AAA: Ask America Anything

[Spartan26]

Another question that was in the back of my mind (mostly for the U.S., but also for Canada or whatever country really): if you had to ask a foreigner a question to figure out whether or not they were born and raised in your country, what would it be? (Not a shibboleth ... not pronunciation based.)

I don't know if there's a foolproof test. Life can be so segmented that people who know music might not know sports. There are gamers who wouldn't know some of the most basic pop culture references. I wonder if you couldn't ask people to rank the holidays, if that wouldn't give them away? I mean, official and unofficial. Or like ask them what do they do for certain holidays that wouldn't give it away?

I will figure out someone didn't grow up here when they say things like about world history that I know they didn't grow up here. Or, if I drop some commercial reference or song reference and they don't get it I'll know something's up.

Will the school shooting continue at the same rate for the foreseeable future?
Or will something substantial change?

Because there's no exact science to the occurrences or direct causes to set them off, it's hard to see if they'll continue at their current rate. There could be something more appealing on the horizon. Like, arsonists who set things ablaze due to them being pyros has gone down over the years. Has there been any sort of law or new design in buildings? Not necessarily, I think it just became passe. Maybe it has something to due with more security cameras out everywhere? It could just be that when the more notorious, oneupmanship stunts of the late 80s and early to mid 90s happened, there were not forums for angry and destructive people to vent? There were a lot of arson cases in the late 00s but many were due to people getting upsidedown on mortgage payments following the collapse of the housing bubble. Does the motivation of setting fires matter to insurance companies or fire depts? Prolly not, but perhaps the gen public is more at ease when it's just the laid off marketing rep setting his 4 bdrm albatross ablaze, rather than some psycho trying to burn down the Hoboken Ramada Inn.

People are still going to shoot up places. If the targets will be schools or offices or amusement parks or car dealerships remains to be seen. There likely won't be any significant legislation passed until after the midterm elections come November. It'd prolly take another 2 grotesques events before then to change that. I think the best that could be hoped for would be another ban on military grade assault weapons. Though I'd imagine there'd be so many loopholes to that that it might not be that effective in even slowing the rate of new weapons from being manufactured and sold. Or at least prolly not quickly. It prolly spur a huge influx of new sales before the deadline.

It really takes court cases to make things change. Even then, it may take more than one. One thing that's been really significant this past year has been NIL in college athletics. This didn't happen overnight. So, if you didn't know college athletes are not allow to be paid in the US. There are really only 2 revenue sports in college athletics, mens basketball and football. Meaning, they're the ones who make money. They're like studio tentpole movies that fund everything else. Student athletes could get scholarships but that's it. Boosters would try to pay athletes to play at their school. Major scandals involving shoe companies, local businesses, wealthy donners and major college programs have happened over the years. Things like students getting use of a car, tattoos, meals at restaurants have taken out some of the biggest names in college sports and not necessarily cash payments. Or, it could be getting someone's mom or uncle a job could cause a school to be sanctioned and the young athlete to be scorned or lose eligibility. Even though coaches can make $5-$10 mill a year, networks pay $11 Billion with a B for rights, students on the court or field could not be paid.

In 2009, Ed O'Bannon, a star player on UCLA's 1995 championship basketball team sued the NCAA for prohibiting college athletes from cashing in on their Name, Image or Likeness. He said it's unfair that the schools can sell his jersey, still, and receive the money but even with him being out of college and no longer eligible to play, he couldn't receive any payment. In 2014, the courts agreed. It's hard to tell due to covid, but it's only really been since the last year or so that college athletes, like a gymnast who has her routine go viral or brash wide receiver could make money off of merch or NFTs or autographs at a trade show, could really cash in on their NIL for pay. It's really becoming the wild west. Students are able to enter the transfer portal and switch schools, they can set up fans only sites, they can hire reps to boost their image. None of this was allowed previously. There's still not pay for play but that's likely coming.

What we're starting to see now is parents being arrested for their kid's behavior. It's been hard to sue gunmakers for liability cuz the guns, for one thing, have worked according to design. I'd suspect that just like drunk driving victims or relatives of drunk driving victims suing bars for continuing to serve someone clearly intoxicated, a suit is going to go against WalMart or some other retailer that's going to claim the retailer didn't do enough to prevent the sale of the gun to someone clearly unstable. Apparently there was one gun retailer in Colorado who refused to sell a gun to the guy who shot up the theater in Aurora during the Dark Knight Rises showing. If a cancer-causing liability verdict ever comes down against retailer, it could cause other retailers to stop selling out of fear the next bankrupting verdict could go against them. Or, it could cause retailers to carry some kind of liability insurance or assault weapon holders need liability insurance that would be too costly to hold that would cause people to seek out other type of guns.

