Hot, Bad & Unpopular Takes

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

UEFA should implement a full Super League, with pro-rel to/from the national leagues.

[Zinneke]

UEFA should implement a full Super League, with pro-rel to/from the national leagues.

This fundementally misunderstands the role of amateur and semi-professional football in European public life. Its way more than just a game for bar stoolers in the USA.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

UEFA should implement a full Super League, with pro-rel to/from the national leagues.

This fundementally misunderstands the role of amateur and semi-professional football in European public life. Its way more than just a game for bar stoolers in the USA.

Which is not going to keep this idea from cropping up every time the UCL tv contracts are up for renewal :-)

I honestly think it's a terrible idea, but I can see two cogent arguments:
1. You have all the best players in the world facing one another at least twice a season (imagine if LeBron and Steph Curry NEVER played one another)
2. Removing Bayern, Barca, Real Madrid, Juve, and PSG from national league play makes Bundesliga, La Liga, Serie A, and Ligue 1 more competitive and exciting.

But yeah, it would be a travesty for every other reason.

[Santander]

Serie A is the only soccer league worth watching.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Serie A is the only soccer league worth watching.

Is it the constant diving or the bus parking?

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Blade Runner is a slow, boring, dreary movie in which nothing happens.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Serie A is the only soccer league worth watching.

The correct opinion. BPL is a meh second.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

I love the idea of redecorating air force one.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Universal Basic Income is both sad and inevitable.

[Virginiá]

Universal Basic Income is both sad and inevitable.

I used to think that a long time ago, but I've since significantly warmed up to the idea that if society wants to be more than a greedy infection of planet Earth, then a post-scarcity human civilization would eventually lead to a scenario where people's needs are taken care of because most of their work has been automated by more efficient AIs/robots. Our solar system has enough resources to sustain our every need for arguably millions of years, at which point we'll either have spread out into the cosmos or died off for any number of reasons.

I would hope that society, in this situation, evolves so that people find a purpose in more than just menial slave labor for faceless multinational corporations. Humanity has too much potential to be consigned to such a sad existence.

[they don't love you like i love you]

The European Union would be justified in placing sanctions on the United Kingdom.

[DC Al Fine]

Most American non-poor progressives have seriously underestimated the drawbacks of a Canadian style healthcare system and would complain quite a bit about the taxes they pay and quality of care received if they actually had to participate in our system.

I say this as a single payer supporter.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Most American non-poor progressives have seriously underestimated the drawbacks of a Canadian style healthcare system and would complain quite a bit about the taxes they pay and quality of care received if they actually had to participate in our system.

I say this as a single payer supporter.

The sell for Americans should be "bigger paycheck, much less aggravation." The problem won't be the cost. The problem will be when they find out they still have to navigate claims and haggle over co-pays, reasonable charges from providers, and what is and isn't covered, just like in private healthcare.

"I thought we got free care! Why do I have to pay to see the doc about my sniffle? Why are they charging me $1000 for my emergency room visit for a bruised knee?"

I'm also a supporter of single payer, but Americans already don't understand healthcare, and that's not going help.

[DC Al Fine]

Most American non-poor progressives have seriously underestimated the drawbacks of a Canadian style healthcare system and would complain quite a bit about the taxes they pay and quality of care received if they actually had to participate in our system.

I say this as a single payer supporter.

The sell for Americans should be "bigger paycheck, much less aggravation." The problem won't be the cost. The problem will be when they find out they still have to navigate claims and haggle over co-pays, reasonable charges from providers, and what is and isn't covered, just like in private healthcare.

"I thought we got free care! Why do I have to pay to see the doc about my sniffle? Why are they charging me $1000 for my emergency room visit for a bruised knee?"

I'm also a supporter of single payer, but Americans already don't understand healthcare, and that's not going help.

I was thinking stuff like spped of delivery. The average wait time for a knee replacement is two years in my province. Anyone with money goes to America to get it done. I waited 6 months to see a specialist. Very long waits in the ER. Etc etc.

