EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 638
| 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. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18828 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21711 Posts
On November 22 2013 04:04 Serpest wrote: See, that's not American. That's European. And thats the problem with America. Facts support that Healthcare in Europe, for the normal population, is better. You complain your health costs are to high but you refuse to accept the working model because its Satan.. I mean Socialist. The world isnt going to end just because your looking our for your fellow humans. | ||
|
Scorpion77
98 Posts
this is the basics of the basics and doesn't Canada already have universal healthcare anyway? So what's all this about it being 'European' | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On November 22 2013 03:45 Serpest wrote: I'm suddenly a little unsure of exactly why people are so enthusiastic about this president. These changes he's propagating now seem a little dangerous. Given that the House changed the old rules for who could introduce a bill, I'd say this is a not-inappropriate step. On November 22 2013 03:55 xDaunt wrote: You're not thinking about this right at all. You have to put yourself in the shoes of Joe Blow. He doesn't give a shit that he now has better coverage that he may never use. What he cares about is the fact that the economy sucks, money is still tight, and now he has to spend anywhere from $1,000 - $5,000 per year more (and sometimes even significantly more depending upon his and his family's circumstances) on a product that he doesn't really want and can't really afford. Setting aside concerns of national policy, this is the ground level reality of Obamacare. This is why people hate it. I don't see why it doesn't make sense. You pay more insurance now, which results in 1. In the likely chance you get hit with a big medical bill because of some reason, you don't go bankrupt 2. Bankruptcy costs do not get carried over to other people and because of basic reasons are typically much more expensive for all involved than non-bankruptcies. 3. A more cost-efficient healthcare system (other factors remain, but providers no longer have to increase prices on services because there is no delinquency burden they have to shift) 4. Happy fun rainbows and unicorns | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
packrat386
United States5077 Posts
On November 21 2013 11:45 sam!zdat wrote: i haven't been following the thread i think right now we are just waiting for the chinese banking sector to collapse...? i mean, i don't know what we are going to do when the next shock comes. more QE?? it's painfully obvious that there's no monetary policy solution to unemployment, but if the Fed throws in the towel then what? we are not going to get any action on the fiscal side of things especially not with a prez with no political capital and a legislature in open revolt... we are back in greenspan put territory with another big asset bubble forming, only this time we are not even recovered from the last crash... idk man I am trying not to think about it, I am thinking about atom bombs and ancient chinese medicine instead my relaxation reading for what little time and energy I have outside working on my papers is rajan's Fault Lines (pathetic relaxation reading, I know) - it's a good read i'm afraid it might be game over. i'm thinking about offing my parents and using the inheritance to start a monastery in a nuclear silo to preserve a remnant of civilization through the coming dark ages. you guys are all invited if you want Oh boy, I've never been a post apocalyptic monk. Is programming allowed? I can bring my own computer. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18828 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21711 Posts
On November 22 2013 04:23 xDaunt wrote: You guys do realize that Obamacare isn't what Europeans have, right? It is a steaming turd of a replacement for universal healthcare. Why the European and liberal posters are not criticizing Obamacare for what it is shows just how stupidly partisan and hypocritical they are. Its not as good as it should be. Thats a problem with it but its better then what you have now so yes I am glad your getting it. If you aren't ready for real universal healthcare yet atleast this is a step in the right direction. I have said many times that the Republicans should have worked to improve the ACA rather then waste all there energy on obvious failures at repealing it. The reason we aren't criticizing it more is because the only alternative is worse. | ||
|
packrat386
United States5077 Posts
On November 22 2013 04:23 xDaunt wrote: You guys do realize that Obamacare isn't what Europeans have, right? It is a steaming turd of a replacement for universal healthcare. Why the European and liberal posters are not criticizing Obamacare for what it is shows just how stupidly partisan and hypocritical they are. Its arguably a step in the right direction and it seems like it should work in theory. I don't think liberals have been exactly light on obama when it comes to not implementing a single payer system, but they're not about to go apeshit because they didn't get the 100% most liberal option. The tea party has kind of gone that route and it has hurt the strength of their party so I don't know why hardline liberals would want to try the same thing. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
WASHINGTON -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) pulled the trigger Thursday, deploying a parliamentary procedure dubbed the "nuclear option" to change Senate rules to pass most executive and judicial nominees by a simple majority vote. The Senate voted 52 to 48 for the move, with just three Democrats declining to go along with the rarely used maneuver. From now until the Senate passes a new rule, executive branch nominees and judges nominated for all courts except the Supreme Court will be able to pass off the floor and take their seats on the bench with the approval of a simple majority of senators. They will no longer have to jump the traditional hurdle of 60 votes, which has increasingly proven a barrier to confirmation during the Obama administration. Reid opened debate in the morning by saying that it has become "so, so very obvious" that the Senate is broken and in need of rules reform. He rolled through a series of statistics intended to demonstrate that the level of obstruction under President Barack Obama outpaced any historical precedent. Half the nominees filibustered in the history of the United States were blocked by Republicans during the Obama administration; of 23 district court nominees filibustered in U.S. history, 20 were Obama's nominees; and even judges that have broad bipartisan support have had to wait nearly 100 days longer, on average, than President George W. Bush's nominees. "It's