Which of the following is hate speech vs free speech?

Topic's author

#1

TheUnderdog

Debates: 5

Posts: 4,340

3

5

10

TheUnderdog

02.10.2023 01:19AM

3

5

10

02.10.2023 01:19AM

Claim 1: Anybody who is without health insurance and is in the hospital should die because I don’t want my tax dollars taking care of them.

Claim 2: I want lower taxes, and if that means some people die from lack of Medicaid, so be it.

If both claim 1 and claim 2 are implemented, the result will be the same. Why is one considered hate speech while the other is free speech according to the Bernie Sanders crowd? Either they are BOTH hate speech or none of them are.

#2

PREZ-HILTON

Debates: 18

Posts: 2,806

3

4

9

PREZ-HILTON

02.10.2023 01:37AM

3

4

9

02.10.2023 01:37AM

Is this a strawman or is there some evidence Bernie bros think like this.

#3

Intelligence_06

Debates: 172

Posts: 3,946

5

8

11

Intelligence_06

02.10.2023 02:07AM

5

8

11

02.10.2023 02:07AM

-->

@TheUnderdog

Both are free speech. I think, though I wouldn't support either.

#4

cristo71

Debates: 1

Posts: 1,551

3

2

3

cristo71

02.10.2023 03:09AM

3

2

3

02.10.2023 03:09AM

-->

@TheUnderdog

It isn’t either/or. In the US, hate speech is a subset of free speech.

Topic's author

#5

TheUnderdog

Debates: 5

Posts: 4,340

3

5

10

TheUnderdog

02.10.2023 04:07PM

3

5

10

02.10.2023 04:07PM

-->

@Wylted

I thought it’s what they actually believe. I don’t deliberately strawman.

#6

FLRW

Debates: 0

Posts: 6,597

3

4

8

FLRW

02.10.2023 04:23PM

3

4

8

02.10.2023 04:23PM

-->

@TheUnderdog

Bernie Sanders wants to tax the rich to pay for healthcare for everyone. Remember that the last intelligent republican President (Eisenhower) had a tax rate of 92 percent on the rich.

Topic's author

#7

TheUnderdog

Debates: 5

Posts: 4,340

3

5

10

TheUnderdog

02.10.2023 04:36PM

3

5

10

02.10.2023 04:36PM

-->

@FLRW

Bernie Sanders wants to tax the rich to pay for healthcare for everyone.

You would have to double the taxes on EVERYONE to pay for UHC. Europe achieved UHC, but only after taxing the lowest income bracket 40% of their income and by having an expensive VAT. America doesn’t have these taxes that affect the poor. And nationalizing the healthcare industry doesn’t make sense when the vast majority of people get healthcare through their parents or their employer.

Remember that the last intelligent republican President (Eisenhower) had a tax rate of 92 percent on the rich.

If he’s a Republican that favors high taxes on the rich, fair enough, I respect that. But what issue(s) made him a Republican? If he was bad for the stock market, I wouldn’t like him because I invested a lot in stock.

#8

dustryder

Debates: 5

Posts: 1,080

3

2

4

dustryder

02.10.2023 05:28PM

3

2

4

02.10.2023 05:28PM

-->

@TheUnderdog

By definition none of it is hate speech.

Topic's author

#9

TheUnderdog

Debates: 5

Posts: 4,340

3

5

10

TheUnderdog

02.10.2023 07:08PM

3

5

10

02.10.2023 07:08PM

-->

@dustryder

In the UK, the first claim would be hate speech and the 2nd wouldn’t be, even though the end results are the same.

#10

IlDiavolo

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,512

3

2

5

IlDiavolo

02.10.2023 07:29PM

3

2

5

02.10.2023 07:29PM

Communists don't like free speech. End of debate.

#11

RationalMadman

Debates: 574

Posts: 19,931

10

11

RationalMadman

02.10.2023 07:38PM

10

11

02.10.2023 07:38PM

-->

@TheUnderdog

dude are you actually that ridiculous? Like you say these things about UK and Europe like you actually think you'll be fined or arrested for saying:

Anybody who is without health insurance and is in the hospital should die because I don’t want my tax dollars taking care of them.

No, you'll just be looked at as a scumbag and rightly so.

Topic's author

#12

TheUnderdog

Debates: 5

Posts: 4,340

3

5

10

TheUnderdog

02.10.2023 08:05PM

3

5

10

02.10.2023 08:05PM

-->

@RationalMadman

No, you'll just be looked at as a scumbag and rightly so.

That would be like saying those that want low taxes are scumbags. There is no difference between wanting the poor in hospitals to die and wanting low taxes (which means the poor are going to die in hospitals).

