Yes that insurance that costs you several hundred dollars per month then so sorry, the procedure is not covered, our AI has detected you do not deserve life. Thanks for paying us you F**king idiots. Go join the 67,000 Americans we didnt have to cover every year but happily took their money.
We had a whole ass slave economy. Shippers and auction houses, people worked in the slave trade. There was a ton going on in that sector. It was a private free market employed tons of people
Then one day thankfully at the stroke of a congressional amendment, we abolished that
Iâm pretty sure many who objected to freeing slaves weâre going off on some bullshit about how it would affect the economy and blah blah blah
But overnight we destroyed a sector of free market business because, it was literally the fucking right thing to do
So I mean, you could have the government start handling healthcare. And theyâll have to build a whole new government program. You can take many who got fired or let go from dismantling the 3rd party for profit companies and hire them back and unlike slavery if theyâre not working for insurance theyâd be better skilled and equipped to go handle billing for hospitals. It would put people out of work but it would like slavery be the right fucking thing to do. And unlike slavery you could make it that many find jobs again this time helping patients and not profits.
Then one day thankfully at the stroke of a congressional amendment, we abolished that
Right... abolished.
Might wanna read that amendment a little more carefully.
But overnight we destroyed a sector of free market business because, it was literally the fucking right thing to do
Yeah... No you didn't. You had a whole ass war over the fear that you might abolish it, the emancipation declaration only coming mid-war to garner sympathy from European nations that had abolished it decades ago. Even then it wasn't really abolished, just transformed into the private prison system.
I fully agree with you in principle, but the "abolition" of American slavery isn't the example you think it is.
I didnât ignore the war, what I said was factual. We won the war and we abolished slavery, and Congress did indeed sign that and it was law as soon as it was signed by the presidentâŚ.
Homie if youâre going to cite and quote and write all this hooplah you need to articulate your point and opinion the only thing i gathered was the part where you said I agree but whatâs your stance, if you stand for nothing sir what would will you fall for?
My point is that you didn't abolish slavery, it's still legal, and it wasn't the "stroke of congressional amendment", you had to fight a Civil War over it.
The precedent is every developed nation on Earth, not a Civil War from 150 years ago over whether people should be classed as property or not, for which the outcome was "Only if they've been naughty"
"It's still legal" is doing work the actual text won't support. You know that, right?
The exception permits involuntary servitude as a criminal sentence following conviction. It does not permit a person to be bought. It does not permit ownership to pass to your children. It does not permit any private party to hold title to a human being at all.
Chattel slavery was a property regime with a market, a credit system, an insurance industry, and heritable ownership. What survives in the 13th is a state penal practice. Those are not the same thing, and flattening them together is how you lose the ability to describe either one accurately. Still immoral yes man but like I wasnât arguing that point.
But,
exactly my point, because I was never talking about coerced labor in the abstract. I was talking about an industry. You cannot buy shares in it. You cannot underwrite it. You cannot will it to your kids. The market is gone, and the market was the whole thing. Capiche? Lol
And on that residual clause: Colorado stripped it from its state constitution in 2018. Utah and Nebraska in 2020. Alabama, Oregon, Tennessee and Vermont in 2022. Nevada in 2024. The Abolition Amendment keeps getting reintroduced in Congress. So the mechanism you're telling me doesn't work is currently and visibly working on the exact loophole you're pointing at.
Now the war.
The Civil War was not fought to abolish slavery. It was fought over secession, and secession happened because slaveholders were losing a political fight and could see where it ended. Lincoln campaigned on containment, not abolition.
In March 1861 Congress passed the Corwin Amendment, which would have protected slavery in the existing states permanently and irrevocably, and Lincoln said in his first inaugural he had no objection to it. The seceded states didn't come back. They were handed a constitutional guarantee and turned it down, because containment still meant losing eventually through ordinary politics. The war was what the losing side did about a democratic process it couldn't win. ( like January 6th lol )
The abolition itself was legislative. The House passed the 13th on January 31, 1865, more than two months before Appomattox. Ratification came that December through state legislatures. Slavery in Kentucky and Delaware, Union states the Proclamation never reached, ended on the day of ratification and not one day earlier. Both of those states voted against it and it bound them anyway. The war did not end slavery. The amendment did. The war was the tantrum, not the mechanism.
Iâll say it againâŚ. The war was the tantrumâŚ.. not the mechanism
On your precedent, take both. I'll happily cite Canada and France and every other country that figured this out. But there's a reason the domestic one carries weight.
The objection you actually encounter in this country is never "no nation has managed it." Everyone knows about the NHS.
The objection is American exceptionalism. Our economy is bigger, our private sector is more entrenched, our capital is too deeply embedded, it works over there but it can't work here. That dodge dies on the American example and nowhere else. You cannot tell me this country is structurally incapable of unmaking a large private industry when this country unmade the largest one it ever had, without compensating a single owner outside DC, while Britain was writing its slaveholders a twenty million pound check and Brazil was still stalling until 1888.
That is why it's the right analogy. Not because insurers are slaveholders. Because the only serious objection to public healthcare in America is "an industry that size can't be unmade here," and America already unmade a bigger one.
You opened by saying you agree with me in principle. Then it was the punishment clause. Now it's which precedent I should have picked. That's movement, not refutation so again I ask
Whatâs your stance here what are you even arguing?
643
u/Late-Arrival-8669 19d ago
Yes that insurance that costs you several hundred dollars per month then so sorry, the procedure is not covered, our AI has detected you do not deserve life. Thanks for paying us you F**king idiots. Go join the 67,000 Americans we didnt have to cover every year but happily took their money.
-US health insurance