

![Tomorrow_Farewell [any, they/them]](https://lazysoci.al/api/v3/image_proxy?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhexbear.net%2Fpictrs%2Fimage%2F02db5862-8341-45b0-a024-0bdea323db52.jpeg&format=webp&thumbnail=128)

Enogh

I said you don't get to decide if I need one or not
You did implicitly argue that some people should be prevented from being able to sleep, and you overtly argued that people should be prevented from being able to access healthcare.
My position is literally that everybody needs healthcare, and that everybody needs to be provided ability to access it and use it when the need arises.
Your position has been that people should be prevented from accessing healthcare because some hypothetical dumbass who doesn't exist won't need healthcare at any point in their life. Your position is to literally kill people because of this hypothetical dumbass.
Go on fighting the nazis in your head
I'm already dealing with one that wants to literally kill people by making them unable to access healthcare in this forum thread.
EDIT: Furthermore, you still have not explained why that dumbass' existence shows that there is some cost to universal healthcare. Like, what does it matter to them if everybody gets access to healthcare, instead of somebody or everybody being prevented from accessing it?

Aren't there upper boundaries on a soldier's age (per rank)? How would this even work in this case?

You say I need healthcare
And we both know that you do. Please stop pretending otherwise.
Be honest, you were most likely born with the assistance of healthcare providers, neither your parents, nor you have been entirely avoidant of interacting with them, and you aren't trying to deliberately catch any diseases to cosplay a Nurgle follower and/or to die a slow painful death.
But, ultimately, I might choose to jump off a cliff (some people do)
Going to say right away that you have no clue what you are talking about.
And in many cases, it is because people can't access healthcare (and other basic needs), or predict to be unable to.
Furthermore, relevant people do not generally opt for a slow and painful death that one would get through lack of healthcare provision, and relevant people usually would prefer the sort of healthcare that would allow them to avoid long-term (non-fatal) damage anyway.
We're a part of a world full of animals which received no "health care" for a few billion years
Firstly, you are making the assumption that non-human animals do not engage in any forms of healthcare provision for each other.
Furthermore, you obviously do not live like them, which makes this argument even more silly.
I think this is fundamentally what defines a statist: believing that you or this system knows what I and everyone need, and has the moral authority to use force to satisfy them
You have to be a child to seriously think that people do not need healthcare, such as birth assistance, disease prevention, cure, treatment, surgery, dentistry, etc.
You're so sure that you know what I need
If you want to argue that people do not need healthcare, then you are welcome to perish from preventable and curable diseases.
you won't even accept at face value when I say "nah, that's a negative for me"
Yeah, because we both know that you do use healthcare services (unless you can't afford them).
Furthermore, you alone somehow not needing to use healthcare wouldn't matter, as the vast majority of people quite obviously do need it. Lack of healthcare is literally deadly and most people do not seem to want to die (and even among those who do, they would usually rather avoid the longer and more suffering-inducing sorts of deaths that lack of healthcare ensures).
You are quite literally arguing for killing people because you, singular, have not explicitly stated that you do not want to die. This would be extremely silly if not for this position just being

