|
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. |
Bisutopia19344 Posts
On March 08 2016 02:01 LegalLord wrote:
"If you don't lower your prices I won't have a heart attack in your ER next time."
This doesn't happen which is why competition doesn't really work.
Any massive overhaul in a core piece of the government structure is hard. There is no fundamental reason why it couldn't work in the US - it just needs time and a better Congress.
But why does it have to be done by the Federal goverment? Why can't each state provide this service? A country wide health care system in a country as big as the USA makes it far more difficult. We should be pushing for states to handle health care for their citizens. State and city officials know far better what is needed to make a state wide health care system work. When Europeans use their country as an example of success, now compare their size to a state of the US. Individual states can handle it, having a congress strangle each other over the right policies and coverage will never result in what's right for the people. Let's stop giving congress duties the constitution doesn't give them, but does give the state.
edit: I'd even be okay if Congress voted that health care was a right, but then said it was up to the state to handle how it's implemented. That way the state doesn't use a system the crushes either their doctors, hospitals, or patients. What works for Rhode Island definitely doesn't work for California.
|
On March 08 2016 02:58 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 02:01 LegalLord wrote:
"If you don't lower your prices I won't have a heart attack in your ER next time."
This doesn't happen which is why competition doesn't really work.
Any massive overhaul in a core piece of the government structure is hard. There is no fundamental reason why it couldn't work in the US - it just needs time and a better Congress. But why does it have to be done by the Federal goverment? Why can't each state provide this service? A country wide health care system in a country as big as the USA makes it far more difficult. We should be pushing for states to handle health care for their citizens. State and city officials know far better what is needed to make a state wide health care system work. When Europeans use their country as an example of success, now compare their size to a state of the US. Individual states can handle it, having a congress strangle each other over the right policies and coverage will never result in what's right for the people. Let's stop giving congress duties the constitution doesn't give them, but does give the state.
Under the ACA, some states are currently denying their citizens healthcare by not accepting money from the government in an effort to make the ACA fail. This has been going on for a while now. So there is this problem of giving all the power to the states.
I think everyone accepts that the states should manage the healthcare and respond to local needs. But the over arching standards and compliance should be set by the Federal government. It is the only way to prevent states from denying basic healthcare for some dumb reason like “we don’t believe in birth control, so no one can have it.”
In the case of my state, we have a perfectly functional state system that complies with that the federal goverment is looking for. It really isn't that hard. Participation means more input, but some states just don't want partake out of protest.
|
On March 08 2016 02:58 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 02:01 LegalLord wrote:
"If you don't lower your prices I won't have a heart attack in your ER next time."
This doesn't happen which is why competition doesn't really work.
Any massive overhaul in a core piece of the government structure is hard. There is no fundamental reason why it couldn't work in the US - it just needs time and a better Congress. But why does it have to be done by the Federal goverment? Why can't each state provide this service? A country wide health care system in a country as big as the USA makes it far more difficult. We should be pushing for states to handle health care for their citizens. State and city officials know far better what is needed to make a state wide health care system work. When Europeans use their country as an example of success, now compare their size to a state of the US. Individual states can handle it, having a congress strangle each other over the right policies and coverage will never result in what's right for the people. Let's stop giving congress duties the constitution doesn't give them, but does give the state.
Because every time you leave it to the states, half of them fuck it up.
That is why people keep advocating for federal involvement. Because then you have to deal with 1 committee getting it right, instead of 51.
|
Also you'll have widely varying quality of healthcare across the country as a consequence. Which will further perpetuate the problem of bad states not getting out of their misery as a lack of healthcare is a huge minus for companies or qualified workers to go there in the first place.
|
On March 08 2016 02:58 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 02:01 LegalLord wrote:
"If you don't lower your prices I won't have a heart attack in your ER next time."
This doesn't happen which is why competition doesn't really work.