#13

PREZ-HILTON

Debates: 18

Posts: 2,806

3

4

9

PREZ-HILTON

02.10.2023 08:09PM

3

4

9

02.10.2023 08:09PM

-->

@TheUnderdog

That would be like saying those that want low taxes are scumbags. There is no difference between wanting the poor in hospitals to die and wanting low taxes (which means the poor are going to die in hospitals

Not if you think providing socialized medicine would kill more poor people. I guess you can value freedom over life, but a lot of people against socialized medicine don't believe more people would die in a free market. They in fact believe the opposite

Topic's author

#14

TheUnderdog

Debates: 5

Posts: 4,340

3

5

10

TheUnderdog

02.10.2023 08:16PM

3

5

10

02.10.2023 08:16PM

-->

@Wylted

but a lot of people against socialized medicine don't believe more people would die in a free market. They in fact believe the opposite

How can one believe that when ALL of the countries with UHC with per capita incomes similar to the US have a higher life expectancy? My sole reason for opposing socialized medicine is I don’t want my taxes doubled to pay for other people’s stuff.

#15

dustryder

Debates: 5

Posts: 1,080

3

2

4

dustryder

02.10.2023 08:59PM

3

2

4

02.10.2023 08:59PM

-->

@TheUnderdog

I think neither you nor I are versed well enough in UK law to make that determination. In any-case the situation that you have described seems to be judgement by society in which case the usage of hate speech in common parlance is probably more correct.

My sole reason for opposing socialized medicine is I don’t want my taxes doubled to pay for other people’s stuff.

How did you come to this conclusion that socialized medicine would require your taxes to be doubled?

#16

RationalMadman

Debates: 574

Posts: 19,931

10

11

RationalMadman

02.10.2023 09:34PM

10

11

02.10.2023 09:34PM

-->

@TheUnderdog

Yes. Scum letting the poor rot.

Topic's author

#17

TheUnderdog

Debates: 5

Posts: 4,340

3

5

10

TheUnderdog

02.11.2023 02:11AM

3

5

10

02.11.2023 02:11AM

-->

@dustryder

How did you come to this conclusion that socialized medicine would require your taxes to be doubled?

Because European taxes are double taxes in the US and that nationalizing healthcare costs about $3 trillion in 2018 (roughly the federal budget that year)

Topic's author

#18

TheUnderdog

Debates: 5

Posts: 4,340

3

5

10

TheUnderdog

02.11.2023 02:12AM

3

5

10

02.11.2023 02:12AM

-->

@RationalMadman

Would you argue it is scum to not adopt starving Somalians? If so, do you adopt starving Somalians? If not, then you are scum by your own standards.

One just has an obligation to not harm, not to help.

#19

dustryder

Debates: 5

Posts: 1,080

3

2

4

dustryder

02.11.2023 04:54AM

3

2

4

02.11.2023 04:54AM

-->

@TheUnderdog

Did you take into account that both European and US taxes are not solely spent on healthcare and that the intent of socialized medicine would be to replace what is already existing (including that spending on what is already existing)?

Topic's author

#20

TheUnderdog

Debates: 5

Posts: 4,340

3

5

10

TheUnderdog

02.11.2023 07:14PM

3

5

10

02.11.2023 07:14PM

-->

@dustryder

With the EU model of UHC, taxes double. I do not believe the typical American spends the equivalent of their tax bill on healthcare. Many people get employer subsidized health insurance, so they may only pay $150 a month. With UHC, they won’t have to pay that $150 a month, but they are going to have to pay that additional $2000 a month in taxes to pay for other people’s healthcare.

#21

dustryder

Debates: 5

Posts: 1,080

3

2

4

dustryder

02.11.2023 08:38PM

3

2

4

02.11.2023 08:38PM

-->

@TheUnderdog

With the EU model of UHC, taxes double.

You haven't demonstrated that taxes will double. Just because European taxes are double that of US taxes, does not mean that the US tax must necessarily double to implement UHC. Taxes are spent on multiple things, one of which is UHC.

As a very simplistic explanation and taking Sweden as a generic example of an implementation of UHC, the spending on healthcare in Sweden was 10.87% of their GDP, or $5,671 per person in 2019.

A naïve perspective would be that for the US to implement an equivalent healthcare system to Sweden, the US would need to spend at least the same amount.

In 2019, the US had already spent $11,582 person or 17.7% of it's GDP on healthcare.

Given this scenario, the US would need to pay less in healthcare to achieve UHC.

Topic's author

#22

TheUnderdog

Debates: 5

Posts: 4,340

3

5

10

TheUnderdog

02.11.2023 09:52PM

3

5

10

02.11.2023 09:52PM

-->

@dustryder

But Americans are way less healthy than Sweeds which is why our health costs are higher. We have more obesity, we have less regulations on food than the Sweeds. This has made Sweeds live longer and have cheaper health bills, but it’s also led to Sweeds enjoying food less because less healthy food tends to taste better. It’s also why a tourist that comes to America is 16x as likely to want to become an immigrant to America than a European equivalent.

You haven't demonstrated that taxes will double. Just because European taxes are double that of US taxes, does not mean that the US tax must necessarily double to implement UHC. Taxes are spent on multiple things, one of which is UHC.

What else does Europe spend more money on than the US. The only thing I can think of is free college, but that’s a small part of government spending.

#23

RationalMadman

Debates: 574

Posts: 19,931

10

11

RationalMadman

02.11.2023 10:26PM

10

11

02.11.2023 10:26PM

-->

@TheUnderdog

Everything with you revolves around absolutist bullcrap.

