demographic that can afford their own programs without many financial issues, then is there much of a reason to worry about them, since they are investing in a program that theoretically (or actually idk which tbh) would offer them more?[/quote]
There is no "program" to opt out of.
The vast majority of Americans get health insurance through one of three places: A job or institution which provides such benefits, a family plan, or Medicare (seniors only) and Medicaid (below the poverty line only).
So if you have a chronic condition, your best bet is to be employed full time for a large firm or the government, be poor enough or old enough to qualify for Medicare or Medicaid, or be young enough to be on your parents' health plan which only exists if they are insured through work.
The demographic who can afford treatment for serious chronic illnesses without insurance is vanishingly small. Many people without these options go without insurance, which is ok for younger people, and not very ok for older people who have occasional health mishaps. That's also why people show up at the E.R. with unmanaged chronic conditions -- there is no money for insurance to treat chronic conditions, but the E.R. must take people who are sick, so people who don't have insurance end up letting minor things they can't afford turn into major things that require ambulances and surgery.
Also medical bankruptcy is the most common form of bankruptcy in the US.
[quote]I understand that through reading the article that you linked that there's a little more than meets the eye when it comes to this kind of business across state lines, but is there a real reason why there are contracts between the doctors and the hospitals that were mentioned? I'm asking because I'm genuinely curious to see if there could be a possible solution that's not happening just because of a few things[/quote]
Insurance companies generally require you see specific doctors (a network), take specific medications (among those available for your condition), and physically visit specific clinics. The insurance company does some negotiating with those parties to lower costs for the insurance company -- you pay sticker price for anything outside of the "network". When I switched insurance, for example, I changed insulins from Novolog (Novo Nordisk) to Humalog (Eli Lilly). I also changed doctors and clinics. Not for any health reason, mind, but so that my insurance company could get a cheaper rate on my care. I personally had issues with dosing when I switched doctors and medications -- didn't wake up one morning and had to take a $5000 ambulance ride. We negotiated the collectors on my ambulance debt down to around $1500 and paid out of pocket.
These reasons among others are why there are so many young people uninsured. Because it's an expensive nightmare. Might as well go bankrupt if you're in a bad car accident or have a freakish heart attack. Also, it's one reason for rising insurance costs -- fewer healthy policy holders to subsidize the sick and chronically ill.
When the ACA was passed, it did a number of things:
[list]
[*] Allowed young people to stay insured through their family's policy for longer
[*] Fined people and businesses without insurance (adding healthy, otherwise un-insured people to the pool -- lowering costs ultimately for everyone)
[*] Prohibited insurance companies from dropping chronically ill polcyholders
[*] Offered subsidies for people struggling to pay high insurance premiums
[/list]
It was specifically designed to allow those people who fall through the cracks to get insured and have access to healthcare. But unfortunately, there was no public option -- i.e. no expansion of medicare to people younger than 65. The penalties for staying uninsured were too low -- the healthiest in the pool who are supposed to subsidize care for everyone else simply pay the fine and stay uninsured. Republicans vigorously fought both when the bill was on the floor. Actually, no, Republicans fought vigorously on every provision of the ACA.
So, when HRC had specific policy proposals to expand medicaid, expand the ACA, and potentially offer a public option... There was some hope there.
Instead, we need to burn the whole thing and leave it up to the magic of business (tm) to lower our rates. We'll see, I guess, won't we?
Would those that you're mentioning as "uninsured" be those that are opting out of the program in favor of their own plans that benefit them more? Because I feel like if that's the demographic that can afford their own programs without many financial issues, then is there much of a reason to worry about them, since they are investing in a program that theoretically (or actually idk which tbh) would offer them more?[/quote]
There is no "program" to opt out of.
The vast majority of Americans get health insurance through one of three places: A job or institution which provides such benefits, a family plan, or Medicare (seniors only) and Medicaid (below the poverty line only).
So if you have a chronic condition, your best bet is to be employed full time for a large firm or the government, be poor enough or old enough to qualify for Medicare or Medicaid, or be young enough to be on your parents' health plan which only exists if they are insured through work.
The demographic who can afford treatment for serious chronic illnesses without insurance is vanishingly small. Many people without these options go without insurance, which is ok for younger people, and not very ok for older people who have occasional health mishaps. That's also why people show up at the E.R. with unmanaged chronic conditions -- there is no money for insurance to treat chronic conditions, but the E.R. must take people who are sick, so people who don't have insurance end up letting minor things they can't afford turn into major things that require ambulances and surgery.