Any massive overhaul in a core piece of the government structure is hard. There is no fundamental reason why it couldn't work in the US - it just needs time and a better Congress. But why does it have to be done by the Federal goverment? Why can't each state provide this service? A country wide health care system in a country as big as the USA makes it far more difficult. We should be pushing for states to handle health care for their citizens. State and city officials know far better what is needed to make a state wide health care system work. When Europeans use their country as an example of success, now compare their size to a state of the US. Individual states can handle it, having a congress strangle each other over the right policies and coverage will never result in what's right for the people. Let's stop giving congress duties the constitution doesn't give them, but does give the state. edit: I'd even be okay if Congress voted that health care was a right, but then said it was up to the state to handle how it's implemented. That way the state doesn't use a system the crushes either their doctors, hospitals, or patients. What works for Rhode Island definitely doesn't work for California.
Haven't states had the ability to do this for a very long time? The whole point is that they are shitty at it.
|
On March 08 2016 02:58 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 02:01 LegalLord wrote:
"If you don't lower your prices I won't have a heart attack in your ER next time."
This doesn't happen which is why competition doesn't really work.
Any massive overhaul in a core piece of the government structure is hard. There is no fundamental reason why it couldn't work in the US - it just needs time and a better Congress. But why does it have to be done by the Federal goverment? Why can't each state provide this service? A country wide health care system in a country as big as the USA makes it far more difficult. We should be pushing for states to handle health care for their citizens. State and city officials know far better what is needed to make a state wide health care system work. When Europeans use their country as an example of success, now compare their size to a state of the US. Individual states can handle it, having a congress strangle each other over the right policies and coverage will never result in what's right for the people. Let's stop giving congress duties the constitution doesn't give them, but does give the state. edit: I'd even be okay if Congress voted that health care was a right, but then said it was up to the state to handle how it's implemented. That way the state doesn't use a system the crushes either their doctors, hospitals, or patients. What works for Rhode Island definitely doesn't work for California.
What says that the states would be better at this than the federal government? Alabama has been a state for nearly 200 years and hasn't gotten a damn thing right; their education, infrastructure, and Healthcare are all awful and they are the poster child for discrimination and human rights violations in the U.S.
|
On March 08 2016 02:58 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 02:01 LegalLord wrote:
"If you don't lower your prices I won't have a heart attack in your ER next time."
This doesn't happen which is why competition doesn't really work.
Any massive overhaul in a core piece of the government structure is hard. There is no fundamental reason why it couldn't work in the US - it just needs time and a better Congress. But why does it have to be done by the Federal goverment? Why can't each state provide this service? A country wide health care system in a country as big as the USA makes it far more difficult. We should be pushing for states to handle health care for their citizens. State and city officials know far better what is needed to make a state wide health care system work. When Europeans use their country as an example of success, now compare their size to a state of the US. Individual states can handle it, having a congress strangle each other over the right policies and coverage will never result in what's right for the people. Let's stop giving congress duties the constitution doesn't give them, but does give the state. edit: I'd even be okay if Congress voted that health care was a right, but then said it was up to the state to handle how it's implemented. That way the state doesn't use a system the crushes either their doctors, hospitals, or patients. What works for Rhode Island definitely doesn't work for California.
States are constitutionally hobbled by the Full Faith and Credit clause. They have to respect trade and laws of other states and cannot bar entry from out of staters. The net effect is a massive free trade agreement between all the states. This means that high providing states can be swamped with cancer patients while low providing states and simply bus their sick people out of state. You can't ever have single payer on a state level (as the Vermont disaster showed).
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
|
Canada11509 Posts
I think you can still have the individual States run healthcare, but then it's also necessary to have federal criteria and conditions to make sure the quality doesn't suffer in the different ways of implementing. I'm all for State (or in my case Provincial) control of Healthcare, but federal standards are needed... which means there needs to be a way to enforce.
I really don't know how the finances of the States work, but in Canada the federal government had more taxation powers and so as the modern governments became more interventionist, provincial jurisdictions started costing more and more than anticipated from Confederation: public healthcare, public education, etc. As a result, the provinces had to ask for help from the federal government, so the way it works now is there are block transfers to the provinces from the federal government. To some extent this allows a wealthier part of the country to cover for another part as each experiences it's own ups and downs (it creates some inter province tensions, but that's another story.)