It's not for you to decide how I feel about it. The downside to universal healthcare is one person saying "cuz I don't want it."
Then they don't have to use it in most cases (apart from their own birth-assistance and attempts to prevent them from dying in most cases, obviously, as well as where that would imperil others, like during an epi- or pandemic).
Where's the downside?
Or, do you believe the voices/opinions/feelings of individuals are not relevant here?
Well, I definitely do not value the opinions and voices of nazis who argue that people should be killed or tortured by preventing them from accessing healthcare because some dumbass might say 'I don't want it' (despite that dumbass using healthcare anyway).
If that's not how we determine upsides and downsides, what is?
Well, for example, you might actually provide an actual downside of universal healthcare. And no, some extremely well-off people being slightly less well-off is not a serious contender for a downside.
If peoples opinions are irrelevant, if you know what I need, why not apply your universal ideology to everything?
What 'universal ideology'?
Why not decide who i need to marry, or how many kids to have
'But what if this completely unrelated thing!?'
Because, while, in the case of healthcare, we know that everybody needs it and its lack is crucial, whom you want to marry and whether you do, and whether you want to have any or however many kids is just a matter of preference.
Sleep is essential to health, so, do I need a nap?
People should, in fact, be provided time for healthy sleep. If you want to argue that people should not be given time to sleep, you are, again, being extremely silly.
Surely sex is a human need
It isn't. People can survive without it just fine, and many don't even want to engage in it or with it in any capacity.
Either I have the freedom to opt out of a system (meaning it's not universal), or I am oppressed by it, by definition
HAHAHA.
Well, in that case, you should be 'oppressed' by being provided healthcare.
This is so childish - 'oh no, people will be oppressed if they are guaranteed healthcare!'
(Also, by what 'definition'? Provide that definition. And don't worry, I am a mathematician by background - I love working with definitions.)
every tyrannical government since the dawn of time has claimed "this is what the people need, even if they don't know. And that stuff you thought was yours, belongs to us"
Firstly, this is incredibly vague - you haven't even defined what a 'tyrannical government' is. Maybe these 'tyrannical governments' are good, actually (given what you consider to be 'tyrannical', that does appear to be the case).
Also, people like you think that colonialism, slavery, preventing people from accessing healthcare, etc. are somehow not 'tyrannical', but providing healthcare is.
Also, what are the chances that you just picked what states you count as 'tyrannical' based on the popular (and incorrect) views of average westerners?
And people justifiably fight back: "You do not own us, you do not represent us"
Most USian citizens have so far not fought against slavery, colonialism, genocides, etc., but, rather, for that. Sounds like you are full of shit, to be brief.
To summarize: your position is based on the false premise that you know or can know what everyone needs
Ah yes, the 'false premise' that basically every person needs healthcare. Why is it false, again?

No one should car. Only public transport.

Executive-ing from the bench

At the beginning of your response you're again saying it can be made to cost no money if it is public, but later you're acknowledging that of course it costs money, as does private. So I'll respond to your second point, where we're both saying "of course it costs money".
Compared to for-profit healthcare, universal healthcare does not cost money, as the relevant people are to receive payment either way.
So, are you literally comparing universal healthcare with non-provision of healthcare when you say 'it costs money'? If so, that's extremely silly.
When I first said "it costs money", I was meaning to imply "...that people don't want to spend"
This is also extremely silly.
'People' generally do not want to spend money, and in the case of universal healthcare, this would be covered by a government budget, and not by 'people' 'spending' money. This is much more of a con of for-profit healthcare.
In the case of planned economy, universal healthcare doesn't incur any costs (other than wages/salaries of healthcare workers, which are only avoidable if healthcare is not only not provided, but those people are prevented from being paid wages/salaries at all). So, we can, in fact, say that, under planned economy, universal healthcare does not cost any money.
If I don't want a service, because id rather use that money for something else, but I am forced pay for it, then to me, that would be a negative
Firstly, everybody needs healthcare. That includes you. Secondly, You do not use money on universal healthcare. You do use that money on for-profit healthcare, though.
Im guessing you don't like when gov spends money it takes from you on bombs, right?
You have a complete lack of understanding of how money works.
Money is not 'yours'. It is a documentation of debt 'owed' by a government that backs it. A government doesn't take 'your' money to make bombs in any sense other than the fact that states are interested in balancing their revenues and budgets to avoid inflation (in the case of economies where inflation is not realistically preventable).
Furthermore, considering that I do not live in NATO, I do, in fact, think that my state should make bombs to defend from NATO, and so should all states outside of NATO (including as part of NATO all the de facto USian vassals like Pissrael).
If I would rather spend my money on private healthcare, or no healthcare, but it is taken from me for the "greater good", then that's a negative to me, which is just as reasonable
It's not reasonable, as that is completely silly. You do need healthcare. In the case of universal healthcare, you are better off in terms of money expenditure on your side. For-profit healthcare always incurs much higher costs to society because of how it fundamentally works (on a for-profit basis, i.e. by siphoning other people's wealth to its owners).
Your argument for that being reasonable is just you not having thought about this.
everything has a cost and a benefit
What is the 'cost' of universal healthcare, compared to for-profit healthcare?
and if you and "everybody" can only see one or the other, consider: that's the same view someone inside an echo chamber would have
This is just a rephrased 'golden mean' fallacy. Your conclusion is not supported by anything.
If you're unaware of the other side (or can't even conceive of it!) you are at best half-informed (and zero-persuasive).
I am aware. And that is why I do say that there are no 'cons' to speak of when it comes to universal healthcare, compared to for-profit healthcare.


On a semi-related note, imagine participating in a revolution and being remembered by history by your forum handle.