Also medical bankruptcy is the most common form of bankruptcy in the US.
[quote]I understand that through reading the article that you linked that there's a little more than meets the eye when it comes to this kind of business across state lines, but is there a real reason why there are contracts between the doctors and the hospitals that were mentioned? I'm asking because I'm genuinely curious to see if there could be a possible solution that's not happening just because of a few things[/quote]
Insurance companies generally require you see specific doctors (a network), take specific medications (among those available for your condition), and physically visit specific clinics. The insurance company does some negotiating with those parties to lower costs for the insurance company -- you pay sticker price for anything outside of the "network". When I switched insurance, for example, I changed insulins from Novolog (Novo Nordisk) to Humalog (Eli Lilly). I also changed doctors and clinics. Not for any health reason, mind, but so that my insurance company could get a cheaper rate on my care. I personally had issues with dosing when I switched doctors and medications -- didn't wake up one morning and had to take a $5000 ambulance ride. We negotiated the collectors on my ambulance debt down to around $1500 and paid out of pocket.
These reasons among others are why there are so many young people uninsured. Because it's an expensive nightmare. Might as well go bankrupt if you're in a bad car accident or have a freakish heart attack. Also, it's one reason for rising insurance costs -- fewer healthy policy holders to subsidize the sick and chronically ill.
When the ACA was passed, it did a number of things:
[list]
[*] Allowed young people to stay insured through their family's policy for longer
[*] Fined people and businesses without insurance (adding healthy, otherwise un-insured people to the pool -- lowering costs ultimately for everyone)
[*] Prohibited insurance companies from dropping chronically ill polcyholders
[*] Offered subsidies for people struggling to pay high insurance premiums
[/list]
It was specifically designed to allow those people who fall through the cracks to get insured and have access to healthcare. But unfortunately, there was no public option -- i.e. no expansion of medicare to people younger than 65. The penalties for staying uninsured were too low -- the healthiest in the pool who are supposed to subsidize care for everyone else simply pay the fine and stay uninsured. Republicans vigorously fought both when the bill was on the floor. Actually, no, Republicans fought vigorously on every provision of the ACA.
So, when HRC had specific policy proposals to expand medicaid, expand the ACA, and potentially offer a public option... There was some hope there.
Instead, we need to burn the whole thing and leave it up to the magic of business (tm) to lower our rates. We'll see, I guess, won't we?
dont know why posting walls of text about this shit on a dead video game forum calms me down but I am so so fucking anxious about what could happen with healthcare over the next 4 years. i've never felt like this about my future before.
dont know why posting walls of text about this shit on a dead video game forum calms me down but I am so so fucking anxious about what could happen with healthcare over the next 4 years. i've never felt like this about my future before.
miwodont know why posting walls of text about this shit on a dead video game forum calms me down but I am so so fucking anxious about what could happen with healthcare over the next 4 years. i've never felt like this about my future before.
This and immigrants who are here with DACA who have gotten degrees, jobs, pay our taxes, etc worried about being deported when it gets repealed seem to be pretty common sentiments as far as being anxious goes. I feel for you as little as I know that means right now. :(
[quote=miwo]dont know why posting walls of text about this shit on a dead video game forum calms me down but I am so so fucking anxious about what could happen with healthcare over the next 4 years. i've never felt like this about my future before.[/quote]
This and immigrants who are here with DACA who have gotten degrees, jobs, pay our taxes, etc worried about being deported when it gets repealed seem to be pretty common sentiments as far as being anxious goes. I feel for you as little as I know that means right now. :(
This and immigrants who are here with DACA who have gotten degrees, jobs, pay our taxes, etc worried about being deported when it gets repealed seem to be pretty common sentiments as far as being anxious goes. I feel for you as little as I know that means right now. :(
ultyEven though eee is pretty tilted, he has a point about immigrants doing the jobs that Americans don't want to do. The one problem that I fail to see with Trump is that he promises jobs for the Midwest working class but I am pretty sure a good portion don't want to milk cows or do other shitty labor jobs. Removing immigrants only open those "opportunities" and In some cases our economy rely on immigrants to do these jobs because they can't afford to pay an American to do the work.
There is no such thing as jobs that "American's don't want to do." Just like any job market in the free world if a job is shit and no one wants it then they raise wages until someone wants it, or find another way to solve the problem (e.g. build a robot or automate the work). Case and point.... Last I checked cows were mostly milked by machine in this country....