But the main thing is, because the federal government is transferring money, a great amount that is designated for healthcare, the provinces needed to meet the federal government's criteria and conditions in order to receive the whole amount. In this way, the provinces can experiment in different ways, but a minimum standard MUST be met if they want the entire block transfer. Denying money is also better than fining, because you already have the money and can refuse to give it- you have the balance of power. Whereas if you are trying to fine an incompetent State, they already have the money and therefore the balance of power if they just want to dig their heals in.
But I do think that in countries that are larger and more spread out like Canada or the US, federalism is really important just because it's really hard to meet unique regional interests in many cases.
|
The full scale of the financial rout facing millennials is revealed today in exclusive new data that points to a perfect storm of factors besetting an entire generation of young adults around the world.
A combination of debt, joblessness, globalisation, demographics and rising house prices is depressing the incomes and prospects of millions of young people across the developed world, resulting in unprecedented inequality between generations.
A Guardian investigation into the prospects of millennials – those born between 1980 and the mid-90s, and often otherwise known as Generation Y – has found they are increasingly being cut out of the wealth generated in western societies.
Where 30 years ago young adults used to earn more than national averages, now in many countries they have slumped to earning as much as 20% below their average compatriot. Pensioners by comparison have seen income soar.
In seven major economies in North America and Europe, the growth in income of the average young couple and families in their 20s has lagged dramatically behind national averages over the past 30 years.
In two of these countries – the US and Italy – disposable incomes for millennials are scarcely higher in real terms than they were 30 years ago, while the rest of the population has experienced handsome gains.
It is likely to be the first time in industrialised history, save for periods of war or natural disaster, that the incomes of young adults have fallen so far when compared with the rest of society.
Source
|
I give this thread a C- in terms of Debate watching skills. Here's a Washington Post article summarizing perceived debate performance last night.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/GGIgbC6.png)
It's not important who won as much, but the primary issues people seem to be talking about are:
1) car manufacturers bailout - especially in the region voting next
2) Sanders alienating women and minorities
3) single-issue candidate
4) overall picture
Of these, only point 3 was clearly identified in the thread during the debate. Hindsight is 20/20 but we blew it last night.
Just to be clear, it's not that you have to agree on the performance assessments here, but we should have identified these aspects as issues for the political commentary to relate to the election at hand.
|
On March 08 2016 02:58 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 02:01 LegalLord wrote:
"If you don't lower your prices I won't have a heart attack in your ER next time."
This doesn't happen which is why competition doesn't really work.
Any massive overhaul in a core piece of the government structure is hard. There is no fundamental reason why it couldn't work in the US - it just needs time and a better Congress. But why does it have to be done by the Federal goverment? Why can't each state provide this service? A country wide health care system in a country as big as the USA makes it far more difficult. We should be pushing for states to handle health care for their citizens. State and city officials know far better what is needed to make a state wide health care system work. When Europeans use their country as an example of success, now compare their size to a state of the US. Individual states can handle it, having a congress strangle each other over the right policies and coverage will never result in what's right for the people. Let's stop giving congress duties the constitution doesn't give them, but does give the state. edit: I'd even be okay if Congress voted that health care was a right, but then said it was up to the state to handle how it's implemented. That way the state doesn't use a system the crushes either their doctors, hospitals, or patients. What works for Rhode Island definitely doesn't work for California.
I know that the illusion that local governments are more legitimate on many issues because they're local thus know the local situation best is tempting to believe, but truth is that most of the time local governments are just made up of people who're too bad to participate in nationwide government.
|
I don't get the fetish for local government at all. Not only are the people taking the positions far less qualified, media attention has shifted so dramatically towards everything federal that local governments can now basically do what they want without anybody giving a damn.
|
On March 08 2016 03:36 Ghanburighan wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I give this thread a C- in terms of Debate watching skills. Here's a Washington Post article summarizing perceived debate performance last night. It's not important who won as much, but the primary issues people seem to be talking about are: 1) car manufacturers bailout - especially in the region voting next 2) Sanders alienating women and minorities 3) single-issue candidate 4) overall picture Of these, only point 3 was clearly identified in the thread during the debate. Hindsight is 20/20 but we blew it last night. Just to be clear, it's not that you have to agree on the performance assessments here, but we should have identified these aspects as issues for the political commentary to relate to the election at hand.
