EPTOn May 21 2017 06:27 Gahlo wrote:
Wait, isn't that the Megaupload guy? What could he possibly add of use?
Wait, isn't that the Megaupload guy? What could he possibly add of use?
probably as much insight as Fabio on crime in California.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7598
| 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. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
probably as much insight as Fabio on crime in California. | ||
|
JW_DTLA
242 Posts
I shouldn't be surprised that Hannity took this bait ... but somehow I am. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On May 21 2017 06:44 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Reminds me of this. The DNC can not bring itself to support single payer, even as a bargaining stance. Can't risk alienating insurance companies I guess. | ||
|
JW_DTLA
242 Posts
On May 21 2017 07:33 Grumbels wrote: Reminds me of this. The DNC can not bring itself to support single payer, even as a bargaining stance. Can't risk alienating insurance companies I guess. Single payer requires a massive tax increase that the Dems know they can't sell. Ask Bernie how well his attempts at selling his tax increases went. Dems can't run on single payer, then tell everyone "lolz just kidding the taxes aren't passable, no single payer". Dems are wisely running on policies that they can plausibly pass if they held the house. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35172 Posts
On May 21 2017 07:40 JW_DTLA wrote: Single payer requires a massive tax increase that the Dems know they can't sell. Ask Bernie how well his attempts at selling his tax increases went. Dems can't run on single payer, then tell everyone "lolz just kidding the taxes aren't passable, no single payer". Dems are wisely running on policies that they can plausibly pass if they held the house. Worked for Trump with the wall and repeal/replace. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On May 21 2017 07:40 JW_DTLA wrote: Single payer requires a massive tax increase that the Dems know they can't sell. Ask Bernie how well his attempts at selling his tax increases went. Dems can't run on single payer, then tell everyone "lolz just kidding the taxes aren't passable, no single payer". Dems are wisely running on policies that they can plausibly pass if they held the house. Even if that was true, why not still advocate single payer just to fire up the base? Or as a bargaining tool for the inevitable compromise? I think it's because the insurance companies don't want this and the Dems are too wedded to business interests. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
She really jumped the shark with this writeup | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
| ||
|
JW_DTLA
242 Posts
On May 21 2017 07:47 Grumbels wrote: Even if that was true, why not still advocate single payer just to fire up the base? Or as a bargaining tool for the inevitable compromise? I think it's because the insurance companies don't want this and the Dems are too wedded to business interests. Let's talk about the composition of the Dem/left coalition for a bit. The thinking and writing portions of the lefty coalition are largely professional class liberals and the top of the party looks very similar. Think Obama, Pelosi, Schumer, Gillibrand. Politicians like that can't come up and sell bullshit. A big chunk of the donor base (liberal people like me, lawyers) won't swallow lies just because they fire up the base. That progressives are willing to hear things just to be fired up, even though they are flatly impossible, doesn't make it wise. Bernie did this and it was a big reason why the liberal wing of the Dem party turned on him so hard (and why I hate him). Even with a colossal, unprecedented tax increase Bernie's plan was 18 trillion in the hole over 10 years. Dems can't run on stuff that they know are lies. They will get called on it and the thinky/skeptical liberals in the party will not stick with them. Even further, moderates will run screaming from social democrat plans that don't add up. Really take a look at the Bernie plan. It was a disaster on the merits. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/analysis-senator-bernie-sanderss-tax-and-transfer-proposals Further, the Dem/left coalition, if it is to win the house, will need moderate and suburban voters, liberals, progressives, and various identity groups. Remember 2006 when Rahm Emmanual led the Dems to victory using the Blue Dogs? How do we win moderates if the republicans can, CORRECTLY, say that the Dem plans will require enormous tax increases that won't even cover their single payer plans? Go back and look at the Bernie plan. It couldn't even pay for itself. Note that this is an asymmetric disadvantage that the Rep/right coalition doesn't suffer from. Big business doesn't mind when FOX straight lies to the base as long as the base keeps voting for the party that passes capital gains tax cuts. If SethRich lies gets the base to vote R, wallstreet/coal/oil/defense/insurance don't give a shit. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On May 21 2017 07:49 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: ok. your aware their bad sources. yeah I assume their wrong or massively overexaggerating. Oh, it isn't even plausible anymore. There's no such thing as a marshal of the supreme court and they have how presidential pardoning works entirely wrong. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
On May 21 2017 08:06 Nevuk wrote: Oh, it isn't even plausible anymore. There's no such thing as a marshal of the supreme court and they have how presidential pardoning works entirely wrong. I was speaking generally how I approach fringe reporters like them. clearly this is ridiculously over the top. that's bad that they can't get facts right. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11824 Posts