[quote=ulty]Even though eee is pretty tilted, he has a point about immigrants doing the jobs that Americans don't want to do. The one problem that I fail to see with Trump is that he promises jobs for the Midwest working class but I am pretty sure a good portion don't want to milk cows or do other shitty labor jobs. Removing immigrants only open those "opportunities" and In some cases our economy rely on immigrants to do these jobs because they can't afford to pay an American to do the work.[/quote]
There is no such thing as jobs that "American's don't want to do." Just like any job market in the free world if a job is shit and no one wants it then they raise wages until someone wants it, or find another way to solve the problem (e.g. build a robot or automate the work). Case and point.... Last I checked cows were mostly milked by machine in this country....
There is no such thing as jobs that "American's don't want to do." Just like any job market in the free world if a job is shit and no one wants it then they raise wages until someone wants it, or find another way to solve the problem (e.g. build a robot or automate the work). Case and point.... Last I checked cows were mostly milked by machine in this country....
dollarlayerThere is no such thing as jobs that "American's don't want to do." Just like any job market in the free world if a job is shit and no one wants it then they raise wages until someone wants it, or find another way to solve the problem (e.g. build a robot or automate the work). Case and point.... Last I checked cows were mostly milked by machine in this country....
So you're admitting that the whole deportation thing isn't actually about freeing up jobs for American workers. Because all it'll do is make the business that relied on them close down.
[quote=dollarlayer]
There is no such thing as jobs that "American's don't want to do." Just like any job market in the free world if a job is shit and no one wants it then they raise wages until someone wants it, or find another way to solve the problem (e.g. build a robot or automate the work). Case and point.... Last I checked cows were mostly milked by machine in this country....[/quote]
So you're admitting that the whole deportation thing isn't actually about freeing up jobs for American workers. Because all it'll do is make the business that relied on them close down.
There is no such thing as jobs that "American's don't want to do." Just like any job market in the free world if a job is shit and no one wants it then they raise wages until someone wants it, or find another way to solve the problem (e.g. build a robot or automate the work). Case and point.... Last I checked cows were mostly milked by machine in this country....[/quote]
So you're admitting that the whole deportation thing isn't actually about freeing up jobs for American workers. Because all it'll do is make the business that relied on them close down.
I do sincerely hope that laws supporting lgbtq and minorities arent reversed (i dont think they can be though? Not sure) and that laws against abortion and planned parenthood are not created. If they are it is indeed a dark age in the west.
I do sincerely hope that laws supporting lgbtq and minorities arent reversed (i dont think they can be though? Not sure) and that laws [u]against[/u] abortion and planned parenthood are not created. If they are it is indeed a dark age in the west.
tbh im pretty happy seeing sjws getting triggered and buttblasted
tbh im pretty happy seeing sjws getting triggered and buttblasted
I'd like to add to the global warming point
Trump's first bullet point on energy policy:
Make America energy independent, create millions of new jobs, and protect clean air and clean water. We will conserve our natural habitats, reserves and resources.
Trump's third bullet point on energy policy:
Unleash America’s $50 trillion in untapped shale, oil, and natural gas reserves, plus hundreds of years in clean coal reserves.
How are you supposed to do the first by encouraging our reserves to be drained, removing EPA regulations, cutting funding for the EPA, and replacing the head of the EPA with a climate change denier.
I'd like to add to the global warming point
Trump's first bullet point on energy policy:
[quote]Make America energy independent, create millions of new jobs, and [b]protect clean air and clean water. We will conserve our natural habitats, reserves and resources.[/b][/quote]
Trump's third bullet point on energy policy:
[quote]Unleash America’s $50 trillion in untapped shale, oil, and natural gas reserves, plus hundreds of years in clean coal reserves.[/quote]
How are you supposed to do the first by encouraging our reserves to be drained, removing EPA regulations, cutting funding for the EPA, and replacing the head of the EPA with a climate change denier.
Trump's first bullet point on energy policy:
[quote]Make America energy independent, create millions of new jobs, and [b]protect clean air and clean water. We will conserve our natural habitats, reserves and resources.[/b][/quote]
Trump's third bullet point on energy policy:
[quote]Unleash America’s $50 trillion in untapped shale, oil, and natural gas reserves, plus hundreds of years in clean coal reserves.[/quote]
How are you supposed to do the first by encouraging our reserves to be drained, removing EPA regulations, cutting funding for the EPA, and replacing the head of the EPA with a climate change denier.