I wouldn't be so quick to appeal to WashPo and other "media experts" when assessing debate performances. Maybe their record has been okay when assessing the democrat debates, but it has been pretty bad with the republican debates.
|
Considering my home town allowed children to go to a run down school that was later condemned by the state building inspector years, I have little faith local government. A decade long fight that ended with the state threatening to put the town in receivership. Claiming the states should handle it is just another way to make sure nothing changes or is fixed, even if it is broken.
|
On March 08 2016 03:41 Plansix wrote:
Considering my home town allowed children to go to a run down school that was later condemned by the state building inspector years, I have little faith local government. A decade long fight that ended with the state threatening to put the town in receivership. Claiming the states should handle it is just another way to make sure nothing changes or is fixed, even if it is broken.
It is much cheaper to buy a local government seat. If you show up with a million in ads, you can win anything you want.
|
On March 08 2016 03:39 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 03:36 Ghanburighan wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I give this thread a C- in terms of Debate watching skills. Here's a Washington Post article summarizing perceived debate performance last night. It's not important who won as much, but the primary issues people seem to be talking about are: 1) car manufacturers bailout - especially in the region voting next 2) Sanders alienating women and minorities 3) single-issue candidate 4) overall picture Of these, only point 3 was clearly identified in the thread during the debate. Hindsight is 20/20 but we blew it last night. Just to be clear, it's not that you have to agree on the performance assessments here, but we should have identified these aspects as issues for the political commentary to relate to the election at hand. I wouldn't be so quick to appeal to WashPo and other "media experts" when assessing debate performances. Maybe their record has been okay when assessing the democrat debates, but it has been pretty bad with the republican debates.
It wasn't an authority-based argument, if you read the article you see that they make very good points that we missed.
|
On March 08 2016 03:46 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 03:41 Plansix wrote:
Considering my home town allowed children to go to a run down school that was later condemned by the state building inspector years, I have little faith local government. A decade long fight that ended with the state threatening to put the town in receivership. Claiming the states should handle it is just another way to make sure nothing changes or is fixed, even if it is broken. It is much cheaper to buy a local government seat. If you show up with a million in ads, you can win anything you want.
It's actually really interesting to see how this develops in China were decentralization really is used as a tool to consolidate the power of the party because they've figured out that it's much easier to control stuff at an indirect local level than to expose the bureaucrats at the top constantly.
|
Bisutopia19344 Posts
I think everyone's replies to my last post were really reasonable statements. Thanks for the good feedback!
|
WASHINGTON (AP) — Republicans can blame their united stand against President Barack Obama for their party's splintering.
Conservatives' gut-level resistance to all things Obama — the man, his authority, his policies — gave birth to the tea party movement that powered the GOP to political success in multiple states and historic congressional majorities. Yet contained in the movement and its triumphs were the seeds of destruction, evident now in the party's fracture over presidential front-runner Donald Trump.
Obama's policies, from the ambitious 2010 law overhauling the health care system to moving unilaterally on immigration, roiled conservatives who decried his activist agenda and argued about constitutional overreach. "Quasi-socialist," says Tea Party Express.
Republicans rode that anger to majority control of the House in 2010 and an eye-popping net gain of 63 seats as voters elected tea partyers and political outsiders. Four years later, the GOP claimed the Senate, too.
For all the numbers, though, Republicans were unable to roll back Obama administration policies or defeat the Democratic president in 2012, further infuriating the GOP base.
Now the party of Abraham Lincoln is engaged in a civil war, pitting establishment Republicans frightened about a election rout in November against the unpredictable Trump, who has capitalized on voter animosity toward Washington and politicians.
"There would be no Donald Trump without Barack Obama," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. No fan of Trump, Graham argued that resentment of Obama plus his own party's attitude toward immigrants are responsible for the deep divide and the billionaire businessman's surge.
Mainstream Republicans are hard-pressed to figure out a way forward with Trump, who has pledged to build a wall on the Mexican border, bar Muslims from entering the United States and equivocated over former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke's support. The candidate has assembled a growing coalition of blue-collar workers, high-school educated and those craving a no-nonsense candidate.
Source
|
Graham, that's the nicest thing you have ever said to Obama. He destroyed the republican party.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
