EPTI think it is singularly unhelpful to make the arguments in inflammatory partisan terms. Leave that to the politicians please.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1560
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
I think it is singularly unhelpful to make the arguments in inflammatory partisan terms. Leave that to the politicians please. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
But most people don't think about things very carefully. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On January 05 2015 09:00 coverpunch wrote: Republicans don't like the individual mandate of the ACA because they believe it is punitive to force individuals to pay for other people's care, which is how it seeks to expand and pay for care for the neediest citizens. State's rights advocates, particularly in the South, don't like that the bulk of the burden for constructing and maintaining this system falls on the states while enforcement is done on the federal level, which again feels like an overbearing government forcing people to do things they don't want to do. I think it is singularly unhelpful to make the arguments in inflammatory partisan terms. Leave that to the politicians please. What is inflammatory about it? Just own the fact that you don't think people deserve healthcare unless they can pay for it. | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On January 05 2015 09:26 IgnE wrote: What is inflammatory about it? Just own the fact that you don't think people deserve healthcare unless they can pay for it. Nice try, troll | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On January 05 2015 09:36 IgnE wrote: It blows my mind that you have to go through all these contorted arguments to justify why you are against universal healthcare when you could just come out and say you aren't for people having healthcare. It's not political; I'm actually depoliticizing it. If you are going to critique something's implementation then you try to find an implementation that will work. What you shouldn't do is criticize something's implementation when you wouldn't support any implementation of it. The farce is surreal. Until the day that politicians on both sides of the aisle admit that the inevitable result of supporting a healthcare system with any market element is endorsing rich people living longer than poor people, you can't have a very productive discussion about it anyway. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On January 05 2015 09:47 TheTenthDoc wrote: Until the day that politicians on both sides of the aisle admit that the inevitable result of supporting a healthcare system with any market element is endorsing rich people living longer than poor people, you can't have a very productive discussion about it anyway. That's the whole point right. The ACA was a stupid "compromise" between conservative market loving people and people who wanted universal healthcare. For conservatives to say, yeah, ACA sucks for the same reasons you guys wanted single payer without acknowledging that even if the shitty parts of ACA were fixed they would still be against it. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14159 Posts
On January 05 2015 09:56 IgnE wrote: That's the whole point right. The ACA was a stupid "compromise" between conservative market loving people and people who wanted universal healthcare. For conservatives to say, yeah, ACA sucks for the same reasons you guys wanted single payer without acknowledging that even if the shitty parts of ACA were fixed they would still be against it. We get a lot of the problems came from the democrats having to argue with themselves to get it through. There was a really odd need for the left to compromise with "blue dog democrats" that really started all the problems that got them unelected from office 2 years later. | ||
|
Millitron
United States2611 Posts
On January 05 2015 09:56 IgnE wrote: That's the whole point right. The ACA was a stupid "compromise" between conservative market loving people and people who wanted universal healthcare. For conservatives to say, yeah, ACA sucks for the same reasons you guys wanted single payer without acknowledging that even if the shitty parts of ACA were fixed they would still be against it. Except what we had before the ACA wasn't a free market either. There was so much intervention preventing competition and allowing price-gouging that you had to have insurance to afford treatment. No government intervention, and big pharma has to stop charging $1000 a pill when it costs them $0.50 per pill to make, because competition will undercut them. Then you don't need everyone to have insurance, because insurance wouldn't be very necessary for any treatment. All the ACA, and any insurance-based (single-payer or otherwise) healthcare system does is further entrench the big pharma monopolies that keep driving up prices. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On January 05 2015 09:00 coverpunch wrote: Three cheers for stating it succinctly in a single paragraph. Ignore the trolls that try to reshape the debate into some easily digestible bedtime story about how the mean people don't like people having healthcare. The level of disingenuousness in this thread is astounding. It is entirely against the spirit of debate to declare repeatedly that the debate is over, it's time to shut up and admit to mental disease.Republicans don't like the individual mandate of the ACA because they believe it is punitive to force individuals to pay for other people's care, which is how it seeks to expand and pay for care for the neediest citizens. State's rights advocates, particularly in the South, don't like that the bulk of the burden for constructing and maintaining this system falls on the states while enforcement is done on the federal level, which again feels like an overbearing government forcing people to do things they don't want to do. I think it is singularly unhelpful to make the arguments in inflammatory partisan terms. Leave that to the politicians please. Oh, and be sure to drag the dead horse out, and beat it again and again. With Democratic majorities in House and Senate, and a Democrat in the White House, they were forced to turn out flawed, compromise legislation, when they excluded all Republicans in their closed door meetings to craft this, and convince not a single Republican in either house to vote for it. I get a great laugh seeing how deep bipartisanship is in the dumpster whenever Democrats are in power. It's only an issue when they can't convince the American people to vote in their platform/agenda. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14159 Posts