It works in lots of countries. And their total Healthcare cost are a lot lower. In fact, the US still pays more government money for healthcare than most countries that have single payer. And that is ignoring the additional amount that people personally pay for their healthcare. All the while having worse results. http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2015/oct/us-health-care-from-a-global-perspective The only reason single payer is impossible in the US is because the insurance companies pay your politicians. The only people that should matter are the end consumers, meaning the citizens who need healthcare. And the US citizens are getting majorly shafted in this regard. You pay more and get less. Try to get your politicians to explain how their plans intend to change that. And get rid of the disgusting legal bribery, that would solve loads of problems. | ||
|
JW_DTLA
242 Posts
On May 21 2017 08:10 Simberto wrote: Why would single payer be impossible? It works in lots of countries. And their total Healthcare cost are a lot lower. In fact, the US still pays more government money for healthcare than most countries that have single payer. And that is ignoring the additional amount that people personally pay for their healthcare. All the while having worse results. http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2015/oct/us-health-care-from-a-global-perspective The only reason single payer is impossible in the US is because the insurance companies pay your politicians. The only people that should matter are the end consumers, meaning the citizens who need healthcare. And the US citizens are getting majorly shafted in this regard. You pay more and get less. Try to get your politicians to explain how their plans intend to change that. And get rid of the disgusting legal bribery, that would solve loads of problems. Okay, any single payer law in America would need to move from the status quo of what we have, towards single payer. It is not enough to say "but it works in another country where they have VATs and middle class taxes are much higher". Any single payer law would need to move from the current extant reality. Bernie's plan tried that. It was scored. It was 18 trillion in the hole over 10 years. "but it works elsewhere" won't pass muster. You need to pony up a scored piece of legislation that adds up. EDIT: there is another massive impediment to single payer in the USA. A whole lot of the country, especially those in upper W2 income tax brackets, get expensive and effective insurance through their employer. These people tend to like their insurance. Any single payer system would saddle those people with a lot more taxes for a benefit that they wouldn't use. Political economy matters here. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On May 21 2017 07:56 JW_DTLA wrote: Let's talk about the composition of the Dem/left coalition for a bit. The thinking and writing portions of the lefty coalition are largely professional class liberals and the top of the party looks very similar. Think Obama, Pelosi, Schumer, Gillibrand. Politicians like that can't come up and sell bullshit. A big chunk of the donor base (liberal people like me, lawyers) won't swallow lies just because they fire up the base. That progressives are willing to hear things just to be fired up, even though they are flatly impossible, doesn't make it wise. Bernie did this and it was a big reason why the liberal wing of the Dem party turned on him so hard (and why I hate him). Even with a colossal, unprecedented tax increase Bernie's plan was 18 trillion in the hole over 10 years. Dems can't run on stuff that they know are lies. They will get called on it and the thinky/skeptical liberals in the party will not stick with them. Even further, moderates will run screaming from social democrat plans that don't add up. Really take a look at the Bernie plan. It was a disaster on the merits. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/analysis-senator-bernie-sanderss-tax-and-transfer-proposals Further, the Dem/left coalition, if it is to win the house, will need moderate and suburban voters, liberals, progressives, and various identity groups. Remember 2006 when Rahm Emmanual led the Dems to victory using the Blue Dogs? How do we win moderates if the republicans can, CORRECTLY, say that the Dem plans will require enormous tax increases that won't even cover their single payer plans? Go back and look at the Bernie plan. It couldn't even pay for itself. Note that this is an asymmetric disadvantage that the Rep/right coalition doesn't suffer from. Big business doesn't mind when FOX straight lies to the base as long as the base keeps voting for the party that passes capital gains tax cuts. If SethRich lies gets the base to vote R, wallstreet/coal/oil/defense/insurance don't give a shit. Yeah, the problem of American health care sure as hell has nothing to do with this: Election Cycle 2010 Total Contributions $181,863,017 Election Cycle 2010 Total Contributions $149,617,795 Election Cycle 2012 Total Contributions $269,266,943 Election Cycle 2014 Total Contributions $143,094,930 Election Cycle 2016 Total Contributions $268,084,574 It's all about what the public perceive to be achievable and their willingness to vote for it. That's the problem! Why do you reckon people think it is not achievable to get a single player market? Could it have anything to do with constant barrages of ads that threaten poor or middle class people to raise their taxes or sell other nonsense about healthcare/insurance, or think tanks funded by healthcare industry or other big money interests that don't want to put that money in a sensible economic cycle of public use through taxation, government spending, wages, and taxation again? Never mind the fact that if you have a single payer system, then the money saved from not paying through your nose for healthcare would likely offset the cost of any