[flagged]
One of the big reasons we have no universal healthcare is because we socialized defense for other countries like your country. You guys are years if not decades away from being able to defense yourselves.
Banned in California
301–310 of 749 posts
Re: Banned in California
#302Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those are the incorrect choices. You CAN actually do these processes, and still keep the environment clean. I believe in procedural symmetry: if you ACTUALLY care about people and the environment, then you wouldn't let other poorer do these thing. The USA being richer, can afford to do it right and safer, not through regulation, but through process. There is a difference. So what would you do if you ACTUALLY cared ab…
The person you are replying to mentioned their personal experience. Have you seen this work in person? It might help to talk about those facts. Also: I suggest rethinking your opening line. It's not very endearing.
One persons experience with a river 30 years ago doesn’t invalidate a theory about how things could be done differently.
Re: Banned in California
#303Earlier quoted context omitted.
I lived in Mexico for a while and while I really enjoyed it it’s horrible that you have to fear the tap water. It’s not humane
I agree but I fail to see how bad water infrastructure that allows poop to get into the water supply in Mexico has anything to do with this topic. Nobody is arguing that you should be able to spew cancer causing chemicals into the air. It is possible to do all these industrial processes responsibly. It just costs more to do it. So either you can allow businesses to do these things with reasonable amounts of regulatio…
[deleted]
Re: Banned in California
#304> No new fabs have been built in CA in over a decade. Intel, TSMC, and Samsung all build elsewhere.
The Bay Area is peppered with Superfund sites that used to be fabs in the 80s. Maybe CA is saying it's done its part and now it's someone else's turn.
Re: Banned in California
#305Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those are the incorrect choices. You CAN actually do these processes, and still keep the environment clean. I believe in procedural symmetry: if you ACTUALLY care about people and the environment, then you wouldn't let other poorer do these thing. The USA being richer, can afford to do it right and safer, not through regulation, but through process. There is a difference. So what would you do if you ACTUALLY cared ab…
USA is already effectively priced out of manufacturing due to high labor costs. Doing things with the "correct choices" simply makes the impossible even more so.
I live in Texas, which is still part of the USA, and we manufacture a great deal.
I have a friend who works as an environmental engineer at a chem plant. They work hard to keep things safe and clean, and rigorously monitor their output.
I'm sure we could do even more if we weren't competing in meany areas against legal jurisdictions which DON'T care about such things. We aren't "priced out". We are regulated out and out competed by jurisdiction which have many fewer labor laws and much more lax environmental monitoring. If we are out-competed on product, then we deserve to loose, which is where libertarians and free-trade have a point. But if we are out-competed on keeping people and the environment reasonably safe? That's when we enact trade barriers.
That is how you actually keep the environment and people safe.
Re: Banned in California
#306Re: Banned in California
#307Earlier quoted context omitted.
Housing and medicine is largely a political decision with little relation to environmental concerns. The political party that favours deregulation is the same one that wants to keep private health care. Food is slightly different, judging by the rates of obesity people can afford more than they need.
The political party that wants socialized medicine is the one stacked with NIMBYs and blocking construction of housing.
Rich, older homeowners tend to be NIMBYs. It's a true bipartisan effort.
Re: Banned in California
#308Without the list of environmental side effects those things have it’s not a neutral list.
How about the ban of asbestos and Chlorofluorocarbons?
Re: Banned in California
#309Earlier quoted context omitted.
So why are so many of your citizens without even basic affordable healthcare?
They aren't. Anyone can go to the ER, and if you're poor it'll be billed through Medicaid. When I was young and poor, I had a multi-day hospital stay and multiple surgeries that totaled to $3.50 out of pocket. Urgent cares are everywhere and affordable.
> Anyone can go to the ER
They'll treat you if you have a heart attack and make it in alive. They won't put you on blood thinners or statins 10 years before that to keep you out of the ER in the first place.
I don't think ERs do chemotherapy either.
Re: Banned in California
#310There is a reason these kind of things are no longer possible in much of the western world and especially Europe-like US states like California: After the deindustrialization people started to enjoy healthy air and clear water. As always when it comes to "the good old times" or "make great again", your brain will remember very selectively. I used to live next to a large river for about 35 years. As a kid, it was forb…
I'd choose to be the powerful and rich industrial country every single time. If I had a button that would wipe out the entire Amazon jungle and replace it with a world class high technology industry, I wouldn't even think twice before pressing it. Clean water to swim in? Build a pool. Frankly, any deindustrialized country is quite simply irrelevant. You need industry to have a middle class. You need middle class for…
> Clean water to swim in? Build a pool.
Where do you find clean water to fill the pool with?
> You need industry to have a middle class.
Your average industrial assembly-line worker is _not_ middle class. They are horrible jobs no-one really wants back, or at least not for themselves.
It is very much possible to keep your air and environment clean, and still reasonably grow and remain relevant - look at France.
> You need middle class for capitalist consumption.
Again, industry workers were not middle class, and if you pay them enough to be middle class, your product's price stops being competitive.
To have middle class for capitalist consumption, you need to stop funneling literally _all the money_ to single-digit amount of people and companies, leaving everyone else poor, regardless of what they do for work.