On January 05 2015 10:28 Millitron wrote: Except what we had before the ACA wasn't a free market either. There was so much intervention preventing competition and allowing price-gouging that you had to have insurance to afford treatment. No government intervention, and big pharma has to stop charging $1000 a pill when it costs them $0.50 per pill to make, because competition will undercut them. Then you don't need everyone to have insurance, because insurance wouldn't be very necessary for any treatment. All the ACA, and any insurance-based (single-payer or otherwise) healthcare system does is further entrench the big pharma monopolies that keep driving up prices. Thats a little dishonest beacuse it costs a lot more then $0.50 per pill after you take into account all the costs to get to the point where they can sell that pill. Without government intervention there isn't any protection for that company to regain its investment and we don't get the pill in the first place. I mean how many big pharma companies are outside of the US? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24143 Posts
Republicans don't like the individual mandate of the ACA because they believe it is punitive to force individuals to pay for other people's care Too bad they were paying for it before the ACA anyway? It was just some of the most expensive, dumbest, and least effective/efficient type of care you can pay for. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On January 05 2015 10:28 Millitron wrote: Except what we had before the ACA wasn't a free market either. There was so much intervention preventing competition and allowing price-gouging that you had to have insurance to afford treatment. No government intervention, and big pharma has to stop charging $1000 a pill when it costs them $0.50 per pill to make, because competition will undercut them. Then you don't need everyone to have insurance, because insurance wouldn't be very necessary for any treatment. All the ACA, and any insurance-based (single-payer or otherwise) healthcare system does is further entrench the big pharma monopolies that keep driving up prices. You have serious problems separating relevant from irrelevant arguments. "Except?" Except what? Who cares if it wasn't free market before ACA? We aren't even talking about that. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11927 Posts
On January 05 2015 10:28 Millitron wrote: Except what we had before the ACA wasn't a free market either. There was so much intervention preventing competition and allowing price-gouging that you had to have insurance to afford treatment. No government intervention, and big pharma has to stop charging $1000 a pill when it costs them $0.50 per pill to make, because competition will undercut them. Then you don't need everyone to have insurance, because insurance wouldn't be very necessary for any treatment. All the ACA, and any insurance-based (single-payer or otherwise) healthcare system does is further entrench the big pharma monopolies that keep driving up prices. So you want to get rid of patents? That is an interesting point to debate. The usual argument is that patents are necessary to encourage research, because there is really no point into doing research if you could just wait for someone else to invest that money and then just produce the same thing as they do, just cheaper. Or do you want to get rid of regulation to make sure that medicaments are save and tested before being widely used? I highly doubt that a lot of people would think that is a good idea. Fact is, a lot of healthcare procedures are very expensive. Maybe some could be cheaper, but everything that involves a staff of highly trained professionals for longer periods of time and a high chance of getting sued when anything goes wrong is bound to be expensive. If you need surgery, you want a trained surgeon to do it, a staff of nurses to support him, and some recovery time in a hospital bed with constant care by medical professionals for a few days or weeks at least. That is expensive, and nothing is going to make it not expensive, because this is not a price driven high by a monopoly or anything, you just need a lot of worktime from a lot of highly trained professionals with expensive tools. And if you want people to be able to get that surgery even if they are not rich, the best way for that is to have a working healthcare system. Saying anything else is delusional. So you have two choices. Either you think that everyone should have a right to get treated if they get sick or injured, in which case you need a universal healthcare system that involves some sort of insurance for everyone that will pay for their treatments if necessary. How exactly that is implemented is a different question, but as far as i know american republicans are pretty much generally against any sort of reasonable healthcare system because they are way too socialist. Or you have to accept the fact that you believe that not everyone deserves healthcare, and it is totally fine to let someone die if they can not afford their treatment. Because no matter how you organize your system, if it does not involve universal healthcare for everyone, that IS going to happen. Because some people will not be able to pay for their treatments, and may not have the necessary cash ready in case it happens. That is a necessary consequence of a system that does not involve healthcare as a universal right for everyone. I personally find this stance to be utterly disgusting, but if a majority of your country really thinks like that, i guess that is how democracy works out in the end. