ISPs can treat Internet Traffic however they want. So Netflix can be slowed down or charged a higher price because it conflicts with cable companies.
Comment has been collapsed.
Imagine this: US-based company needs to send their data from US-servers to the whole world, but they are throttled and in turn it will take them a week to fully upload it - which in turn means even in Europe we'd not see the data for a week.
So yes, I agree, in theory world should be fine.
In practice, fuck knows.
I guess I could have used "originate from" instead of "goes through", would that make my first comment better/clearer?
Comment has been collapsed.
Nah, goes through is pretty accurate. The NSA has to monitor the data somehow, after all.
I wonder if the Americans, the Chinese, and the Russians wouldn't all divert half the internet traffic through their own respective intelligence-gathering agencies, how faster the net would actually be for everyone.
Comment has been collapsed.
The Chinese already direct China bound net through a firewall (both to filter and to analyse), they don't seem too bothered by the extra latency. As for Russia their net infrastructure has been privatised, nevertheless Russian ISPs are required to block or track on the Kremlin's behalf.
As I've understood it these new US net neutrality (or lack of) laws will first and foremost affect US residents, here's why: ISPs no longer have to provide net neutrality, but if you want a server in the US you can probably pay to keep your current level of neutrality. And lets not forget they cant impact servers too much or they will move out of America (trumps biggest fear).
Of course peer to peer networking with lots of Americans on ordinary home internet I'd probably gonna suck.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sorry, I explained it the best way I knew how. Perhaps this will explain it better.
It's like a toll booth, in that ISPs will be able to charge whomever uses it based on what type of traffic they send through.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's extremely terrible. ISPs in the U.S. already hate Netflix as it is (Netflix directly competes with cable companies & ATT). If Net Neutrality is repealed ISPs can charge Netflix increases prices for their traffic or block it outright. This will increase prices for everyone that uses this service. It will probably also affect other services such as Streaming Music.
Comment has been collapsed.
The real problem is the last mile to peoples houses which are typically under a legal monopoly. With only a phone line and cable line, both of which try to sell you TV, for internet to piggyback on Netflix et al. are both competitors and and their largest cost. It doesn't help that Netflix also forces them to somewhat make good on the XMbps for $Y cutting their margins since they can't oversell. IMHO best solution would be extremely tight net neutrality rules, nationalize the infrastructure and then give it to google. "Do no evil" may no longer be their thing but they have an extremely long way to fall before they aren't angels compared to the current owners.
Comment has been collapsed.
If the water network was as messed up as the internet I think we would nerd much the same management strategy to make the most of either bad situation.
In my opinion the solution is to upgrade the slowest, most lacking parts of your network first (be it water or web). Unfortunately (in democratic countries at least) they tend instead to go an upgrade areas where they think they can get good votes. Utilities shouldnt be political weapons and if they werent misused that way a lot of countries would be better off
Comment has been collapsed.
More realism...gah...of course you are right...just not ideal any which way as long as people are greedy and short sighted >.<
Edit: Water management is as bad, or worse, than the internet. In fact look at Flint, Michigan...and they aren't the only cities who have had or will have problems like that.
Comment has been collapsed.
ISP can hold their user's traffic to ransom. IE Comcast demands extra money from Netflix, or it'll be unusable for Netflix customers on Comcast.
Or TWC could block Google access if they get paid money by Bing.
The users (you and I) become pawns.
Comment has been collapsed.
Comment has been collapsed.
Except, one does not simply use the internet:
only as a digital content supply line (like the metaphor with the trains carrying steel seems to suggest), but also to express ones opinion. In the future, websites that give people the opportunity to express there opinion can be digitally "choked" if a company or other thing with financial power so desires.
Comment has been collapsed.
Freedom of speech only applies to the government. Whilst open to the public Youtube, Facebook and Twitter are all private sites where you have no rights except those the owner gives you.
Comment has been collapsed.
Think of it like a funnel; currently all data goes through 1 funnel, because the law says it has to. Removing the law would let someone like hulu ask att/comcast/other isp if they could pay a few extra $$ for their data to use a 2nd funnel for just them. If att does, the 'all' funnel becomes a bit smaller and and a 2nd 'only hulu' funnel gets added. If netflix got all "yo, wtf!" att could offer them a 3rd funnel for $$$ (which would again make the 'all' funnel smaller), to the point where a site could only get good bandwith if it payed for special treatment. Also most likely the cost to maintain all the new funnels would be passed on to us users (on both ends, isp & hulu), because of course it will, as the "cost of new and exciting tech that makes your favorite sites faster". Also if the isp doesn't like a site, it can make a special slow funnel for that site (throttle), or if it wants to make its new funnel system look better it can make the 'all' funnel even smaller (throttle) before adding new funnels. "See, you need our special bypass because we closed all the lanes on the main road!" (Roads may have been a better metaphor than funnels, but I'm committed at this point.)