I as an individual want a collective to help the others in that collective. Not that hard to understand.

I do not need to give up everything just to believe and support reducing the severity of poverty in a nation.

#24

dustryder

Debates: 5

Posts: 1,080

3

2

4

dustryder

02.11.2023 10:32PM

3

2

4

02.11.2023 10:32PM

-->

@TheUnderdog

But Americans are way less healthy than Sweeds which is why our health costs are higher. We have more obesity, we have less regulations on food than the Sweeds. This has made Sweeds live longer and have cheaper health bills, but it’s also led to Sweeds enjoying food less because less healthy food tends to taste better. It’s also why a tourist that comes to America is 16x as likely to want to become an immigrant to America than a European equivalent.

Sure.. but it's foolish to say Americans are less healthy than swedes and the health costs are higher...... therefore double the taxes?

What else does Europe spend more money on than the US. The only thing I can think of is free college, but that’s a small part of government spending.

It's not about what or whether Europe is spending more tax dollars than the US. It's about the spending relative to tax revenue

If Sweden allocates 10% of its tax revenue to healthcare and 90% of its tax revenue to something else, and the taxation rate is 40%, 4% of a person's income is going towards healthcare.

If the US allocates 5% of its tax revenue to healthcare and 95% of its tax revenue to something else, and the taxation rate is 20%, 1% of a person's income is going towards healthcare.

If your suggestion is to then bump up the US tax rate by 100% and increase it to 40% and entirely allocate this increase to healthcare, you are now allocating 52.5% of tax revenue to healthcare and the unchanged remainder for other things is at 47.5%. In which case 21% of a person's income is going towards healthcare.

In this example, you've doubled the US tax rate to match Sweden's tax rate, and yet you are now far outspending what Sweden would on healthcare as a percentage of tax dollars. You haven't gained parity with Sweden's healthcare at all. You've exceeded and overspent it by a large margin.

Topic's author

#25

TheUnderdog

Debates: 5

Posts: 4,340

3

5

10

TheUnderdog

02.12.2023 03:14AM

3

5

10

02.12.2023 03:14AM

-->

@RationalMadman

I as an individual want a collective to help the others in that collective.

But you shouldn’t FORCE people to in a society pay for something that they don’t benefit from. Have all the income redistribution be by donors that consent to it.

#26

RationalMadman

Debates: 574

Posts: 19,931

10

11

RationalMadman

02.12.2023 03:21AM

10

11

02.12.2023 03:21AM

-->

@TheUnderdog

Good way to make it so that the more honest and kind people perish while the evil and corrupt thrive.

Topic's author

#27

TheUnderdog

Debates: 5

Posts: 4,340

3

5

10

TheUnderdog

02.12.2023 03:28AM

3

5

10

02.12.2023 03:28AM

-->

@dustryder

Sure.. but it's foolish to say Americans are less healthy than swedes and the health costs are higher......

Americans are less healthy than the Sweeds.

In the 1960s, the US and the EU had comparable health costs as a percent of GDP despite Europe having UHC and America not having that. But something BESIDES the healthcare system is responsible for both the US and the EU having higher healthcare bills; otherwise the EU would have always had significantly cheaper health bills.

Sweedon spends I think 16% of its bugdet on healthcare. So maybe it’s not double the taxation, but if the US were to emulate Europe more, our taxes would be roughly doubled and the left wants the US to emulate Europe.

Topic's author

#28

TheUnderdog

Debates: 5

Posts: 4,340

3

5

10

TheUnderdog

02.12.2023 03:29AM

3

5

10

02.12.2023 03:29AM

-->

@RationalMadman

Good way to make it so that the more honest and kind people perish while the evil and corrupt thrive.

The rich aren’t inherently evil and the poor aren’t inherently kind. You are not entitled to someone else’s money that they earned. It doesn’t matter if they are a millionaire, a billionaire, or a quintilionaire.

#29

dustryder

Debates: 5

Posts: 1,080

3

2

4

dustryder

02.12.2023 04:39PM

3

2

4

02.12.2023 04:39PM

-->

@TheUnderdog

But you are describing the cost for US vs European healthcare systems, not the cost for everything as a whole. Improving just the US healthcare system would not involve doubling the US taxation rate.

Topic's author

#30

TheUnderdog

Debates: 5

Posts: 4,340

3

5

10

TheUnderdog

02.13.2023 09:56PM

3

5

10

02.13.2023 09:56PM

-->

@dustryder

Improving just the US healthcare system would not involve doubling the US taxation rate.

Probably true, but nationalizing the health industry would cost trillions of dollars per year. Here is my ideal health plan for the US:

Since the US government paid for the parents to be produced, the US government should buy back the patents. Make healthcare profit free but not for free (if it costs $1 to make a unit of insulin, anyone that needs it should pay just $1 for it and the US government gets the money instead of the private sector who would charge $10 for it. A different idea I would support are price ceilings for health products that don’t exceed 15% of the cost to make the drug. If a company spends $10 making 100 units of a drug, they can’t charge more than $11.5 for 100 units of the drug. Then you can have healthcare be cheap without nationalizing the industry.