Even though I am not a fan of Trump (or Hillary), it would be hilarious to see him doing a lot of good things for the USA and shutting everybody's mounths that way.
Let's hope that happens.
Even though I am not a fan of Trump (or Hillary), it would be hilarious to see him doing a lot of good things for the USA and shutting everybody's mounths that way.
Let's hope that happens.
Let's hope that happens.
Pankeymanhttps://i.imgur.com/z2HZYVa.jpg
I know how I'll celebrate tonight.
Wtf, that's like the worst rolled joint I've ever seen.
[quote=Pankeyman][img]https://i.imgur.com/z2HZYVa.jpg[/img]
I know how I'll celebrate tonight.[/quote]
Wtf, that's like the worst rolled joint I've ever seen.
I know how I'll celebrate tonight.[/quote]
Wtf, that's like the worst rolled joint I've ever seen.
My dad just texted me an essay about how I should be ashamed for not voting and that Texas had a ridiculously small voter turnout and should've been a major player in the election.
Keep in mind Harambe got more write ins than Jill Stein got votes in Texas.
My dad just texted me an essay about how I should be ashamed for not voting and that Texas had a ridiculously small voter turnout and should've been a major player in the election.
Keep in mind Harambe got more write ins than Jill Stein got votes in Texas.
Keep in mind Harambe got more write ins than Jill Stein got votes in Texas.
THEBILLDOZERMy dad just texted me an essay about how I should be ashamed for not voting and that Texas had a ridiculously small voter turnout and should've been a major player in the election.
Keep in mind Harambe got more write ins than Jill Stein got votes in Texas.
Why didn't you vote? Just wondering, didn't like any of the candidates?
[quote=THEBILLDOZER]My dad just texted me an essay about how I should be ashamed for not voting and that Texas had a ridiculously small voter turnout and should've been a major player in the election.
Keep in mind Harambe got more write ins than Jill Stein got votes in Texas.[/quote]
Why didn't you vote? Just wondering, didn't like any of the candidates?
Keep in mind Harambe got more write ins than Jill Stein got votes in Texas.[/quote]
Why didn't you vote? Just wondering, didn't like any of the candidates?
THEBILLDOZERKeep in mind Harambe got more write ins than Jill Stein got votes in Texas.
Source??
[quote=THEBILLDOZER]
Keep in mind Harambe got more write ins than Jill Stein got votes in Texas.[/quote]
Source??
Keep in mind Harambe got more write ins than Jill Stein got votes in Texas.[/quote]
Source??
MagikarpTHEBILLDOZERMy dad just texted me an essay about how I should be ashamed for not voting and that Texas had a ridiculously small voter turnout and should've been a major player in the election.Why didn't you vote? Just wondering, didn't like any of the candidates?
Keep in mind Harambe got more write ins than Jill Stein got votes in Texas.
I didn't, and I wasn't going to waste my vote by going third party instead
Dr_HeinzTHEBILLDOZERKeep in mind Harambe got more write ins than Jill Stein got votes in Texas.Source??
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/291759-poll-jill-stein-tied-with-harambe-trailing-deez-nutz-in-texas
I think Alfa had posted it earlier in the thread.
I don't know the hill very well. If they're a satirical news source then that's my bad.
[quote=Magikarp][quote=THEBILLDOZER]My dad just texted me an essay about how I should be ashamed for not voting and that Texas had a ridiculously small voter turnout and should've been a major player in the election.
Keep in mind Harambe got more write ins than Jill Stein got votes in Texas.[/quote]
Why didn't you vote? Just wondering, didn't like any of the candidates?[/quote]
I didn't, and I wasn't going to waste my vote by going third party instead
[quote=Dr_Heinz][quote=THEBILLDOZER]
Keep in mind Harambe got more write ins than Jill Stein got votes in Texas.[/quote]
Source??[/quote]
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/291759-poll-jill-stein-tied-with-harambe-trailing-deez-nutz-in-texas
I think Alfa had posted it earlier in the thread.
I don't know the hill very well. If they're a satirical news source then that's my bad.
