Oh hey the website stopped reminding me about new replies. So that's great.
Anyway what I wanted to suggest to Adam is that the system can work if implemented well. If it doesn't work in Canada but works in all these European countries, maybe there's something Canada is doing wrong and not necessarily the fault of the system itself.
But hey if you don't want that, that's your choice.

Idk man, seems like kind of a bootlicky way of saying "What?"
Just kidding but really, I usually apologize for my shit hearing and ask them to repeat. The whole "valuing their input"... idk I guess it depends on the context but it just rubs me the wrong way. But hey if it works for you, that's pretty cool.

Oh wow, that sounds great!
...wait a minute........

I agree with bluelagoon's original assertion. Entertainment is great for unwinding but it's important not to let it consume your life. Especially nowadays when we're surrounded by distractions at every step. Imo more meaningful activities, especially creative endeavors or any self-improvement/learning, feel more fulfilling in the long run because you can track the progress over time. I've been there, lost a few months of my life just wandering around the apartment, playing video games and watching TV or YouTube, but tbh I was heavily burnt out/depressed at the time so that might influence my perception. You do you, don't let a rando like me tell you how to live your life. I'm just saying that making entertainment the *most important thing* will start feeling really empty after a while.

@adam44 Oh also, for the long waiting times argument, over here if you need a prescription drug and can't make it to the doctor's office because your schedules don't line up or you're in quarantine or whichever reason, you can just call the office and if the nurse/doctor knows you take that drug and aren't bullshitting, they'll send you a digital prescription with a QR code by text message. So that's pretty neat.

@adam44 It's not "proven" by Canada. Canada is one example out of many. Over here in Europe, things work a lot better than you describe. In my country we have a health insurance system that is paid for either by your employer or by the state if you're a kid/student/unemployed. And the insurance companies are set up so that they don't try to scam you every time, they have to pay unless it's an elective procedure like plastic surgery. Waiting times exist, but the longest I've ever waited was three months for a totally non threatening thing, and it was only this long because the office had to temporarily close because of covid (for the record I went to an allergologist checkup to find out if I'm allergic to pets). For usual checkups or procedures it's like two weeks tops. And in an emergency, zero waiting time. In such systems, healthcare is distributed on the basis of need. In the US, it's distributed based on the size of your wallet. The former makes a lot more sense to me.

PS sorry for the semicolons. The website kept insisting there's a link in the comment and wouldn't let me post it otherwise.

@famousone I disagree with the assertion that having healthcare means the state not trusting people to look after themselves; A large part of one's health is the individual's responsibility; But there are many things that one can't influence; Genetic disorders, accidents, rare diseases etc; And having to shill out tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars because you happen to be unlucky enough to catch a disease or be in an accident doesn't seem logical to me; A stroke of bad luck can send you into bankruptcy; Also, your healthcare is ridiculously expensive; Big pharma's ripping you off and you'd rather defend it than involve the state even a little bit; Seriously, look at the price comparisons with the rest of the world;
As for the "don't comment on American things if you don't understand them" - I only said what I said because making a distinction between "government" and "states", an administrative unit of government, is illogical; I hoped you'd explain tbh, but alright

How does healthcare lead into surveillance? Historically or realistically?
Um, yeah, more freedom for administrative units to administrate/legislate themselves. Pretty much what I said.
I don't get this dichotomy between "states" and "government". States are still part of government, just smaller administrative units of it. I guess it's an American thing.
Yeah, as I said in a previous comment. When the government who's meant to protect you from a monopoly is in cahoots with the monopoly, it's time to kick the fuckers out. But unlike the leadership of a company which you as a citizen have no control over, you can elect different people to the government, ones that aren't bought by the corporation.

You're thinking in very binary terms. Just because I said I want people to have affordable healthcare doesn't mean I want a surveillance state, and I wouldn't vote for someone who'd establish it. Those are separate issues. I know that within US politics it's hard not to think in binaries, considering your political system. But over here in our multiparty system I have options that agree with me on both terms. These two issues don't necessarily have to be linked, unless you only have two parties to choose from and accepting one means having to accept the other.
Decentralization just means more freedom for administrative units, so I don't see how what I said contradicts my support of it. You can have a government funded but state administrated healthcare, for instance.
Similarly, saying the government should intervene in certain things, like anti-monopoly protection or worker rights, doesn't mean wanting a big government overall, ie. I don't want it to intervene in other things.