Comment has been collapsed.
Do you have/had cable TV?
You know how you can buy "basic", "premium", "HD", "sports", "HBO" etc. packages?
Without Net Neutrality, ISPs can tell you "oh, basic only gives you access to our ISP.com, if you want to access Steam you have to buy "Steam package". Oh, and no, Origin has it's own Origin package, for $5/month too.".
And they also can go to Valve and "oh, you want to allow people to download stuff faster than 1kb/sec? That will be "upload" package, for $10 per 1mb/sec".
Comment has been collapsed.
That's being too generous to the ISPs. The real problem with it is Netflix et al are paying their ISP for a XMbps connection to the internet and I'm paying mine for a YMbps connection to the internet, yet mine want's to charge Netflix for what I'm already paying them for.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, we should let Madison River Communications block Vonage again,
Too much regulations (a'la China, which apparently is a role-model for UK's Prime Ministar) are bad, but lack of them is bad too.
Comment has been collapsed.
Then you've misunderstood government regulation entirely.
Government regulation is why net neutrality existed at all.
Or why the water you drink isn't as contaminated as it could be to maximize profits for companies.
Comment has been collapsed.
If the water is bad, you have people dying, and your business dies from all the bad press and lost revenue. You can't maximize profits by killing your consumers, which is something anti-Capitalists conveniently forget. Someone else provides a superior service with competition. You are SOL if the service is all a government monopoly.
Comment has been collapsed.
But if there are other options, it's not really a monopoly, is it? Monopolies are able to do as they please because consumers have no other options.
Comment has been collapsed.
Anti-Capitalists?
Haha, that was good.
Governenment regulation, or regulations per se set a minumum standard. If there is none then companies will do the best for their profits. Do you think the air you breathe would be clean(ish) if the governments hadn't forced the car industry etc to clean up their act?
Smog etc. certainly didn't bother the car manufacturers. Same with leaded fuel.
You probably wouldn't even be able to type on a computer if there hadn't been the pushes to abolish child labour, enforce schooling and minimum or fair wages.
But I guess thats just socialist propaganda?
Comment has been collapsed.
You completely missed the point of Socialism, as it is the government telling businesses what to do despite consumers or market forces. You do know that the country existed for hundreds of years and the clean air you are talking about came a couple decades after the government allowed the air to become so polluted. Politicians made tons of money off that bad air. Remember that government regulations existed long before a business created the first polluting factory.
The government also profited off child labor and all those other bad things you blame on the working man, for more than a century.
But I guess that's just Capitalist propaganda.
Comment has been collapsed.
actually, you missed the point of socialism, you're thinking of communism.
The point of socialism is to spread the wealth, from each per their abilities, to each per their needs. It has nothing to do with deciding how much of what to produce.
Comment has been collapsed.
Search Results
so·cial·ism
ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
noun
noun: socialism
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Comment has been collapsed.
com·mu·nism
ˈkämyəˌnizəm/
noun
noun: communism; noun: Communism; plural noun: Communisms
a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.
Comment has been collapsed.
gofccyourself.com
We can still flood their website when it opens itself back up for comments. Is there anything else we can actively do to protest this?
Comment has been collapsed.
Right! Chattanooga has one and it's been, to my knowledge, a resounding success. Good suggestion.
Comment has been collapsed.
https://www.google.com/amp/freebeacon.com/issues/net-neutrality-supporters-want-ban-drudge/amp/
Makes sense if you google it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Still not seeing the connection.
You are trying to argue like if we were talking about if they were planning to convert a lane on the I-95 to a bus lane, but you show a bunch of protesters wanting to close down a convention center near the speedway. There is no goddamn connection apart from both being near each other and the convention center being accessible through the highway.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not sure why you're being so standoffish, I'm not arguing I'm just trying to get you to see what side Soros is really on, which is easy if you do the research. http://truthfeed.com/soros-funded-group-gave-50k-to-radical-group-antifa-who-provoked-berkeley-riot/50542/
Soros funds antifa, antifa claims to want net neutrality but them and every other group that he has his tentacles in want to censor anyone who doesn't 100% follow the narrative he sets. Look up what other groups and media organizations he has a hand in and you'll see why they won't report on it.