Keep in mind Harambe got more write ins than Jill Stein got votes in Texas.[/quote]
Why didn't you vote? Just wondering, didn't like any of the candidates?[/quote]
I didn't, and I wasn't going to waste my vote by going third party instead
[quote=Dr_Heinz][quote=THEBILLDOZER]
Keep in mind Harambe got more write ins than Jill Stein got votes in Texas.[/quote]
Source??[/quote]
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/291759-poll-jill-stein-tied-with-harambe-trailing-deez-nutz-in-texas
I think Alfa had posted it earlier in the thread.
I don't know the hill very well. If they're a satirical news source then that's my bad.
dollarlayerultyEven though eee is pretty tilted, he has a point about immigrants doing the jobs that Americans don't want to do. The one problem that I fail to see with Trump is that he promises jobs for the Midwest working class but I am pretty sure a good portion don't want to milk cows or do other shitty labor jobs. Removing immigrants only open those "opportunities" and In some cases our economy rely on immigrants to do these jobs because they can't afford to pay an American to do the work.
There is no such thing as jobs that "American's don't want to do." Just like any job market in the free world if a job is shit and no one wants it then they raise wages until someone wants it, or find another way to solve the problem (e.g. build a robot or automate the work). Case and point.... Last I checked cows were mostly milked by machine in this country....
At least for agriculture, that "find another way to solve the problem" includes making produce more expensive or resorting to importing more from other countries that do have people willing to work those lower wages. And for that matter replacing the illegal immigrant workers with automated robots doesn't really create any new long-term jobs, other than the handful of extra technicians (assuming most employers would opt to learn how to operate them themselves).
Dairy cows are probably the worst example of necessary manual labour because of how much is automated, but it's not as simple as that either. Cleaning must be done manually and regularly to disinfect, and I think it's unlikely we'll see 'automated' cleaning of the cows and cows' housing or anything, as just an example. For industrial scale dairy farms, grazing is time-consuming and unreliable, so many opt to feed their cows grains and/or alfalfa, which is usually grown on the farm and requires a deal of labour to produce (or is bought in from elsewhere, which just means the work needs to be done by other people). Making these positions cost more is obviously either going to be cutting into the profits of dairy farmers (if they had any), or cause higher milk prices. Considering that American dairy farms are already struggling a fair bit with getting profit at all (and I've only seen Illinois', but they usually don't), and iirc since milk is considered essential the dairy price is artificially set so the price remains relatively stable (even though it's lower than what would otherwise be charged), that's not really possible to just do.
If it were such a cut-and-dry better-in-every-way case, every candidate would make it a selling point that they're deporting en masse. But that's just not the reality of the situation.
[quote=dollarlayer][quote=ulty]Even though eee is pretty tilted, he has a point about immigrants doing the jobs that Americans don't want to do. The one problem that I fail to see with Trump is that he promises jobs for the Midwest working class but I am pretty sure a good portion don't want to milk cows or do other shitty labor jobs. Removing immigrants only open those "opportunities" and In some cases our economy rely on immigrants to do these jobs because they can't afford to pay an American to do the work.[/quote]
There is no such thing as jobs that "American's don't want to do." Just like any job market in the free world if a job is shit and no one wants it then they raise wages until someone wants it, or find another way to solve the problem (e.g. build a robot or automate the work). Case and point.... Last I checked cows were mostly milked by machine in this country....[/quote]
At least for agriculture, that "find another way to solve the problem" includes making produce more expensive or resorting to importing more from other countries that do have people willing to work those lower wages. And for that matter replacing the illegal immigrant workers with automated robots doesn't really create any new long-term jobs, other than the handful of extra technicians (assuming most employers would opt to learn how to operate them themselves).
Dairy cows are probably the worst example of necessary manual labour because of how much is automated, but it's not as simple as that either. Cleaning must be done manually and regularly to disinfect, and I think it's unlikely we'll see 'automated' cleaning of the cows and cows' housing or anything, as just an example. For industrial scale dairy farms, grazing is time-consuming and unreliable, so many opt to feed their cows grains and/or alfalfa, which is usually grown on the farm and requires a deal of labour to produce (or is bought in from elsewhere, which just means the work needs to be done by other people). Making these positions cost more is obviously either going to be cutting into the profits of dairy farmers (if they had any), or cause higher milk prices. Considering that American dairy farms are already struggling a fair bit with getting profit at all (and I've only seen Illinois', but they [url=http://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2016/09/08/fdd080916_fig1.jpg]usually don't[/url]), and iirc since milk is considered essential the dairy price is artificially set so the price remains relatively stable (even though it's lower than what would otherwise be charged), that's not really possible to just do.