All merely speculations but that's my guess to what could get things to change. Could those things happen in the next couple of years? Maybe, but I don't think there's anything in the pipeline that's not going to go for the gun manufacturer. I think it might first take a criminal conviction, which could happen with a shooting that took place last year in Michigan, before a civil case could be fought and won. I'd expect it'd be 2-3 years before the criminal case to be resolved. And if a civil trial proceeds from that, expect all the delays in the world. And to get the verdict that'd change the scope of the industry...could it be under 8-10 years? Unlikely. But, again, I don't know what's out there. I didn't know people were still trying to fight mask mandates in the courts when one judge sorta reversed everything. I thought it was going to be a natural easing of things as we approached this summer but no, just one day in early spring a judge says, nope, you don't gotta and so they're gone.

[Light Leak]

On more pressing topics though, is it true that y'all in North America don't own kettles? And that your electricity is too weak for kettles? Like how do you heat water? In the microwave? On the stove? Or do y'all have kettles and I've just been tiddlywinked.

I have an electric kettle. I use it every day and have never had a problem with electricity.

We had a regular kettle that you heat up on the stove when I was a kid, but I rarely used that one. It seemed like too much effort and it was easier to just drink something cold. Also, one time when I did use it I forgot to turn the stove off and burned a hole in the bottom of my mom's favorite kettle and got in a ton of trouble. My mom just heats her water up in the microwave now.

[HighlyIrregular II]

I once forgot to turn off the stove and I burned the stain off of the copper bottom of the pot. It looked great!

[Yesterday]

I once forgot to turn off the stove and I burned the stain off of the copper bottom of the pot. It looked great!

I, me me. sh'up!

[jyng1]

It's an interesting question...

https://www.tiktok.com/@lilicurrie/vide ... 2012828971

[Spartan26]

It's an interesting question...

https://www.tiktok.com/@lilicurrie/vide ... 2012828971

I feel like there's two answers to that question, 1. whether it's reasonable, given the time period, general state of understanding, collective standing of the people at that time and 2. the legal authority.

By means of point 2, it is expedient to run everything through the constitution, as this is baseline for how everything was set up and so there needs to be some standard baring practice for how things get done or changed. This prevents random changes without going through proper channels.

Means #1 do need to be considered and are considered in interpreting what is and isn't legal or allowed in the Constitution. Albeit, people will use the baseline #2 to justify whatever they want and use it as a way to skirt more prevalent arguments that would be a basis to rule in favor or overturn items that should otherwise be brought under consideration, given the change of era and outlook of the people.

Somewhat of an example, there's been the relatively recent argument is healthcare a right or privilege? Never in my life would I have thought to frame it as such. Yes, in my own terms, I'd say it's privilege to live in a country where there is an plethora of good doctors and quality healthcare facilities. But otherwise exchange the word blessing instead of privilege. From my last reading and sketchy memory of the constitution, I don't know if I'd be able to point to the part that says healthcare is a right. I'd say it'd be grossly immoral for people to deny others proper healthcare. Now, if you're in say a horrible car accident and you're brought in an ambulance to a hospital, for the most part, they're required to treat you. In other situations, they can refuse care if you don't have insurance or the means to pay. People choose not to go for medical care because they don't have insurance. Decisions that result in worse health conditions, including death.

Determining whether it's a right or privilege could change responsibility for who pays and perhaps mandate care. Do I believe everyone should get free healthcare? No. Should people be required to report to a doctor once a year and meet minimum levels of health or be held criminally responsible for smoking or eating too much junk food or should they continued to be given coverage if they do things that known to say cause cancer or drastically increase heart disease? I'd say no, go ahead and boot them. So, again, on the basis of law and precedent, I'd say (and I really could be wrong about this, (meaning, I may review the Constitution and change my mind) but I'd be incline to believe that healthcare is not a right as defined by the C. But to call it a privilege and whereby maintain the somewhat poor overall state of access to healthcare that a country of such resources is not just grossly immoral but borderline criminal. Mandatory healthcare is an answer, maybe not the best, but it's something. Though, it's only address a part of the multi-tiered equation.

I don't know how realistically or logistically responsible it is to classify healthcare as either a right or privilege but I think things can be determined and addressed without such a requirement. So, like in something regarding powerball or other forms of interstate gambling, it's not something that's deemed necessary to classify or addressed under the Constitution, so, going back to the lady's original question, no, not everything has to be passed through the ancient filter, but I'd say the ancient filter process does need to remain in tact.

[Utisz]

Do I believe everyone should get free healthcare? No. Should people be required to report to a doctor once a year and meet minimum levels of health or be held criminally responsible for smoking or eating too much junk food or should they continued to be given coverage if they do things that known to say cause cancer or drastically increase heart disease? I'd say no, go ahead and boot them. So, again, on the basis of law and precedent, I'd say (and I really could be wrong about this, (meaning, I may review the Constitution and change my mind) but I'd be incline to believe that healthcare is not a right as defined by the C. But to call it a privilege and whereby maintain the somewhat poor overall state of access to healthcare that a country of such resources is not just grossly immoral but borderline criminal. Mandatory healthcare is an answer, maybe not the best, but it's something. Though, it's only address a part of the multi-tiered equation.