If this is being done by the people who claim to be opposed to Soros like you say, it really seems like he's quite pleased with the way it's going.
Comment has been collapsed.
If I go by Breitbart and the rest of the alt-right news (or "news", unless we consider supposed Satanic rituals in the non-existing basements of pizza palaces real news), Soros is behind half the media, each Hollywood film produced in the past 50 years (except the Passion of Christ), every environmental agency, most of the libraries (even the ones funded by Reagan), every bank, facebook, Google, MicroSoft, at least eight hedge funds, NASA(!), and roughly seventeen governments.
Considering the guy has less money than the average income of Verizon alone, that is quite the feat.
Comment has been collapsed.
I can't stand Breitbart so I wouldn't know. The information on Soros related investments though is not arcane knowledge, you can quickly Google it and see that he does indeed put a lot of money into a lot of different organizations. Check it out for yourself and form your own opinion on how much money you think it would take to bribe someone.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, he does. So do a lot of other billionaires. Gates puts billions each year in different foundations. I am 99% sure that when Soros dies (he is over 80 after all), Gates will be the next one who will be elected Satan by the alt-right. But only because Buffet had enough brains to pay off some of the right-wing movements as well to make sure they leave him alone.
Comment has been collapsed.
well if gates will ever attempt and or suceed a speculative attacks with the precise intent of devaluing the currency of a sovereign country, finance shady ngo that leap to international waters to save boats full with irregular immigrants without no signal of sos being emanated, or that engage in popular protests fully functional to usa and atlantist imperialism (eg. coup detat in ukraine), he surely will (judging by his profile and his random statements he do not promise anything good, just another multi billionaire globalization-lover capitalist that makes his part to atomize civilization)
Comment has been collapsed.
muh racism, im clearly better than u
i was almost worried. you had it already locked and loaded but it took you more than usual to shoot it. clueless as always.
Comment has been collapsed.
?! you what. you never did. all you do is draw your own conclusion all by yourself without even arguing and spitting the usual neologisms so loved by the likes of you, and you just did it once again. this was a senseless talk even before it started.
once again, pls stop using that useless ward whenever one sneezes in the wrong direction. you decontextualize it and deprive it of its meaning, which in part is even negative.
*leavedominusferrusalone
its thanks to goy like him that the balance between autistic and retards on this site is balanced. this could have be a tumblr 2.0 by now. you only have to thank him.
Comment has been collapsed.
it is if it implies to harm the one who saves them. but see the whole matter is too complicated to put it in a soo simplistic way. your own question and how you have put it is soaked with that pathetic goodthinking rhetoric used by neoleftists to justify mass immigration and their indiscriminate acceptance, masking it with fake pity and dodging the logical analysis that this entails. to save lives is just a pretense that can only cover the eyes of the idiots. there are capitalist interests behind. soros and the ngo he finances care to "save life" as much as the smugglers does.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not entirely sure what it is you're saying.
But earlier you blamed the left for "leap to international waters to save boats full with irregular immigrants", implying that it's wrong to save lives.
Please elaborate in plain english. Throwing out big words in an incongruous fashion doesn't convey a coherent message, and I hope you're better than that.
Comment has been collapsed.
even despites my low english level to me it seems clear enough to understand my point, which cannat be reduced as a mere yes or no. text comprehension is learned in middle school. try harder.
Comment has been collapsed.
I have a masters in english. I understand the words you're using, but not the combination.
quite simply, there are only two options (1) something is getting lost in translation, or (2) it's the rambling of a crazy person. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that it's #1, and therefore asked if you can try re-writing using different words.
Comment has been collapsed.
ive translated it back by myself and with google, it does make sense. some wards are grammatically scrambled and bad written but the underlying concept i have expressed is clear and understandable, should by even more to you given your studies, unless you are picky about it on purpose. i do not really know what to say to you.
the answer to your question is the very first sentence. all the rest is about how stupid your question is, given all the implications that mass immigration brings with it and that can not be ignored, even under the threat of being called racist (unrelated)
Comment has been collapsed.
It's all they do really...
Republicans and lobbyists have been screwing them over for years, not that democrats are saints, but it's clear which party sides consistently with corporate lobbyists against the best interests of the general population.
Comment has been collapsed.
no, a quarter of the electorate voted for trump. A quarter voted for Hillary (presumably, mostly because they were voting against trump) and half the electorate stayed home
I mean, seriously, it was a matter of choosing which candidate was least bad, rather than which was better
Comment has been collapsed.
