Are you a medical professional? If not, you present an anecdote which is unfortunately common. But, there are also anecdotes where medicines work as prescribed. Most of us typing here and elsewhere are playing proctologist with our replies. Hopefully, they’re at least drawn from our experience rather than just from a belief system.
Little choice when you can't depend on "former mechanisms" to secure one's position. In the 70's, the Bundeswehr had a fair number of troops of (considered) high effectiveness. In the past, various forms of Germany have had all sorts of troops of varying effectiveness. NATO was supposed "to keep the US in, the Russians out and the Germans down" (Ismay). Taken away, it's up to European countries to remember how to defend themselves and (hopefully) manage the result.
The end result is still higher prices for the end-consumer... If the local businesses were unable to compete with a foreign supplier w/o the tariff, they'll be unable to do it with the tariff. So the consumer will end up paying less than (foreign + tariff) but higher than (foreign).
Yes, and the gamble is that the positives from boosting domestic industry will outweigh the negatives from higher prices. The only people confused about this are NPR-constructed strawmen.
Except Trump himself repeatedly claimed that the exporting country is paying the tariffs and that the US is earning billions of dollars. And many of his followers seem to believe this.
There is no domestic industry, it all moved overseas, and the existential risk to cessation of fiscally enabling tariffs within 4 years (assuming set and forget; note, business's ideal outcome), means most of the money will just find something else to chase for modest returns for 4 more years. Nevermind everything else going on poisoning goodwill toward the U.S. currently. The absolute, unmitigated stupidity on display currently is nothing less than I expected from a population without a Great Depression under their belt. We truly, truly, are too dumb as a society to have learned and internalized a goddamn thing.
Because a corporation doesn't have trading partners, it has a mission to sell to customers. If customers are disproportionately in the US, which happens quite often, then you can entirely rationally decide that pissing them off with a big price hike is worse for the bottom line than pissing everyone off a little.
Why would they be pissed off at the business for not absorbing the tariff? The business didn't arbitrarily enact them, Donald Trump and ipso facto his supports did.
If they’re us-resident there should be no problem, assuming the person travels on the us passport outside of Canada. They’d have to travel with two passports going to Canada, as each country expects to see their passport upon entry. Canada doesn’t tax non residents like the us so there’s no tax changes without moving into Canada, and there’s currently a tax treaty for that.
Because the docs knew that far too many people would rather face risk to avoid doing what they’re told to do. And far too many people just don’t give a shit about other people. The npc’s aren’t real or pertinent.
- Reduced demand on emergency rooms and other limited medical resources
- Decreased insurance claims, which are paid for by other patients in the form of premium increases
- Prevented burdens on taxpayers from illness or premature deaths of workers (welfare payments, orphanned children, lawsuits, etc.)
No one in a developed, Western society is an island. They borrow from society in childhood and pay society back as an adult. And they use common resources like drugs, hospitals, and (in the case of insurance) risk.
If we made everyone over 300lbs lose 100lbs, we’d also see those benefits.
Same if we limited the amount of cigarettes or alcohol people purchased.
Certainly the same if we enforced our drug laws around things like fentanyl (although ODing in a Waffle House parking lot at 32 might actually save the taxpayer some money in the long run).
> If we made everyone over 300lbs lose 100lbs, we’d also see those benefits.
> Same if we limited the amount of cigarettes or alcohol people purchased.
We already attempt to do these things through public health campaigns and laws against the purchase of cigarettes/alcohol by minors.
You're actually making my point for me, because public interventions to reduce smoking have saved tens of millions of lives and many billions of dollars of taxpayer money.
> Certainly the same if we enforced our drug laws around things like fentanyl (although ODing in a Waffle House parking lot at 32 might actually save the taxpayer some money in the long run).
In what universe is the US not trying to enforce laws around fentanyl?
Sure, and I'm saying that under that same justification, we should extend the same requirements to these other public health crises that President Biden tried to create for COVID vaccination.
Private sector business with 100 more employees? Nobody is allowed to smoke on premises because of the risk of second hand smoke, just like the OSHA justification for vaccination requirements.
>In what universe is the US not trying to enforce laws around fentanyl?
Oregon passed Measure 110, decriminalizing heroin, methamphetamine, and fentanyl, only backtracking because the policy was so bad. California has Prop 47, knocking possession down to misdemeanors on par with jaywalking. New York has safe injection sites, and I'm going to guess this isn't for safe injection of insulin.
Your point being ? That we should not do anything unless we do everything with no exception (that's an absurd way to view things and not a counter argument whatsoever), or that those things should be done (which is probably true but doesn't change his point at all) ?
Funny how bodily autonomy is all that important when it comes to right wing fear of vaccines, but completely irrelevant when it comes to abortions, womens rights in general, sexual abuse, trans rights and generally rights of anyone disliked by this admin.
> any vaccine that predominately helps old people actually increases costs to society in the long run
I think that big difference between the political sides is that one of them does not see "kill all old people" as ethical strategy.
> ok for the government to take away peoples bodily autonomy, as long as it benefits the economy
No. That's a straw man and you know it. I'm against forced vaccinations. No one in the US was forced to be vaccinated.
However, most of the people against vaccination in the US are against abortion rights, so how could this debate really be about bodily autonomy? Forced birth is actually forced by the government, unlike vaccination programs. There is no situation where you could be put in jail for refusing a vaccine.
> No one in a developed, Western society is an island
And you know the anti-vaxxers know this because they also intersect heavily with the set who get very mad/judgemental about unemployed people or about people who don't eat well and exercise.
The best way to keep immunocompromised and people who literally can’t take vaccines safe is by having so much herd immunity that the likelihood they a virulent load of a virus cannot get to those people.
A great way to get herd immunity is through mass vaccination.
Except herd immunity for COVID isn’t feasible or even possible. It mutates too much, the vaccines don’t confer effective enough immunity, etc.
It’s unfortunate, but it’s the reality of this disease. I’m not immunocompromised, but I still modify my behavior to try and protect myself: mask on planes, avoid certain situations, etc.
reply