If it were such a cut-and-dry better-in-every-way case, every candidate would make it a selling point that they're deporting en masse. But that's just not the reality of the situation.
There is no such thing as jobs that "American's don't want to do." Just like any job market in the free world if a job is shit and no one wants it then they raise wages until someone wants it, or find another way to solve the problem (e.g. build a robot or automate the work). Case and point.... Last I checked cows were mostly milked by machine in this country....[/quote]
At least for agriculture, that "find another way to solve the problem" includes making produce more expensive or resorting to importing more from other countries that do have people willing to work those lower wages. And for that matter replacing the illegal immigrant workers with automated robots doesn't really create any new long-term jobs, other than the handful of extra technicians (assuming most employers would opt to learn how to operate them themselves).
Dairy cows are probably the worst example of necessary manual labour because of how much is automated, but it's not as simple as that either. Cleaning must be done manually and regularly to disinfect, and I think it's unlikely we'll see 'automated' cleaning of the cows and cows' housing or anything, as just an example. For industrial scale dairy farms, grazing is time-consuming and unreliable, so many opt to feed their cows grains and/or alfalfa, which is usually grown on the farm and requires a deal of labour to produce (or is bought in from elsewhere, which just means the work needs to be done by other people). Making these positions cost more is obviously either going to be cutting into the profits of dairy farmers (if they had any), or cause higher milk prices. Considering that American dairy farms are already struggling a fair bit with getting profit at all (and I've only seen Illinois', but they [url=http://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2016/09/08/fdd080916_fig1.jpg]usually don't[/url]), and iirc since milk is considered essential the dairy price is artificially set so the price remains relatively stable (even though it's lower than what would otherwise be charged), that's not really possible to just do.
If it were such a cut-and-dry better-in-every-way case, every candidate would make it a selling point that they're deporting en masse. But that's just not the reality of the situation.
THEBILLDOZERMagikarpI didn't, and I wasn't going to waste my vote by going third party insteadTHEBILLDOZERMy dad just texted me an essay about how I should be ashamed for not voting and that Texas had a ridiculously small voter turnout and should've been a major player in the election.Why didn't you vote? Just wondering, didn't like any of the candidates?
Keep in mind Harambe got more write ins than Jill Stein got votes in Texas.Dr_Heinzhttp://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/291759-poll-jill-stein-tied-with-harambe-trailing-deez-nutz-in-texasTHEBILLDOZERKeep in mind Harambe got more write ins than Jill Stein got votes in Texas.Source??
I think Alfa had posted it earlier in the thread.
I don't know the hill very well. If they're a satirical news source then that's my bad.
http://www.snopes.com/harambe-15000-votes/
Chances are if you have a joke write-in they'll straight up toss out your ballot, which is why Vermin Supreme didn't get any votes in New Hampshire.
[quote=THEBILLDOZER][quote=Magikarp][quote=THEBILLDOZER]My dad just texted me an essay about how I should be ashamed for not voting and that Texas had a ridiculously small voter turnout and should've been a major player in the election.
Keep in mind Harambe got more write ins than Jill Stein got votes in Texas.[/quote]
Why didn't you vote? Just wondering, didn't like any of the candidates?[/quote]
I didn't, and I wasn't going to waste my vote by going third party instead
[quote=Dr_Heinz][quote=THEBILLDOZER]
Keep in mind Harambe got more write ins than Jill Stein got votes in Texas.[/quote]
Source??[/quote]
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/291759-poll-jill-stein-tied-with-harambe-trailing-deez-nutz-in-texas
I think Alfa had posted it earlier in the thread.
I don't know the hill very well. If they're a satirical news source then that's my bad.[/quote]
http://www.snopes.com/harambe-15000-votes/
Chances are if you have a joke write-in they'll straight up toss out your ballot, which is why Vermin Supreme didn't get any votes in New Hampshire.
Keep in mind Harambe got more write ins than Jill Stein got votes in Texas.[/quote]
Why didn't you vote? Just wondering, didn't like any of the candidates?[/quote]
I didn't, and I wasn't going to waste my vote by going third party instead
[quote=Dr_Heinz][quote=THEBILLDOZER]
Keep in mind Harambe got more write ins than Jill Stein got votes in Texas.[/quote]
Source??[/quote]
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/291759-poll-jill-stein-tied-with-harambe-trailing-deez-nutz-in-texas
I think Alfa had posted it earlier in the thread.