[DC Al Fine]

Universal free post-secondary is a terrible idea which takes from the poor and gives to the upper middle class and rich. It's a terribly regressive scheme and yet lefties defend it tenaciously.

[here2view]

Tuition free college is one of the worst ideas I have ever heard of.

[KingSweden]

Universal free post-secondary is a terrible idea which takes from the poor and gives to the upper middle class and rich. It's a terribly regressive scheme and yet lefties defend it tenaciously.

This is a good take,
Not a bad one.

[DC Al Fine]

Universal free post-secondary is a terrible idea which takes from the poor and gives to the upper middle class and rich. It's a terribly regressive scheme and yet lefties defend it tenaciously.

This is a good take,
Not a bad one.

It's unpopular though. That's why it's on the thread.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Most American non-poor progressives have seriously underestimated the drawbacks of a Canadian style healthcare system and would complain quite a bit about the taxes they pay and quality of care received if they actually had to participate in our system.

I say this as a single payer supporter.

The sell for Americans should be "bigger paycheck, much less aggravation." The problem won't be the cost. The problem will be when they find out they still have to navigate claims and haggle over co-pays, reasonable charges from providers, and what is and isn't covered, just like in private healthcare.

"I thought we got free care! Why do I have to pay to see the doc about my sniffle? Why are they charging me $1000 for my emergency room visit for a bruised knee?"

I'm also a supporter of single payer, but Americans already don't understand healthcare, and that's not going help.

I was thinking stuff like spped of delivery. The average wait time for a knee replacement is two years in my province. Anyone with money goes to America to get it done. I waited 6 months to see a specialist. Very long waits in the ER. Etc etc.

Do wait times vary by province or is this the case nationwide?  The most common retort I've seen to the wait times argument is that they are only as long as they are because Canada's healthcare system is underfunded.

I support "Medicare for All" in some form, but Canada's model would be extremely difficult to emulate in the United States.  Britain has comparatively shorter wait times but is chronically underfunded and Germany has lower cost-based access barriers.  I tend to prefer multi-payer over single-payer because systems that use the former tend to be more efficient.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Universal free post-secondary is a terrible idea which takes from the poor and gives to the upper middle class and rich. It's a terribly regressive scheme and yet lefties defend it tenaciously.

This is a good take,
Not a bad one.

It's unpopular though. That's why it's on the thread.

Tuition should be on a sliding scale, and four years of college for one middle-income family should cost as much as an economy car, not as much as a HOUSE. But, absolutely, the idea that a household making $180k/year should be able to send three kids to college for nothing is ludicrous.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Most American non-poor progressives have seriously underestimated the drawbacks of a Canadian style healthcare system and would complain quite a bit about the taxes they pay and quality of care received if they actually had to participate in our system.

I say this as a single payer supporter.

The sell for Americans should be "bigger paycheck, much less aggravation." The problem won't be the cost. The problem will be when they find out they still have to navigate claims and haggle over co-pays, reasonable charges from providers, and what is and isn't covered, just like in private healthcare.

"I thought we got free care! Why do I have to pay to see the doc about my sniffle? Why are they charging me $1000 for my emergency room visit for a bruised knee?"

I'm also a supporter of single payer, but Americans already don't understand healthcare, and that's not going help.

I was thinking stuff like spped of delivery. The average wait time for a knee replacement is two years in my province. Anyone with money goes to America to get it done. I waited 6 months to see a specialist. Very long waits in the ER. Etc etc.

The United States as a collective whole would have much better bargaining power, just as a result of being ten times the size. Some of the forces that result in supply issues wouldn't be as much of a problem in the United states. And ER waits are mitigated by that $1000 charge I speak of. You come to the ER and it's not an emergency, expect to pay out the nose.

The biggest problem I see with single payer in the United States is, exactly what do you do with the private insurance industry that suddenly becomes obsolete? Involve them as a part of a scheme to patch together universal coverage? We tried that: it was called "Obamacare."

Maybe we do Obamacare on steroids, where there is a basic public option paid through taxes, but private insurance is a way to get a higher standard of care? Republicans should like that, because it "rewards" "merit" and gives doctors "freedom."