time to change before this institution becomes obsolete," Reid said, before citing scripture -- "One must not break his word" -- in accusing Minority Leader McConnell (R-Ky.) of breaking his promise to work in a more bipartisan fashion. Source | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On November 22 2013 04:28 farvacola wrote: The problem is that conservatives consider anything that isn't a total scrapping of the law "not criticizing Obamacare" when in reality, this is obviously not the case. It is the same game of Who's on Second that takes place when libs ask neocons why they shut down the government rather than actually improve upon the language of the bill in Congress. Oh, so now we're going to blame republicans again for the fact that Obamacare is a shitty bill. It's not like we haven't been over this a thousand times already, but here we go again: The democrats passed Obamacare without a single republican vote. Who's the joke on? And this is the crux of the political problem for Obama and the democrats. They can't blame republicans for this mess. You can find dozens of interviews of democrat strategists where they admit just this. It's all on them because they arrogantly froze republicans out of the negotiations and insisted upon forcing through a bill without any republican support. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On November 22 2013 04:30 packrat386 wrote: Its arguably a step in the right direction and it seems like it should work in theory. I don't think liberals have been exactly light on obama when it comes to not implementing a single payer system, but they're not about to go apeshit because they didn't get the 100% most liberal option. The tea party has kind of gone that route and it has hurt the strength of their party so I don't know why hardline liberals would want to try the same thing. The only way in which it's a step in the right direction is this: it may actually fuck up the current system so badly that a single payer system will have to be implemented. People on the right have been saying this for years, and I wasn't really ready to believe them. Now I think that they have a point. | ||
|
packrat386
United States5077 Posts
On November 22 2013 04:35 xDaunt wrote: Oh, so now we're going to blame republicans against for the fact that Obamacare is a shitty bill. It's not like we haven't been over this a thousand times already, but here we go again: The democrats passed Obamacare without a single republican vote. Who's the joke on? And this is the crux of the political problem for Obama and the democrats. They can't blame republicans for this mess. You can find dozens of interviews of democrat strategists where they admit just this. It's all on them because they arrogantly froze republicans out of the negotiations and insisted upon forcing through a bill without any republican support. Sorry, did farva's post mention republicans anywhere? All he's saying is that you can criticize the law without throwing it out, which is what liberals have done. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On November 22 2013 04:41 packrat386 wrote: Sorry, did farva's post mention republicans anywhere? All he's saying is that you can criticize the law without throwing it out, which is what liberals have done. He mentioned conservatives, which is close enough. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4773 Posts
On November 22 2013 04:21 ticklishmusic wrote: Given that the House changed the old rules for who could introduce a bill, I'd say this is a not-inappropriate step. Given the changes and bypasses the democrats were responsible for (in particular to get Obamacare through), the republican rule change during the shutdown could be seen as a response, not a cause.... That is, if you really want to look at this as political tit-for-tat. Besides, you can't actually compare that rule with the filibuster....they are no where close to even. The filibuster is much more important. For one thing, it affects judicial nominees. A house rule doesn't. Second, the house rule deals with amendments and using them to bring bills to the house floor. In normal circumstances the Speaker has to arrange for a bill vote anyway. (I'm talking effectively, not necessarily in strict reading of the rules for all situations. The speaker has the power to refuse to take up a bill, thus putting him in charge.) Harry Reid has previously done the same in the Senate. During the shutdown, even. While I oppose changing the rules for political reasons, the house change is nowhere NEAR as important as the filibuster rule. I mean, harry Reid (in that video I posted) apparently knew how important it was! EDIT: a good summary of the house rule change Here | ||
|
packrat386
United States5077 Posts
On November 22 2013 04:41 xDaunt wrote: He mentioned conservatives, which is close enough. Allow me to state your posts here xDaunt: Why haven't liberals criticized obamacare farva: they have, they just don't want to scrap it. xDaunt: you can't blame republicans for this how in the hell is this responsive? | ||
|
farvacola
United States18828 Posts
On November 22 2013 04:40 xDaunt wrote: The only way in which it's a step in the right direction is this: it may actually fuck up the current system so badly that a single payer system will have to be implemented. People on the right have been saying this for years, and I wasn't really ready to believe them. Now I think that they have a point. Nonono, you must try and keep from this wild ledge stepping at the sight of a cliff; my suggesting that Republicans are hypocrites for demanding public outrage on Obamacare when they played an influential role in its legislative stagnation is not placing the blame at their feet nor does it vindicate Obama and the laws writers. Everyone made this pissed in bed, but we have yet to see if the plastic cover did its job yet. That we don't want to burn the mattress does not mean that we aren't looking for wet spots. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
And remember the story of how the Republicans became the party of no. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On November 22 2013 04:44 packrat386 wrote: Allow me to state your posts here xDaunt: Why haven't liberals criticized obamacare farva: they have, they just don't want to scrap it. xDaunt: you can't blame republicans for this how in the hell is this responsive? What the fuck are you talking about? Did you totally miss this sentence? On November 22 2013 04:28 farvacola wrote: The problem is that conservatives consider anything that isn't a total scrapping of the law "not criticizing Obamacare" when in reality, this is obviously not the case. How can this be construed to mean anything other than "Republicans should be blamed for not being nice and helping Democrats clean up the bed that the Democrats took a massive shit in?" | ||
|
Introvert
United States4773 Posts
| ||
| ||