As for my view of the government, I honestly just want people to have a more fair chance at succeeding by making stuff like education and healthcare less of a financial burden on the individual, and for the government to make sure law is upheld. Ideally, the government, private interests and citizens should work as checks on each other. But otherwise I'm not pro huge government and I'm generally more in favor of decentralization. For instance in terms of security and privacy, the government has no right to get its nose into anyone's business. And neither do companies, and speaking of things like digital privacy, lately I've been a lot more distrustful towards the latter. Idk if you've been following this topic at all and I don't want to go on a rant so all I'm gonna say is, I keep social media contact minimal and don't use anything made by Facebook, or anything that Chinese companies have larger shares in (like Discord).

Idk man I feel like having a system where the rise of such assholes is prevented would be more reliable than expecting some citizen to shoot him in the head, should the need arise.
As to the shithole I'm from, in terms of potentially overthrowing the government, we have what's in my opinion pretty good gun laws, not too restrictive but you have to pass some tests to show that you're not a lunatic and know how to handle a gun, as well as a multiparty system. Which has its pros and cons, on the one hand you have more choices than huge douche or turd sandwich, on the other hand the coalitions can get pretty funky. But overall it's less restrictive than a two party system (yes yes I know you also have third parties but y'know, I'm talking what's their effective power in the government), in the sense that anyone can just create a party and it can in a few cycles become powerful if not the leading party, provided it has popular support.

Not to mention all the knowledge that'd be lost because schools would become nothing but training centres for jobs.
I'm not a fan of the government, obviously. But how else do we keep unregulated capitalism from devolving into practically feudalism?

But that's what I'm trying to tell you here, you leave unregulated capitalism run for long enough and it will become gulags and dictators, because there will be no checks on corporate power! I absolutely support your preference, I want freedom too. But leaving capitalism unregulated would result in less freedom because corporations would become practically dictatorships over time. Look at Amazon for Christ's sake! You think Bezos wouldn't become a dictator if he had no laws to bind him? He bends and twists laws even now, doing everything he can just so he doesn't have to treat his employees like people because he'd lose a bit of profit. As for people giving corporations only as much free rein as they are willing – under capitalism, you effectively vote with your wallet. What happens when a company becomes a monopoly and there are goods you can't get anywhere else? Sounds like it'd be pretty close to a dictatorship.

So it's bad to entrust power to the government because it's full of liars and thieves but it's fine to give corporations (which are chock full of liars and thieves) practically free rein, especially when their motivations are unabashedly selfish, which itself stems from capitalist ideology? Do you really not see how this could (and y'know, has and does) turn sour?

Communism is when you steal the fruits of an entrepreneur's labor (who, in turn, totally didn't steal them from his workers, nuh uh). The more you steal, the communister it is. - Karl Marx

Not spending trillions on useless wars and investing that money into taxpayer funded education and healthcare would probably be enough for the start. Wouldn't even be necessary to raise taxes. Look at how we're doing it over here in Europe. Even right wing politicians here wouldn't ever suggest getting rid of education and healthcare just to fuel that money into bombing Afghani villages and killing brown kids. It's common sense, really.
Alternatively, you could raise FDR from the dead and let him have a go at dealing with the exploitative megacorps. So both options are about equally likely to happen.

What a coincidence, if we lived 85 years ago in Germany we also would be branded with a red triangle, lol.
Don't worry though, there are plenty of reasonable people on this website, they just don't tend to gank people with downvotes.

Haha thanks, I have my moments. Let's redistribute the thumbs, comrade!

Ah, so we're at *that* part of the conversation already, the part where my opinions have created all of the problems I'm talking about solving. Ya got me, I'm actually three Stalins in a trench coat.
As for someone stealing the fruit of someone else's labor, I believe Karl Marx had something to say about that, lol.
As a parting note, here's a study that you may be interested in reading, about the US being effectively an oligarchy rather than a meritocracy. doi. org/ 10.1017/ S1537592714001595

Conceptually speaking, capitalism deepens differences while communism flattens them. And I believe both are necessary for a functioning society. On an individual level, you should be entitled to the fruits of your labor. If you founded a successful business, you deserve it! And if someone was lazy and didn't work hard, too bad for them. The logic of meritocracy works here. Simple cause and effect, right? But if it then means that that person's child won't be able to get an education or hell, even proper healthcare, that's when I have an issue with it. I think we should provide anyone with enough opportunities on an individual level (and yes, unfortunately it seems at this point we have to do it through the government), not have rich families have many times more opportunities than poor. Because then it's not about individual responsibility anymore but about being lucky enough to be born into a family with successful and wealthy ancestors.