The only way it can be made to not cost money is if we use slave labor
That's incorrect.
Firstly, as I have mentioned, it can be made to cost no money if it is public. More specifically, if the economy is a planned economy.
Secondly, under capitalism, slave maintenance still requires money (in the short term, it can be made otherwise, but that is not maintainable). Slaves have nothing to do with making healthcare not cost money.
If people are getting paid to deliver it, it costs money
The only way you can avoid this sort of expense is by not paying people. This is true with non-universal healthcare as well.
We can conclude that you are not comparing universal healthcare with non-universal healthcare, but universal healthcare with not only not providing healthcare at all, but also deliberately having people who are educated as medical professionals to be prevented from receiving any pay, which is extremely silly and not worth considering.
I was arguing that there are pros and cons, costs and benefits
You are yet to provide any sort of cons of universal healthcare vs non-universal healthcare.
I don't understand your question "why would it matter" or why it is incredibly stupid
You are yet to explain why it would matter (as a con) if healthcare was universal, compared to healthcare being provided for-profit.
Isn't it incredibly stupid to pretend it doesn't have a cost, that there is only upside?
You are yet to present any such costs, unless your comparison is between universal healthcare and healthcare not being provided at all.

Healthcare also costs money when it is privatised. Hell, it can be made to not cost money (including to a government) when it is public, which is not really possible under private healthcare. It only doesn't cost anything when it is not provided.
Also, in general, 'it costs money' is an incredibly stupid 'con' to bring up in the context of macroeconomics (which is the context in this case). Like, why would it matter?

Triangulation of the plane.
Why did gandhi ask britain to seek peace with nazi germany?

That is from before Robert Conquest got access to evidence. After he did get access to such, he no longer made those claims.
The consensus among experts on the matter disagrees with the popular western narrative.

Whereas Universal healthcare and LLMs have both pros and cons
What cons does universal healthcare have?

The 'belief' that Ukraine will have failed to achieve its major objectives? That belief?

It's the only way they can get higher education!

I am not sure what 'false dichotomy' you have in mind. Xiaohongshu has literally argued that the PRC attempting to 'crush' the USSR was good. Whether or not their perspective on how much of a contribution that made is not relevant to them being a national chauvinist who couldn't care less about what the world outside of the PRC is subjected to.
Here's a source, though Xiaohongshu has since deleted own comments there:
https://hexbear.net/post/3619307/5472177

How is saying that China should raise its wages so that the Chinese working class has the purchasing power to import from other Global South countries, a “chauvinist” position?
Not sure why you are asking this question, considering that I never raised issue with that.
The issue that I do have is that you quite literally supported the destruction of the USSR and anti-colonial movements of the world, with the justification being that that helped the PRC.
Also, on a minor note, do you still use the words 'liberal' and 'neoliberal' as synonyms?

If you somehow think I’m a “chauvinist” for China, you’ll see here that this is not the case
This is quite probably a reference to me calling you a national chauvinist over you supporting the destruction of the USSR and the establishment of the 'cursed marriage' between the PRC and the US, as you were evidently concerned solely with the well-being of people in the PRC, and were fine with colonial exploitation of the rest of the world.
Supporting the EU becoming this net importer so that the PRC gets to continue to enjoy the status quo would, in fact, be chauvinist of you.

What do Hexbears think of Spire RPG?
Having a bit of an obsession over it since a few days ago. This thread is a bit of an outlet for that.
Also, I am curious if anybody would be willing to run it, or if anybody has run it.
Live environment lock screen can't login as nixos
(Virtualbox VM, KDE Plasma)
Working in a Virtualbox VM using the standard KDE version of the .iso
. I get locked out due to inactivity during a live environment session. Trying to enter the empty password doesn't help me. How do I deal with this graciously?

How do I update from KDE Plasma 6.0.5 to 6.1? (Working in Virtualbox.)
Basically the title.
Also, in case somebody could answer the question: is it possible to enable the Cube effect in a Virtualbox machine? I already have kdeplasma-addons
, qt6-quick3d
and qt6-quick3dphysics
installed but I have no Cube effect option in window effects.

SDDM keyboard layout refuses to switch
Working inside a VirtualBox virtual machine. Installed Arch Linux using the Archinstall method. Chose KDE as the DE and SDDM as the greeting screen.
Managed to log in once, but after adding a language and rebooting, I didn't seem to be able to change the keyboard layout, making entering the correct password impossible. I have tried looking up how to switch the keyboard layout, but am coming up with nothing. What is the key combination to change the keyboard layout in SDDM?
Setting up a different virtual machine now.