Because I absolutely cannot stand AI narration. The robotic intonation and improper pronunciation of things grates on me. Then you get to the content. Holy shit. Nothing like taking a topic that could be explained in 5 minutes, but the AI makes the video 15 minutes by repeating things or saying it in slightly different verbiage a dozen times. I mean, whatever, watch what you wanna watch. I, personally, want to stab myself in the ear whenever some AI garbage infiltrates my Youtube stream.

I generally agree with your premise, but good luck finding anyone in America willing to work for $7.50/hour.

Nobody is "swearing" anything, for fuck's sake. It's a friggin application letter, not a manifesto.

As far as your specific question, "What do you suppose swearing you will "help dismantle structures" really means?". I suppose it's exactly like my previous comment suggested. I'm able to recognize barriers that I haven't personally faced, and help those different than I am overcome them. But I guess I can see how that might be a bad thing. (that last sentence is a lie, btw. Wrote it in jest to illustrate how silly the opposing opinion is)

Are you being intentionally obtuse, or did you really not know about a guy named Luigi killing the CEO of a major healthcare company until you read that Wiki link? There's no racist conspiracy theory. And in the context of a health insurance, and being threatened to violence, unless you've been living under a rock you know who Luigi Mangione is and what he did.

Lol. Ok, cupcake. Good talk.

I'm legitimately interested in educating myself on whatever it is that you're referring to, specifically around the left proposing a medical travel ban during the Clinton Presidency era. It's your claim, support it. If that idea had been anywhere approaching party acceptance it would have been covered by a news article. Unless you're just making shit up from some Usenet post you saw at the time?

So does WW2, but there's certainly no lack of information to be found on the topic, regardless of the search engine.

Do you have an actual quote?

Your experience pretty much mirrors mine. I'm 100% willing to accept the "downsides" of non-connected buds to not have to deal with a strap or cord touching my neck.

Sure. But really, how much demand is there for boutique medical care? And how does that overall number compare to the overall medical spend in this country? Would there be some "brain drain"? Sure. Significant enough to make socialized healthcare a nonstarter? I don't buy it.

I wasn't really paying attention to politics in the Bill Clinton era, and my google-fu wasn't up to the task of finding any additional info. Was this anything that approached a mainstream idea? Or just some fringe kooks floating ridiculous ideas?

I'd say similar, yes. But the differentiation, from my perspective, is that I don't exclusively blame Fox. CNN may have not existed in their current form prior to Fox, but they are absolutely currently equivalent in my mind.

I was too young and stupid to pay attention to the news prior to the mid-2000s. Our current dumpster-fire state of news-as-news-entertainment is the only way I've known the 24-hour TV networks.

Obviously I don't ACTUALLY support doing any such things, but it's an interesting thought experiment. I'm betting if you had the right rules that prevented those in control (you know, the people that have most of the money) from tipping the scales you'd have a lot more people in positions of power going out of their way to keep their heads down.

"Invalid" isn't a proper characterization. "Useless" is the word I'd choose. The question isn't specific enough to have any meaning beyond gauging someone's general feelings. There's nothing to take action on with that information.

I would pick two different things: 1) The mere existence of 24-hour news-entertainment channels, a-la Fox News, CNBC, etc. 2) The people that consume the product from point #1, and conflate it with "journalism".

If we're going to make our death panels for profit, may as well make it a "pay to play" game. People get nominated to "participate", then the general populace "bids" to elect the "winner". The highest bid total gets collected and added to the Medicare budget, and the "winner" most definitely loses.

I don't understand. If our medical system was transitioned to taxpayer funded what difference does it make if the wealthy decide to go outside of the system and pay for "enhanced care" out of their own pockets? They're still footing the bill for "their share" of the country's healthcare costs via taxes, they just aren't using the services.