If this was Europe and Vivendi will really buy out UbiSoft, they probably would do that: strike a deal that UPlay is unthrottled but Steam, GOG, Origin are super slow. EA could technically do the same, but Valve is not really known for investing money (plus they are not really the favourites of any government anywhere), CD Projekt Red simply doesn't have the money for it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I know, but won't be long until they try again once there's a "shining" new example ...
Comment has been collapsed.
The european parliament rejected it, so we should be safe. Although UK after Brexit ends will probably suffer it too
Comment has been collapsed.
Comment has been collapsed.
My hobby: in headlines, replace the word after "Theresa May" with "Or May Not".
Comment has been collapsed.
That is politics in a nutshell - if there's one thing that informs/influences enough people in a way it can't be
controlled, it needs a leash. Doesn't matter if left or right any government in power would want to "seize" it,
to maintain constant control and power - sugarcoat the details/approach however you please.
Comment has been collapsed.
gud goy dramb. the mistake was not to see, or worse, pretending not to see some of his standpoints during the election campaign. what a lost chance...
Comment has been collapsed.
Comment has been collapsed.
The majority of people who are not corporations are opposed to the change in regulations. But corporations have the most money and seem to always get what they want, public be damned.
Comment has been collapsed.
Of course. Remember, Mitt Romney said "Corporations are people too, my friend." Not that I agree with the sentiment, of course. We're so screwed.
Comment has been collapsed.
Given actual legal presence of the concept, it's a bit more than just passing sentiment. Generally, it's a reasonable concept- applying any legal rights that would apply to any gathering of people, to a corporation. The problem is when corporations misapply the term of "person" (as it applies to companies) to indicate the corporations (as entities rather than gatherings) should receive equal rights to non-fictional people in ways that are... well, rather dubious. For example, attempting to apply Protection from Self-Incrimination (5th Amendment) rights to a company. :P
More and more corporations have been successful in their lobbying for companies to be treated as being deserving of all the civil guarantees of individuals, rather than as corporate entities, by way of convincing judges that "person" should apply to companies as it would the former, rather than the latter.
Comment has been collapsed.
Until a corporation can be imprisoned or executed for its crimes, it is not a person.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'd move to Australia but those spiders and Wolverines are deadly, almost as deadly as the Sheilas but not quite.
Having tax loopholes closed is always a good idea. Corporations shouldn't be able to pay 0 or get money back from the government (like General Electric)
Comment has been collapsed.
in Australia, an individual files bankruptcy, but a company goes insolvent and enters receivership. there is no pesonal repercussion for the directors.
a person does not need to file bankruptcy just because their company has become insolvent.
Comment has been collapsed.
You're tying two things together that don't need to be tied together.
In australia, it's permissible to have a one-person company, but it must be a private company (Pty Ltd). The company can go insolvent without affecting the individual. On the flip side, the person can go bankrupt without affecting the company (though the ownership will probably change hands)
You said "incorporating oneself is not uncommon in the entertainment industry, due to USA tax incentives
also insures not personally held accountable for bankrupcy, as it's deemed a legal entity aka person, who employs the real identity
edit: this bankrupcy loophole does not exist in AU"
That's wrong. That loophole does exist in australia.
Comment has been collapsed.
I checked your link and each one of those applies in the U.S. as well.
Though it doesn't happen often, the corporate veil can be lifted.
Note that there's also a difference in state laws, and some states provide less protection. specifically, it is my opinion that any attorney who allows his/her client to incorporate in New York State should be sued for malpractice
Comment has been collapsed.
FYI technically there's no such thing as "incorporating yourself". It's a phrase that implies creating a corporation solely for the purpose of running your typical business activity. So instead of an employer paying you directly, it pays your corporation. Very few companies will do this for ordinary employees, but most are happy to do so for freelancers.
This should have no effect on taxes, though people believe that it does. Those people are wrong.
expenses that are deductible to the business would also be deductible for the individual
On the other hand, there is some protection from liability. When it comes to torts (suing for damages) it can be very difficult to for the individual to limit liability to the company, but when it comes to contracts, the liability stops with the company. Great for licensing deals, or if an actor wants to back out of a movie commitment.
There are plenty of other techniques that can be used to shield oneself from liability. There are also plenty of other technique to reduce one's tax burden. Those can be, but are not necessarily, the same techniques. But let's just say that for the very wealthy a lot of taxes become optional
Comment has been collapsed.
