EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 7021
| 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. | ||
|
DannyJ
United States5110 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On March 03 2017 07:34 LegalLord wrote: People hate Hillary so badly that that is acceptable. Besides Trump, she is the least popular nominee in history. Its a cost:benefit kinda thing. If you already have great access to healthcare and do not stand to suffer from any of the redneck philosophy regarding civil liberties, the pat on the back is worth it. however the one thing that is undeniably lesser is with regards to climate change and the environment. No matter how you slice it, our carbon footprint is larger under trump. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
pmh
1416 Posts
On March 03 2017 05:22 KwarK wrote: The Obamacare problem is that the bits people hate and the bits people love are fundamentally linked. Young healthy people hate being forced to pay more than they should. Unhealthy old people hate being made to pay what they should. Obamacare said "why don't we put them all in the same group and make them all pay the same amount". Trump promised to let the healthy people not pay while keeping the unhealthy people subsidized from somewhere. The best solution for them would be to keep it pretty much intact and keep blaming Obama for it. But they've spent so much time insisting that they'll repeal it that they've somewhat burned their bridges there. People look at this the wrong way I think. The young and healthy people of today they pay extra,but that extra is not to support the old and unhealthy people of today. It is to support themselves when they are old and not healthy. Its like when I have fire insurance but not a fire. I don't pay for all the people who do have a fire. I pay for the risk that I will have a fire. If you go differentiate healthcare to the bone then you will end up with a system where no one has insurance and everyone just pays for himself. The whole point of the insurance is to collectively share the risk,if you take out the collective part more and more,then it is not really an insurance anymore but more like an individual safings plan. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11918 Posts
On March 03 2017 07:49 DannyJ wrote: I'm pretty sure even climate change opinions are a lot based on political opinions. I swear if Al Gore never got into the climate change argument the amount of conservatives that believe in it would quadruple. Everything is political now and not even for legitimate reasons. Just hating people and anything they believe in for some reason or another. That is the fun of having a two-party system. You can never agree with the other side, because that would give them votes, and anything that makes the other side look more bad than you is good, because that means that you get elected. If you have more than two parties, you have to actually look good on your own, not just make the other guy look worse, which leads to less mudslinging, because it usually makes everyone involved look bad. Sadly, to get rid of your two-party system, you would have to convince the people who got to the top through that system to get rid of it. | ||
KwarK
United States44179 Posts
On March 03 2017 08:12 pmh wrote: People look at this the wrong way I think. The young and healthy people of today they pay extra,but that extra is not to support the old and unhealthy people of today. It is to support themselves when they are old and not healthy. Its like when I have fire insurance but not a fire. I don't pay for all the people who do have a fire. I pay for the risk that I will have a fire. If you go differentiate healthcare to the bone then you will end up with a system where no one has insurance and everyone just pays for himself. The whole point of the insurance is to collectively share the risk,if you take out the collective part more and more,then it is not really an insurance anymore but more like an individual safings plan. Every part of this is wrong. If you have a 1% risk of a fire worth $100,000 then you pay a $1,000 premium. It's EV neutral. Then if you're lumped in with a guy with a 1% risk of a fire worth $200,000 he pays a $2,000 premium. You're each paying for your own statistical risk. The only collective part of it is that you're using the same broker to make the bet. If you have a 0.1% chance of medical costs worth $10,000 and someone else has a 100% chance of medical costs worth $100,000 then you'll both be charged $50,005 premiums because health insurance isn't insurance. It's a tool for redistributing healthcare costs from the unhealthy to the healthy. It's not insurance because you're not paying for your own risk. The premium and your statistical risk are two completely different and unrelated numbers. That's why the Obamacare mandate exists. Young healthy people must be forced to pay in to support the older less healthy people. If they don't overpay for insurance then other people can't underpay for insurance. You think that what I'm referring to is winners and losers with people who get insurance and it happens being winners and people who buy insurance they don't end up invoking being losers. That's not what I'm talking about at all. Good insurance is EV neutral, the coverage multiplied by the probability equals the premium. Health insurance is not EV neutral. The majority of people pay more for their coverage than they are ever likely to get out so that a minority can pay the same amount for coverage that costs the provider far more than they pay. Health insurance isn't insurance. I know it has insurance in the name but the way it works isn't like actual insurance. No more than if you and your grandpa were both made to buy the same term life insurance policy with a premium set halfway between what it would be for you by yourself and what it'd be for him by himself. Most of your premium wouldn't be funding your life insurance policy, it'd be funding his. