tt24

7 ms·

121.
by tt24 6mo ago
Why should I ever have to pay for someone else’s healthcare lol, that seems wild to me
122.
by tt24 6mo ago
The 5% of high risk healthcare consumers will result in 95% of the costs. It’s not fair for the 95% of low risk people to subsidize the remainder.
123.
by tt24 6mo ago
He’s welcome to pay for home insurance if he likes. That doesn’t mean I’m forced to pay for it. It’s like saying that I’m forced to pay for other people’s education because the Starbucks provides it as a benefit. Not really lol
124.
by tt24 6mo ago
I put money into an insurance system to diffuse risk away from myself. > The maximally effective version, with the least cost, and greatest coverage It would be even more effective to just enslave a bunch of people and force them to pay
125.
by tt24 6mo ago
I agree with dabble. That’s not what the parent comment said though
126.
by tt24 6mo ago
Close! Insurance is a transaction I consent to engaging in, but a single payer system is not that.
127.
by tt24 6mo ago
Not habitual and not anything harder than marijuana no. I don’t believe that I have little life experience, I live in a wealthy part of the United States and my circle’s median income is in the 300s, so I think I have a pretty solid impres
128.
by tt24 6mo ago
1. Many landlords don’t require tenant’s insurance. 2. If you choose to get a mortgage you have to pay for homeowner’s insurance yes. You have the option to not get a mortgage if you prefer. Notice how in both of the above, there is no thi
129.
by tt24 6mo ago
Personal anecdotes and bias. I’ve never met anyone successful who regularly consumes drugs as serious as cocaine. At worst it’s marijuana, with minor experimentation with harder substances in college or on special occasions.
130.
by tt24 6mo ago
Not until someone provides evidence for it no
131.
by tt24 6mo ago
That’s a consensual transaction that I choose to engage in. Doesn’t apply to single payer or the NHS
132.
by tt24 6mo ago
Sorry I don’t believe this
133.
by tt24 6mo ago
Wealth inequality is a nonissue. Nobody has ever been able to provide me with any evidence to the contrary.
134.
by tt24 6mo ago
Not sure how much a skydiving soda drinking drug user “””gives””” to society haha
135.
by tt24 6mo ago
I’m not being sarcastic. If you live in a society that chooses to force people to pay for other’s healthcare costs, you must support banning high risk behavior. Not out of frugality. It’s a simple issue of fairness. 5% of the healthcare con
136.
by tt24 6mo ago
To a large extent yes, but more specifically the decision to collectively shoulder healthcare costs is the problem.
137.
by tt24 6mo ago
This is the logical conclusion when you socialize healthcare. If you’re pro NHS / single payer, you *must* support this. As well as banning drugs, sugar, extreme sports, unprotected sex, and other high risk behavior. Anything short of
138.
by tt24 6mo ago
> When you live in a society that has _decided_ to collectively shoulder health care costs Look, I found the problem!
139.
by tt24 6mo ago
Yawn. I think social networks and search engines can do whatever they like, but this kind of histrionic pearl clutching is getting old. If people choose to seek out entertainment that’s bad for them then there’s nothing wrong with providing
140.
by tt24 6mo ago
I have yet to be given a good reason for banning this sort of pricing model. To me it feels like a win/win for all parties involved. Faster, more accurate price discovery means fewer instances of an item being out of stock, and it allo
141.
by tt24 6mo ago
> rich and influential This unidimensional analysis is so funny to me. When your lens forces you to group together Alex Jones, Bill Gates, and George Soros as part of the same “rich and influential” clique, maybe it’s time to reconsider
142.
by tt24 6mo ago
I agree it’s a Reddit meme, but it’s a perfectly accurate use of it.
143.
by tt24 6mo ago
Yes, because VCs don’t actually have boots. They can’t force you to do anything or prevent you from doing anything.
144.
by tt24 6mo ago
What’s the implication here?
145.
by tt24 6mo ago
Not what the parent comment said
146.
by tt24 6mo ago
I’m sorry, is it your opinion that guns aren’t currently regulated?
147.
by tt24 6mo ago
The interstate commerce clause is just craziness. It touches everything and gives justification to regulate nearly anything.
148.
by tt24 6mo ago
> In most of the US, small cities are being bullied around by huge tech firms that have taken over their political infrastructure and bought out their politicians. You have evidence for this claim?
149.
by tt24 6mo ago
Disagree. Flock does not proliferate government bullying.
150.
by tt24 6mo ago
"We need to put a """temporary""" moratorium to infringe on your right to $thing until we figure out what the hell is going on" No thanks

More ›