I don't know the hill very well. If they're a satirical news source then that's my bad.[/quote]
http://www.snopes.com/harambe-15000-votes/
Chances are if you have a joke write-in they'll straight up toss out your ballot, which is why Vermin Supreme didn't get any votes in New Hampshire.
fahrenheitTHEBILLDOZERMagikarpI didn't, and I wasn't going to waste my vote by going third party insteadTHEBILLDOZERMy dad just texted me an essay about how I should be ashamed for not voting and that Texas had a ridiculously small voter turnout and should've been a major player in the election.Why didn't you vote? Just wondering, didn't like any of the candidates?
Keep in mind Harambe got more write ins than Jill Stein got votes in Texas.Dr_Heinzhttp://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/291759-poll-jill-stein-tied-with-harambe-trailing-deez-nutz-in-texasTHEBILLDOZERKeep in mind Harambe got more write ins than Jill Stein got votes in Texas.Source??
I think Alfa had posted it earlier in the thread.
I don't know the hill very well. If they're a satirical news source then that's my bad.
http://www.snopes.com/harambe-15000-votes/
Chances are if you have a joke write-in they'll straight up toss out your ballot, which is why Vermin Supreme didn't get any votes in New Hampshire.
Texas had a much larger voter turnout iirc in this election, some media sources were calling the race so close that Texas seemed to turn into a battleground state. However you still could have voted no problem for all of the other representatives in congress, just unchecking the presidential candidate. I know a number of people that did that since they knew that voting was important, but since they didn't like either candidate, left that part on their ballot unchecked. I believe the Senate race for seats was actually really close this time around, and had the Democrats gotten the majority, we'd most likely have another instance of legislative gridlock in Washington.
I could probably pull up some numbers to prove my point and show how some of those numbers can be influenced and changed to show different outcomes, but I have a lot of schoolwork to get done today and I'm certain that this was covered in my Political Science course that I'm taking this semester. Also there's the voter ID thing that some can complain is restricting people in states that have them, but I personally believe that it's meant for good means, but what's actually happening among those that can't vote due to this "restriction" is not who it was intended to target.
[quote=fahrenheit][quote=THEBILLDOZER][quote=Magikarp][quote=THEBILLDOZER]My dad just texted me an essay about how I should be ashamed for not voting and that Texas had a ridiculously small voter turnout and should've been a major player in the election.
Keep in mind Harambe got more write ins than Jill Stein got votes in Texas.[/quote]
Why didn't you vote? Just wondering, didn't like any of the candidates?[/quote]
I didn't, and I wasn't going to waste my vote by going third party instead
[quote=Dr_Heinz][quote=THEBILLDOZER]
Keep in mind Harambe got more write ins than Jill Stein got votes in Texas.[/quote]
Source??[/quote]
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/291759-poll-jill-stein-tied-with-harambe-trailing-deez-nutz-in-texas
I think Alfa had posted it earlier in the thread.
I don't know the hill very well. If they're a satirical news source then that's my bad.[/quote]
http://www.snopes.com/harambe-15000-votes/
Chances are if you have a joke write-in they'll straight up toss out your ballot, which is why Vermin Supreme didn't get any votes in New Hampshire.[/quote]
Texas had a much larger voter turnout iirc in this election, some media sources were calling the race so close that Texas seemed to turn into a battleground state. However you still could have voted no problem for all of the other representatives in congress, just unchecking the presidential candidate. I know a number of people that did that since they knew that voting was important, but since they didn't like either candidate, left that part on their ballot unchecked. I believe the Senate race for seats was actually really close this time around, and had the Democrats gotten the majority, we'd most likely have another instance of legislative gridlock in Washington.
I could probably pull up some numbers to prove my point and show how some of those numbers can be influenced and changed to show different outcomes, but I have a lot of schoolwork to get done today and I'm certain that this was covered in my Political Science course that I'm taking this semester. Also there's the voter ID thing that some can complain is restricting people in states that have them, but I personally believe that it's [b][u]meant[/u][/b] for good means, but what's actually happening among those that can't vote due to this "restriction" is not who it was intended to target.
Keep in mind Harambe got more write ins than Jill Stein got votes in Texas.[/quote]
Why didn't you vote? Just wondering, didn't like any of the candidates?[/quote]
I didn't, and I wasn't going to waste my vote by going third party instead
[quote=Dr_Heinz][quote=THEBILLDOZER]
Keep in mind Harambe got more write ins than Jill Stein got votes in Texas.[/quote]
Source??[/quote]
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/291759-poll-jill-stein-tied-with-harambe-trailing-deez-nutz-in-texas
I think Alfa had posted it earlier in the thread.