I can't speak to what existed in the 1980s, but during my professional career, there's been very little difference in taxation.
Most corporate tax breaks are available to the individual as well, albeit not necessarily in the same capacity. A lot of people don't realize that an individual can deduct expenses like meals & entertainment and education expenses using the exact same rules. (even a lot of accountants). There are a handful of deductions that are not available to individuals, but wouldn't make sense in a non-corporate context (e.g. deduction for foreign income of a subsidiary). Or ones that don't seem to directly translate, such as the cost of health insurance being 100% deductible for a corporation, but only partly deductible for individuals (must exceed 7.5% of income), but the costs related to maintaining the corporation, such as the franchise tax and the double-taxation issue will often wipe away the distinction
There are plenty of advantages to incorporating yourself, but taxation is not actually one of them.
Of course, a lot of mediocre accountants and attorneys don't realize that. I've dealt with quite a few ineffectual ones and they annoy me to no end as they give their clients bad advice and don't even realize it when I save them from a malpractice suit
Comment has been collapsed.
There was only one decent candidate this time around, and he dropped out early.
Comment has been collapsed.
Won't be the first elected person to screw its electorate over and unfortunately won't be the last. Watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs . The system needs reforming... (and the people as well)
Comment has been collapsed.
It's funny how vapid people believe the career criminal who got their "balls" most busted by the "free" interwebs-media,
wouldn't go down the same road as Donald Duck, who's being advised by smart merchant Shlomo Shekelstein & friends.
Now, better get real and start saving some bucks for your plus-interwebs access and probably premium health care.:
Comment has been collapsed.
Because i can, and you're wearing that t-shirt with the huge "pls smack me right up my dumb posting.jpg" logo.
Also, knowing who's influencing whom doesn't make you the baddie National Socialist kind from 19thirtysomething.
And i wasn't trolling, i'm just not as mean spirited as you, not to toss up a joke at the end of my sentences.
Here again, this time a short one: 3---
Comment has been collapsed.
The global elite has been chasing after freedom of speech for centuries. Very scary.
Comment has been collapsed.
For those still not understanding what Net Neutrality is, the history, or the importance of it, this nearly-3 week old EFF article explains it rather succinctly. Read the article and make your voice heard to the FCC.
Get involved!
===
What is EFF?
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) defends civil liberties in a digital world. See More...
How Humble Bundle users can help
If Net Neutrality is important to you and believe digital communications should be free from censorship, surveillance and corruption, then log into the Humble Bundle store and select EFF as your supported charity.
Comment has been collapsed.
well ... as long this only USA
this will just add to the list:
imperial measure
best health care (breaking bad)
the right to arm bears
It is nice to have a country trying to get the Darwin award!
I'm always worried that USA and UK can't compete with China, glad to see they are still doing the best!
ATT and Comcast are the BEST!!
<sarcasm off/>
I hope this ..... will never (NEVER EVER) pass the border of USA!!!
Comment has been collapsed.
I believe that any menace to a person's freedom (freedom of speech, freedom of being alive, freedom of being whatever you want to be), even if it is restricted to a single person, is a menace against all the humanity. Even if it didn't affect us, we should not tolerate it.
One can't demand freedom for themselves while accepting other people's lack of freedom.
Comment has been collapsed.
I remember when Net Neutrality was originally about freedom of speech and not to hand the internet over for UN control. Now it is about the evil companies that people are forced to use and cannot change providers, because all businesses are the exact same.
Comment has been collapsed.
What is it like to have someone else do all your thinking for you? Must make things easier, eh?
Comment has been collapsed.
yawn
You must get tired of being a predictable cliche, no?
Comment has been collapsed.
You don't have a single original thought- not even an original insult!
"Race card" "George Soros" "Antifa" and the typical ignorant rants about socialism, communism, and Obamacare. So trail blazing!
Nothing even close to being coherent, just typical regurgitated right wing nonsense. How very tribal of you....
Comment has been collapsed.
See what I mean? Nothing original.. again. You simply copy and paste from the Fox News comments section.
You assume my political identity (incorrectly), simply because I disagree with your irrational behavior. Again, all very predictable.
Your first post is an insulting rant that whines and cries about right wing conspiracy theory- and now you follow up with more frothing at the mouth garbage that simply shows your own proud lack of education. No one cares how self deluded you are.
I'm sorry that a different opinion makes you angry and afraid, but that is your problem, not mine.
Comment has been collapsed.