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On January 05 2015 10:29 Danglars wrote: Three cheers for stating it succinctly in a single paragraph. Ignore the trolls that try to reshape the debate into some easily digestible bedtime story about how the mean people don't like people having healthcare. The level of disingenuousness in this thread is astounding. It is entirely against the spirit of debate to declare repeatedly that the debate is over, it's time to shut up and admit to mental disease. Oh, and be sure to drag the dead horse out, and beat it again and again. With Democratic majorities in House and Senate, and a Democrat in the White House, they were forced to turn out flawed, compromise legislation, when they excluded all Republicans in their closed door meetings to craft this, and convince not a single Republican in either house to vote for it. I get a great laugh seeing how deep bipartisanship is in the dumpster whenever Democrats are in power. It's only an issue when they can't convince the American people to vote in their platform/agenda. Those mean trolls. Pesky as facts. You are against everyone having healthcare. The hows and whys don't change that. Just come out and say "I don't think people should be entitled to healthcare for these reasons." It's not hard. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11927 Posts
On January 05 2015 10:49 IgnE wrote: Those mean trolls. Pesky as facts. You are against everyone having healthcare. The hows and whys don't change that. Just come out and say "I don't think people should be entitled to healthcare for these reasons." It's not hard. Or if not, you should be able to describe your perfect vision of a healthcare system. That is actually a good idea. What do you think healthcare should look like? Should there be a system the includes coverage for everyone, should there be a free market, or something else entirely? | ||
|
Lord Tolkien
United States12083 Posts
I'd rather talk about Jeb Bush's imminent bid for candidacy. And how in blazes he thinks he'll get through the primaries with his immigration reform/Common Core stance. I also find it highly ironic I'm cheering for a third Bush to become the Republican candidate. To be fair, Bush the Senior was a damn fine president, and Jr., if he didnt have to deal with 9/11 and its aftermath and focused on education like he originally planned, might've turned out fairly well. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On January 05 2015 10:49 IgnE wrote: You take the role of demagogue because you're being lazy, and frankly you're above that. No sane person requires the other to say they are pro-death if they take the opposite side on abortion. Only the truly despicable person proposes a subsidy for ice cream for little kids, then criticizes any opponent saying they are, "Against little children having ice cream." It should be beneath you to argue in such a fashion, because you're leaning towards espousing everything reprehensible about politicians of both parties. If that's the level of debate you wish to debase yourself to, also know that those idiots against 50$ minimum wage seek poverty for all.Those mean trolls. Pesky as facts. You are against everyone having healthcare. The hows and whys don't change that. Just come out and say "I don't think people should be entitled to healthcare for these reasons." It's not hard. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24143 Posts
On January 05 2015 11:30 Lord Tolkien wrote: I'm just going to keep ignoring all the talk about healthcare until people have realized that a universal healthcare system is the only sensible option we're going to have. I'd rather talk about Jeb Bush's imminent bid for candidacy. And how in blazes he thinks he'll get through the primaries with his immigration reform/Common Core stance. I also find it highly ironic I'm cheering for a third Bush to become the Republican candidate. To be fair, Bush the Senior was a damn fine president, and Jr., if he didnt have to deal with 9/11 and its aftermath and focused on education like he originally planned, might've turned out fairly well. What will be interesting is who will win the hometown conservative role that will fight against the 'establishment' candidate Bush. Bush has already sewn up the big donors according to whispers so he will be the front runner until the "Conservative" candidates go Highlander on each other and only one survives to mount a serious contention to Bush. On the bright side for conservatives all the attacks on Bush will be that he is Hilary lite so if he makes it through the "blue dog" type democrats will probably lean more republican than usual. Jeb is the only potential republican Nominee that can actually win a Presidential election so it will be funny to watch conservatives do everything in their power to throw the election so that if they do somehow manage to win the presidency it will be despite their best efforts instead of because of them. On the other hand if the conservatives can't decide on a representative fast enough Jeb will coast to an easy nomination while they bicker among themselves and Democrats will get nervous. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On January 05 2015 12:39 Danglars wrote: You take the role of demagogue because you're being lazy, and frankly you're above that. No sane person requires the other to say they are pro-death if they take the opposite side on abortion. Only the truly despicable person proposes a subsidy for ice cream for little kids, then criticizes any opponent saying they are, "Against little children having ice cream." It should be beneath you to argue in such a fashion, because you're leaning towards espousing everything reprehensible about politicians of both parties. If that's the level of debate you wish to debase yourself to, also know that those idiots against 50$ minimum wage seek poverty for all. This only came up because of some foolish talk about the "reasons" behind conservatives opposing ACA. They oppose ACA because they oppose universal healthcare, not because it lines the insurance industry's pockets. | ||
| ||