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On March 03 2017 07:21 LegalLord wrote: Because people hated his opponent enough for an "accident" to happen. On March 03 2017 07:34 LegalLord wrote: People hate Hillary so badly that that is acceptable. Besides Trump, she is the least popular nominee in history. Two pristine chances to use 'electable' and you whiffed. On topic: the better candidate won. Better luck next time! | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
On March 03 2017 08:04 LegalLord wrote: Sounds like Trump has no intention of upholding Paris Accords which is terrible. Not even he is this crazy, right guys? The amount of people on both sides who have said that is a terrible idea is monumental. Oil companies, for fucksake, said it would be stupid. Surely his daughter or son-in-law will be able to talk him out of this. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
Barack Obama is turning his new home in the posh Kalorama section of the nation's capital - just two miles away from the White House - into the nerve center of the mounting insurgency against his successor, President Donald J. Trump. Obama's goal, according to a close family friend, is to oust Trump from the presidency either by forcing his resignation or through his impeachment. And Obama is being aided in his political crusade by his longtime consigliere, Valerie Jarrett, who has moved into the 8,200-square-foot, $5.3-million Kaloroma mansion with the former president and Michelle Obama, long time best friends. Daily Mail | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On March 03 2017 08:56 Doodsmack wrote: Not sure if this is a credible news story but it has gotten picked up by Fox News at least. Daily Mail Daily mail is a pretty bad source. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4999 Posts
On March 03 2017 08:34 Danglars wrote: Two pristine chances to use 'electable' and you whiffed. On topic: the better candidate won. Better luck next time! I know we're all still enjoying Hillary's loss, but let's not encourage this, as it also leads to bitching about use of the word "electable." And better president? Yeah probably. Better candidate? That's hardly obvious :p | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On March 03 2017 08:36 LegalLord wrote: Guess I'll have to make up for it in volume over the course of the next months/years then. If Hillary really thinks she's still relevant, you'll have plenty of chances. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14155 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On March 03 2017 09:01 Introvert wrote: I know we're all still enjoying Hillary's loss, but let's not encourage this, as it also leads to bitching about use of the word "electable." And better president? Yeah probably. Better candidate? That's hardly obvious :p I know one day the meme will wear out. Today is not that day nor is tomorrow. Shock and outrage at Trump in the "why was he elected" vein renews the lease. And yeah unequivocably better candidate for a major party. Not that the bar was set all that high this time around. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On March 03 2017 09:17 Danglars wrote: I know one day the meme will wear out. Today is not that day nor is tomorrow. Shock and outrage at Trump in the "why was he elected" vein renews the lease. And yeah unequivocably better candidate for a major party. Not that the bar was set all that high this time around. You've been conned, and enthusiastically at that. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://www.smh.com.au/content/dam/images/g/r/u/5/1/z/image.related.articleLeadwide.620x349.gru4rx.png/1486071499366.jpg) | ||
|
Tachion
Canada8573 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States14155 Posts
On March 03 2017 09:26 Doodsmack wrote: You've been conned, and enthusiastically at that. + Show Spoiler + I don't think it is hard to argue that trump was a better canidate and hillary arguably had a lot easier path to the white house in the primary and general. The great blue firewall wasn't a joke and Obama had showed an electoral math that shouldn't reasonably beaten. | ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
On March 03 2017 09:37 Tachion wrote: I wonder how Ted Cruz would be doing as president right now. The democrats would of lit the whole gay/cheating on his wife scandal back up. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On March 03 2017 09:26 Doodsmack wrote: You've been conned, and enthusiastically at that. + Show Spoiler + Reminding myself that it was between this and Hillary is an incredibly comforting thought. Supreme Court going to be better, cabinet picks pretty good overall. So far, the rolls of the dice have been better than I expected. | ||
| ||
