Welcome to Lemmy

Some call this “Leftist extremism”. =/

Ugh George Soros poisoned Progressivism!

By "affordable" I'm assuming you mean free. Always wanting a handout, of course.

I just want untaxed inheritance, corporate welfare on top of more tax breaks for me and all my friends, unregulated surveillance and data collection of the plebs so I can continue to make even more money (untaxed obvs), exclusive and elite private universities, and a justice system where I can live free of consequence and purchase a judge at a reasonable price because I believe in being fiscally conservative.

Food, shelter, and healthcare are things I've just never had to think about really. Although, I would also prefer that if too many people are worrying about those things in my immediate vicinity, they be shuffled around or forcibly moved to a different vicinity.

That way I don't have to start thinking too much. It's really unfair when that happens, because it starts to make me feel all kinds of uncomfortable. Uncomfortable is not something I'm used to feeling, and since I don't like to think about things, I never stop and think about why somebody else being uncomfortable would also make me feel so uncomfortable.

Logically, the solution is to just put those people somewhere not visible to me, and then complain about what society is "turning into these days" when they slip through the privilege perimeter.

Basically healthcare is free at point of service in the majority of the most functional and healthy societies. It's not infinite and its rationed by need as opposed to being rationed according to who has the most money. This is ultimately a more valid solution to finite resources than our over complicated system which hands half the money to middle men in the name of managing it.
- I agree, and just to be clear I was being sarcastic. I would also guess it's way more than half the money.
  Between health insurance companies, hospital administrator salaries, liability insurance for doctors, and drug patents making most medications unaffordable, I would say it's pretty easily about 3/4 or more.
  I volunteer in a free clinic in a red state that has had the Medicaid expansion for less than 10 years. It provided the absolute bare minimum healthcare to essentially everyone in need, but it still made such a huge difference in terms of patient health outcomes to just offer that bare minimum.
  Now the U.S. is targeting that entire program through budget cuts, and in addition, at least in my state, private hospital oligopolies have been ramping down acceptance for months now because they seemed to know what was coming before anyone else.
  The argument is that the cost of providing that bare minimum is unsustainable. Even if that were true, and the cuts weren't actually only necessary to provide another tax break for the wealthy, there are clearly so many other places we could be making cuts to reduce the cost of healthcare, rather than to the tiny amount that goes towards actually providing the barely minimum healthcare coverage to some of the most vulnerable patient populations.
Due to Poe's Law, I think you really need one of these: /s
- Yeah, I thought it was pretty clear, but I guess not. I definitely would have on Reddit but figured it wouldn't be necessary here

TERRORIST.

Like .. all people?

Every single one
- What about people we don't like?
  
  Why don’t we like them? Is it because they are anti-social? That’s why we have laws. Is it because they are different? Then don’t be anti-social and learn to understand them.

Seems reasonable.

So you want billionaires hoisted up by their figgins as a warning to the rest of the bourgeoisie?? That's what I'm hearing here.

I think we should have a maximum wealth cap. Set it as an even 1000x the median annual household income. That is the type of money that even the most highly paid wage earners - like anesthesiologists, would struggle to amass if they worked overtime their whole careers, lived like paupers, and invested every penny they made. That would be about $80 million today. Anything above that would be taxed at 100%. And no, I don't give a shit about your $80 million "family farm."
But truly obscene levels of wealth? Like 10,000x median household income and above? If we had a wealth cap, and you evaded it, and secretly collected a fortune 10x the cap? A felony whose penalty is 20 to life.
We don't let people own atomic bombs. We don't require you to have an atomic bomb license, or only let really nice moral people own nuclear weapons. We simply don't let individuals own nuclear weapons, as the risk of such power in a single hand is simply too great.
And yet, we let people amass fortunes that they can use to do far more damage than any nuclear weapon. Someone like Musk or Bezos, completely on their own, can absolutely cause suffering and destruction on the level of a nuclear bomb.
No one should have that type of power. Period. That power should only be obtainable through free and fair elections. We need a maximum wealth cap. 1000x median household income. Having a billion dollars should be absurd as owning your own nuclear bomb.
- I wish I could upvote this about a dozen times well said.
- We don’t let people own atomic bombs [...] and yet, we let people amass fortunes that they can use to do far more damage than any nuclear weapon.
  Damn that is very well put. I thought I knew where you were going with that analogy -- like that there are just some things we don't allow people to have. But the comparison of the power of a nuclear bomb and 11 digit wealth is really really good.
  No matter what you do with that kind of wealth, it is a level of force that should not be wielded without the consent of the people it will affect.