Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)N
Posts
0
Comments
53
Joined
12 mo. ago

  • Your comment made me look up the way Maryland does it, and yes, it varies a lot by county.

    Have you received care from EMS without being taken to the hospital? The case posted by OP did not involve going to the hospital, and so I used an example that did not involve going to the hospital. I had a vague impression that if you require transport to a hospital, you are more likely to be billed for it.

  • It's not that I disagree that our system is shit, it's more that it seems puritanical to require the US to be totally standardized across all 50 states. We're 50 different states because we don't like each other, and the animosity is growing. It's enough to maintain the union with crazy red states trying to role back rights and illegally imprison people.

    I don't see Europeans standardizing social programs across all the different countries within the EU. Germany was loathe to even lend money to Greece following the 2008 recession.

  • I am not going to defend the US Healthcare industry, but EMS is often? usually? a service of your local government in the US.

    Here in Maryland, our ambulance are stored in the firehouses next to the fire engines and staffed by the firemen... Paid for by the county.

    When I went to Austin for a bachelorette party, one of the girls passed out and hit her head and the ambulance that came to check her out was also free of charge paid for by the city. Now, their dismissive paternalism was also free of charge because it was Texas, but my point is: emergency services are frequently not part of the predatory American healthcare industry.

  • I'm not here to defend every action of Western militaries or which regional conflicts they paid attention to and which they ignore.

    I have a hard time buying your claim that because Putin would invade Crimea some 20 years later, that he should have registered as a threat to the West in the 90s. Even if that were true, then you would simply be finding error in the risk analysis I am asserting is done in defining a military budget, not disproving that it's done.

    Again, the relative value of the bombs to the homes being bombed is still a stupid means of illustrating your point. And everyone in this thread agrees with you that terror bombings of civilians doesn't work (and is cruel/ inhumane), but they disagree that is the intent of the West/ Ukraine here. So go make that point on YouTube video comments with computer jockeys nutting themselves over drone strikes in Afghanistan.

    Yes I think the NATO build up is justified. Russia has proven its willingness to invade its neighbors, so the likelihood portion of the risk analysis is high. Additionally, at least for the US, China's substantial military build-up portends conflict in the South China Sea and the broader South Pacific. There's a reason Australia is our new military BFF. None of that means waste/ war-crimes/ Boeing are justified, obviously. But you are trolling, so I think I'm done here.

    Lastly, not sure how you are suggesting the West is responsible for or should have prevented the chaos that followed the Soviet collapse or Russia turning into an aggressor state, but it's all irrelevant to your original point that I took issue with.

  • Growth of GDP is irrelevant. The article you linked doesn't say that they are increasing spending targets by 5%. The article said they are increasing spending targets from 2% of GDP to 5% of GDP. They are increasing spending targets by 150%.

    Look, defense spending isn't a monotonic relationship with GDP. It's a risk assessment taking into account the value of your assets and activities as well as the size of the threat faced. In the 90s, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was basically no large threat to the international US-led order. The US still had to maintain a base level of funding to squash upstarts (pirates, ...Iraq), but the safety of high value assets and activity could be insured with much less funding.

    Your initial argument was that spending on defense ought to be on par with the value of the threat faced, which makes no sense. Spending on defense is insurance to protect what makes you money. You don't price flood insurance for your home on the cost of that many gallons of water. You price it based on the value of your home and the likelihood of it flooding.

  • As someone in defense, Boeing sucks.

    Regardless, my point was just that spending targets were indeed pegged to GDP.

  • The US has pressured Europe for decades to spend 2% of their GDP on defense.

  • The world war is already here, it's just not all-out yet. This policy change isn't going to be the instigator of it.

    Regardless of Trump, the US is not the preeminent military or economic power in the world anymore. Further, the global climate is changing. As such, a global reshuffling of resources and alliances is inevitable.

  • Military budgets are placed based on the value of what they're protecting (physical assets, economic activity, etc), not based on the wealth of the people who could destroy your assets/activities.

  • Elite levels of competition like the Olympics are testing those statistical outliers/ extreme ends of the bell curve though.

  • I want to believe you, but the record for marathon time for men is faster than the record for women and the record for long swim events (1500m freestyle) for men is faster than the women's record.

  • Removed Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • I mean, I did see that the source was the BBC, but they should really quit using that as a crutch at this point.

  • Removed Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • Or a kerb, for that matter (wtf is that spelling?!)

  • I was trying to present his concerns as being relatable; I don't think he's unreasonable.

    Marriage is pretty good. He's a good partner, a very moral person, and a great, involved father.

    I think I'd rather die in a concentration camp than break up my family... At least, if I knew my kids would be okay. I don't think it's likely I'd be able to take my kids overseas with me if I left him over it anyway.

  • I am trying to talk my husband into moving. I can probably land the job in the EU I am interviewing for, but he does NOT want to move. He doesn't want to leave the small amount of community we have. He doesn't want to overreact in fear to this administration. He doesn't want to give up our home and our lifestyle (the EU pays substantially less across many industries). Our parents are getting older and sicker; it's hard to move abroad when you know there's probably only a handful of years left with them, especially when you have children.

    I think the Internet discounts how difficult it can be to uproot.

  • You mean Russian asset Edward Snowden?

  • I am kind of disappointing this is actually from 2023 though! It needs to cum again.

  • The reason behind priests not being allowed to marry originally had nothing to do with their faith though. It's because Catholic priests were bequeathing church assets to their children when they died. The church just put a thin veneer of dogma on top of the reasoning when they used the dictate of no marriage to stop the theft.

  • Does "bugs" have a scientific meaning? I was assuming it was a layman's term that I could abuse.