I don't know how realistically or logistically responsible it is to classify healthcare as either a right or privilege but I think things can be determined and addressed without such a requirement. So, like in something regarding powerball or other forms of interstate gambling, it's not something that's deemed necessary to classify or addressed under the Constitution, so, going back to the lady's original question, no, not everything has to be passed through the ancient filter, but I'd say the ancient filter process does need to remain in tact.

I think this is also an invented reality, and a simplification.

Forget about paper with ex-presidents printed on it. Healthcare, in terms of the actual craft, is just a more complicated form of plumbing, or a car mechanic. But in terms of demand, there is no comparison. How much will you pay to fix your car versus to survive? Capitalism survives on supply vs. demand, not on cost. Demand in the case of healthcare is life-or-death, and supply is restricted by norms and society. Nobody wants to go to a shit doctor. They need twenty years of education and two extra letters before their names before anyone would approach them. It's regulated up the wazoo.

The most costly aspect, for most treatments, is that it involves some time from a human who is well-versed in the craft, and a bed in a very expensive, specialised hotel. Is a doctor more "special" than a mechanic or a hairdresser? I think yes, but not by a multiple of more than 10, in terms of percentile, and certainly not times 10,000. It fits the distribution of what society can provide. Is the equipment that a doctor needs to provide good healthcare much more expensive than a car mechanic? Yes, but not by a multiple of more than 10, in terms of percentile, and certainly not times 10,000.

Is insulin a rare product, or difficult to produce? What's a fair price for it? Should it be sold at cost, or based on what people who need it to survive would pay?

The problem with the whole healthcare debate is that in the U.S., capitalism wants its pound of flesh. It can profit off what people will pay for themselves and their family to survive.

And yet the debate is oft turned into "I don't want to pay for someone else's healthcare". "I don't want to socialise healthcare costs?" Then what is private insurance? How is It not socialised healthcare just with a corporate cunt in the middle fattening himself off people trying to survive?

Is that cunt offering efficiency or better healthcare? Based on what I've seen, fuck no. He's only interested in profit, not your health. You end up in the wrong hospital, or with the wrong doctor, or the wrong condition, then you're fucked, because the bottom line is not your survival, but the profit of the private insurance company.

I guess that folk from the U.S. are in favour of private insurance because they can afford it, and it has served them well, and the employer offers it, and it saves lives. But the cost is high for working/middle class, who need to take shitty jobs just to survive. And the whole thing is a capitalist fairy tale. A doctor cuts you with a knife for 20 minutes and it costs 20 grand? The fuck it does. If you can you'll pay 20 grand all the same, even if it costs 20 cents, because it's the only way you'll survive.

There is genuine scarcity in healthcare at times, and that is a more complex issue, but doctors are not a scarce resource, nor are beds, nor is insulin.

[jyng1]

The Tik Tok was about abortion rights, but interesting how comments rapidly morphed into healthcare rights. Are there only two areas where the U.S. deviates markedly from other western democracies? Guns and healthcare?

[HighlyIrregular II]

The Tik Tok was about abortion rights, but interesting how comments rapidly morphed into healthcare rights. Are there only two areas where the U.S. deviates markedly from other western democracies? Guns and healthcare?

I have too little interest in other western democracies to know anything about them, which may be another way we deviate from them.

[puerile_polyp]

USA spends more on public healthcare, per capita, than anyone else, last I checked. It's just that the healthcare is so much more expensive that it doesn't go nearly as far and leaves a lot more to be desired as a result. If they could lower the costs they could cover a lot more people and they'd look more like Australia or Germany in this respect.

There are a bunch of reasons why it costs so much more here, but the biggest imo is the entrenched power of the healthcare lobbying industry who can write the laws for their own benefits. I think healthcare lobbying reform might be the biggest overlooked tool they could use to address this.



The biggest misconception about the constitution today is that it gives us a list of rights that are protected by the government. It was never supposed to be that, it was always supposed to be a list of powers granted by the people to government. Rights are natural and government can only infringe on them with our consent. This is probably the most important idea to come from our founding fathers and it's been completely eroded over hundreds of years and massive amounts of bad judicial precedent.

No mainstream politicians are actually arguing from a position of originalism because that would mean declaring huge portions of federal code unconstitutional, getting rid of the federal reserve and millions of other federal employees as entire agencies would be disbanded, and giving back huge amounts of power to the states. It would be extremely disruptive at this point.

A second constitutional convention could maybe do a lot of good.