[they don't love you like i love you]

Most American non-poor progressives have seriously underestimated the drawbacks of a Canadian style healthcare system and would complain quite a bit about the taxes they pay and quality of care received if they actually had to participate in our system.

I say this as a single payer supporter.

The sell for Americans should be "bigger paycheck, much less aggravation." The problem won't be the cost. The problem will be when they find out they still have to navigate claims and haggle over co-pays, reasonable charges from providers, and what is and isn't covered, just like in private healthcare.

"I thought we got free care! Why do I have to pay to see the doc about my sniffle? Why are they charging me $1000 for my emergency room visit for a bruised knee?"

I'm also a supporter of single payer, but Americans already don't understand healthcare, and that's not going help.

I was thinking stuff like spped of delivery. The average wait time for a knee replacement is two years in my province. Anyone with money goes to America to get it done. I waited 6 months to see a specialist. Very long waits in the ER. Etc etc.

The United States as a collective whole would have much better bargaining power, just as a result of being ten times the size. Some of the forces that result in supply issues wouldn't be as much of a problem in the United states. And ER waits are mitigated by that $1000 charge I speak of. You come to the ER and it's not an emergency, expect to pay out the nose.

The biggest problem I see with single payer in the United States is, exactly what do you do with the private insurance industry that suddenly becomes obsolete? Involve them as a part of a scheme to patch together universal coverage? We tried that: it was called "Obamacare."

Maybe we do Obamacare on steroids, where there is a basic public option paid through taxes, but private insurance is a way to get a higher standard of care? Republicans should like that, because it "rewards" "merit" and gives doctors "freedom."

A system like Germany and the Netherlands would resolve that.

[Torrain]

The euro was a fundamentally flawed idea from the start, and while incredibly convient for consumers, has resulted in sustained economic damage to the second tier economies in the EU, due to their inability to inflate their currency at a rate independent from their neighbours.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

The euro was a fundamentally flawed idea from the start, and while incredibly convient for consumers, has resulted in sustained economic damage to the second tier economies in the EU, due to their inability to inflate their currency at a rate independent from their neighbours.

Quote from a Spanish time-travel show (El Ministerio del Tiempo):

19th century Spaniard: The was during the Spanish War of Independence.
16th century Spaniard: Spain had to fight for independence? Absurd!
21st century Spaniard: We all serve the European Central Bank today.

[DC Al Fine]

Most American non-poor progressives have seriously underestimated the drawbacks of a Canadian style healthcare system and would complain quite a bit about the taxes they pay and quality of care received if they actually had to participate in our system.

I say this as a single payer supporter.

The sell for Americans should be "bigger paycheck, much less aggravation." The problem won't be the cost. The problem will be when they find out they still have to navigate claims and haggle over co-pays, reasonable charges from providers, and what is and isn't covered, just like in private healthcare.

"I thought we got free care! Why do I have to pay to see the doc about my sniffle? Why are they charging me $1000 for my emergency room visit for a bruised knee?"

I'm also a supporter of single payer, but Americans already don't understand healthcare, and that's not going help.

I was thinking stuff like spped of delivery. The average wait time for a knee replacement is two years in my province. Anyone with money goes to America to get it done. I waited 6 months to see a specialist. Very long waits in the ER. Etc etc.

Do wait times vary by province or is this the case nationwide?  The most common retort I've seen to the wait times argument is that they are only as long as they are because Canada's healthcare system is underfunded.

It varies by province, but not significantly. The system is underfunded, but that isn't really the whole story. Our population is aging so it takes much more money to provide the same quality of care than in 2000. Combine that with the fact that provincial governments have done a really poor job of running the system and you have a recipe for long wait times. For example: Nova Scotia politicians have maintained hospitals where the population doesn't justify it as a vote winning exercise. So every small town has a hospital with an expensive administration, building to maintain etc. I also have to point out that Canada has relatively high taxes and a lot of other welfare state programs competing for $$$ so it's not as simple as throwing money at it.