I don't know the hill very well. If they're a satirical news source then that's my bad.[/quote]
http://www.snopes.com/harambe-15000-votes/
Chances are if you have a joke write-in they'll straight up toss out your ballot, which is why Vermin Supreme didn't get any votes in New Hampshire.[/quote]
Texas had a much larger voter turnout iirc in this election, some media sources were calling the race so close that Texas seemed to turn into a battleground state. However you still could have voted no problem for all of the other representatives in congress, just unchecking the presidential candidate. I know a number of people that did that since they knew that voting was important, but since they didn't like either candidate, left that part on their ballot unchecked. I believe the Senate race for seats was actually really close this time around, and had the Democrats gotten the majority, we'd most likely have another instance of legislative gridlock in Washington.
I could probably pull up some numbers to prove my point and show how some of those numbers can be influenced and changed to show different outcomes, but I have a lot of schoolwork to get done today and I'm certain that this was covered in my Political Science course that I'm taking this semester. Also there's the voter ID thing that some can complain is restricting people in states that have them, but I personally believe that it's [b][u]meant[/u][/b] for good means, but what's actually happening among those that can't vote due to this "restriction" is not who it was intended to target.
MagikarpTHEBILLDOZERMy dad just texted me an essay about how I should be ashamed for not voting and that Texas had a ridiculously small voter turnout and should've been a major player in the election.Why didn't you vote? Just wondering, didn't like any of the candidates?
Keep in mind Harambe got more write ins than Jill Stein got votes in Texas.
Also votes don't matter in certain states such as Texas and California where Texas has historically been Republican and California has hisotorically been Democratic.
I didn't vote becase my vote wouldn't have changed anything
[quote=Magikarp][quote=THEBILLDOZER]My dad just texted me an essay about how I should be ashamed for not voting and that Texas had a ridiculously small voter turnout and should've been a major player in the election.
Keep in mind Harambe got more write ins than Jill Stein got votes in Texas.[/quote]
Why didn't you vote? Just wondering, didn't like any of the candidates?[/quote]
Also votes don't matter in certain states such as Texas and California where Texas has historically been Republican and California has hisotorically been Democratic.
I didn't vote becase my vote wouldn't have changed anything
Keep in mind Harambe got more write ins than Jill Stein got votes in Texas.[/quote]
Why didn't you vote? Just wondering, didn't like any of the candidates?[/quote]
Also votes don't matter in certain states such as Texas and California where Texas has historically been Republican and California has hisotorically been Democratic.
I didn't vote becase my vote wouldn't have changed anything
Max_MagikarpAlso votes don't matter in certain states such as Texas and California where Texas has historically been Republican and California has hisotorically been Democratic.THEBILLDOZERMy dad just texted me an essay about how I should be ashamed for not voting and that Texas had a ridiculously small voter turnout and should've been a major player in the election.Why didn't you vote? Just wondering, didn't like any of the candidates?
Keep in mind Harambe got more write ins than Jill Stein got votes in Texas.
I didn't vote becase my vote wouldn't have changed anything
Penssylvania has been historically Democratic. Not anymore.
[quote=Max_][quote=Magikarp][quote=THEBILLDOZER]My dad just texted me an essay about how I should be ashamed for not voting and that Texas had a ridiculously small voter turnout and should've been a major player in the election.
Keep in mind Harambe got more write ins than Jill Stein got votes in Texas.[/quote]
Why didn't you vote? Just wondering, didn't like any of the candidates?[/quote]
Also votes don't matter in certain states such as Texas and California where Texas has historically been Republican and California has hisotorically been Democratic.
I didn't vote becase my vote wouldn't have changed anything[/quote]
Penssylvania has been historically Democratic. Not anymore.
Keep in mind Harambe got more write ins than Jill Stein got votes in Texas.[/quote]
Why didn't you vote? Just wondering, didn't like any of the candidates?[/quote]
Also votes don't matter in certain states such as Texas and California where Texas has historically been Republican and California has hisotorically been Democratic.
I didn't vote becase my vote wouldn't have changed anything[/quote]
Penssylvania has been historically Democratic. Not anymore.
This thread has been locked.