Says the guy that lets Hannity do their thinking for them. ^^
I love how you nutjobs feel the need to defend each other in your warped right wing circle jerk. You probably wonder why no one ever takes you serious lol
Comment has been collapsed.
Wow. I don't even know where to begin. It is almost like you are precisely one of those zombies you mentioned in your message: it is essentially a collection of misconceptions and conspiracy theories popular among die-hard republicans. First, the USA is a democracy AND a republic at the same time, since both terms are not mutually exclusive. From the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
I would say both apply, right? Obviously, in the USA the power is exercised by elected agents, which is included in the definition of democracy.
As for the rest, I don't want to elaborate too much, so I will only give a few brief remarks. One, while it is true that net neutrality was only regulated in 2015 and the internet was fine until then, bear in mind that streaming services and other bandwidth-heavy services have grown exponentially in the last years. It is tempting -and that's why companies have been pushing for it- to charge differently depending on usage, and examples of this exist in Portugal. Second, companies regularly piss of customers and nobody moves a finger, either due to a lack of alternatives or because they all follow similar practices.
Finally, your statement about Obama turning America socialist is simply ridiculous. Obamacare has very little to do with socialism, and in fact it is miles away from any European healthcare system in this respect. And that's not precisely good: healthcare in America is absurdly expensive and infamously inefficient, except of course for the few that directly profit from it.
Comment has been collapsed.
The USA are not a democracy, but an oligarchy and have been for quite a while: http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 and https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B
It's only a democracy on paper.
Comment has been collapsed.
How can you tell someone to read the constitution when you cannot even read a definition in a dictionary (which I kindly provided in my previous message)? Look for another one if you don't like Merriam-Webster, they all say the same. Democracy is not a single form of government: it literally means "rule of the people", which can be exercised either directly or indirectly. The US is defined as a Republic in the constitution, indeed, but that does not prevent it from being a democracy, because the power is held by representatives of the people elected in free and open elections. Again, these terms are not mutually exclusive, and they are often together -- most countries in the world that call themselves democratic are actually republics (think France, Germany, Peru...).
Saying that the US is not a democracy because it is a republic is like saying that a car cannot be blue because it has 4 doors, with the difference that as a matter of fact democracy and republic often go hand in hand.
Regarding Obamacare and socialism, things are not black and white, especially when it comes to politics. Yes, Obamacare is CLOSER to socialism than the pre-Obama system, but it is miles, miles away from true socialism. What's ironic is that you claim only the rich will be able to afford healthcare, which is precisely the opposite of what socialism tries to achieve. In true socialism everyone should have access to healthcare with the exact same standards of quality. Now, you could of course argue that everyone should be able to choose, which is an option that you don't have in a truly socialized healthcare, but saying that only the rich could access it? That you should never see in a socialist country... And the truth is that it has been shown that one payer systems like those in Europe are much more efficient for the whole society, since the government can push for lower prices, whereas in the US the customer has to pay ridiculous prices to the insurances, pharmaceutical companies and hospitals. The whole system is bloated.
Finally, competition exists in an ideal free market, but this is often not the case in real life. Companies grow too big and powerful for others to compete, or merge with each other, leaving the customer with no options. Anti-monopoly regulations exist to prevent that from happening.
Comment has been collapsed.
He doesn't even understand what socialism vs capitalism actually is on an socioeconomic spectrum. The only reason he says socialism is bad is because someone else said it was bad. That is how divided and tribal the nation has become- no one even bothers to check what their leaders say....
Not worth your time and and energy.
Comment has been collapsed.
341 Comments - Last post 36 minutes ago by xxxka
341 Comments - Last post 41 minutes ago by MeguminShiro
15,203 Comments - Last post 3 hours ago by 1000mgGinseng
56 Comments - Last post 4 hours ago by spodamayn
46,758 Comments - Last post 5 hours ago by LieEater
217 Comments - Last post 5 hours ago by RomchEk
44 Comments - Last post 6 hours ago by Foxhack
34 Comments - Last post 7 minutes ago by Tucs
40 Comments - Last post 33 minutes ago by PastelLicuado
233 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by kinkami
65 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by LoLaPaZoLa
190 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Herobility
46 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by AlvinCanCabbage
2,588 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by actuallySIG
Update (Dec. 14 2017): https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/14/technology/net-neutrality-repeal-vote.html
https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/14/16776154/fcc-net-neutrality-vote-results-rules-repealed
What to do? Urge Congress to use a “resolution of disapproval” to overturn the FCC’s decision to dismantle the Net Neutrality rules.
Comment has been collapsed.