1547
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2026
1547 points (99.6% liked)
Work Reform
17353 readers
2400 users here now
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
- All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
- Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
- Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
- We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.
Our Goals
- Higher wages for underpaid workers.
- Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
- Better and fewer working hours.
- Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
- Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Let's assume that everything you just said about the article is true, without any flaws. Why would that make her response idiotic?
If we mentioned the impact that cutting defense spending would have on Raytheon, Lockheed, and Boeing... "Oh no, not my military industrial complex..."
If we mentioned the impact that a new public housing program would have on the housing market... "Oh no, not the sector of the financial market profiting from the endlessly increasing price of a basic human need..."
I understand that these things would have major financial impacts. I also understand the value of NYT writing an article about the nuances of where it would have upsides and downsides. But also, the original commenter isn't criticizing that analysis. She's criticizing the business model of private insurance. Your response just leads me to ask,
It makes her response idiotic because it has nothing to do with the article
The article isn't pro, or anti, anything. It's 8 years old, probably around the time of the presidential election, and so, in context, it was a question of, "what if Biden wins and actually does get rid of privatized health care, what would that look like to everyday people and the economy?"
It's not a rebuttal of the article, no... but it IS definitely in the same topic as the article.
Twitter is a microblogging platform... not a debate platform. If you assume that she is trying to provide a counterargument in 140 characters or less, then yes, it would seem idiotic.
Are we making that assumption?
EDIT: Just to acknowledge that I read your response, and I don't wish to respond to it.
It's not on the same topic of the article as all
The article is about the potential impact on the economy, not if private health care is good or bad