notion of increased taxes for the vast majority of people (and vast majority of people should be equal to the vast majority of votes - were it not for things like Citizen United and brainwashing media campaigns). | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On May 21 2017 07:56 JW_DTLA wrote: Let's talk about the composition of the Dem/left coalition for a bit. The thinking and writing portions of the lefty coalition are largely professional class liberals and the top of the party looks very similar. Think Obama, Pelosi, Schumer, Gillibrand. Politicians like that can't come up and sell bullshit. A big chunk of the donor base (liberal people like me, lawyers) won't swallow lies just because they fire up the base. That progressives are willing to hear things just to be fired up, even though they are flatly impossible, doesn't make it wise. Bernie did this and it was a big reason why the liberal wing of the Dem party turned on him so hard (and why I hate him). Even with a colossal, unprecedented tax increase Bernie's plan was 18 trillion in the hole over 10 years. Dems can't run on stuff that they know are lies. They will get called on it and the thinky/skeptical liberals in the party will not stick with them. Even further, moderates will run screaming from social democrat plans that don't add up. Really take a look at the Bernie plan. It was a disaster on the merits. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/analysis-senator-bernie-sanderss-tax-and-transfer-proposals Further, the Dem/left coalition, if it is to win the house, will need moderate and suburban voters, liberals, progressives, and various identity groups. Remember 2006 when Rahm Emmanual led the Dems to victory using the Blue Dogs? How do we win moderates if the republicans can, CORRECTLY, say that the Dem plans will require enormous tax increases that won't even cover their single payer plans? Go back and look at the Bernie plan. It couldn't even pay for itself. Progressive policies poll very well though. I guess that if "professional class liberals" think their misanthropy and servitude towards insurance companies makes for a good campaign pitch then I'm not holding out much hope. The exact stereotype that Dems need to overcome is that of smug, elitist, identity-politics exploiting career politicians that serve corporate interests while pretending to be better, smarter, savvier than other people. The same stereotype the DNC does everything it can to reinforce. Why not try having a progressive platform and advocating reforms that exist in nearly every European country, all known policies that will improve people's quality of life? It's not like the Dems have much electoral success otherwise, they lost the House in 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016. | ||
|
JW_DTLA
242 Posts
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/analysis-senator-bernie-sanderss-tax-and-transfer-proposals Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders proposes significant tax increases that would raise $15.3 trillion over the next decade. All income groups would pay more tax, but most would come from high-income households, particularly those with very high incomes. Sanders would also implement new government benefits—notably government-financed single-payer health care, long-term services and supports, college, and family leave benefits—and expand Social Security benefits. TPC finds the new government benefits would more than offset new taxes for 95% of households but the combined tax and transfer plan would increase federal budget deficits by more than $18 trillion over the next decade. EDIT: accusations of being too industry friendly couldn't be more irrelevant. Until you guys can explain how to pay for a single payer system in America (where medical care costs what it does), no amount of personal attacks or slurs will do a damned thing. They aren't arguments when the problem is dollars and cents. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Personally I want them to patch up the ACA and then move on to election reform. We have only been focusing on healthcare for nearly a decade and there are other problems that need addressing. Education, increased wages, regulating airlines, updating consumer protection laws for companies like Facebook and Google, holy god reforming wall street so it isn't a dumpster fire. There are other things that need to be dealt with. Edit: I see people posting election donations as if that proves some argument. The Supreme Court made that shit legal. If people want that to end, laws need to be passed and it will be a huge fight. And even then, we might be stuck with it until more seats open up on the Supreme Court. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On May 21 2017 08:20 Plansix wrote: If you think single payer is is a hard sell simply because of massive campaign donations, you may not have been paying attention since 2010. The entire republican congress got elected running against a weak version of health care reform with some tax increases. The ACA may get repealed and then we are back to people getting denied healthcare because got hit by a car when they were 11. Personally I want them to patch up the ACA and then move on to election reform. We have only been focusing on healthcare for nearly a decade and there are other problems that need addressing. Education, increased wages, regulating airlines, updating consumer protection laws for companies like Facebook and Google, holy god reforming wall street so it isn't a dumpster fire. There are other things that need to be dealt with. We saw in the DNC e-mails that the big money donations help determine the platform that politicians run on, so that sets the message that gets spread from the politicians' side of things. On top of that, the advertisement campaigns paid for by those same companies put ideas in people heads, and then so the "problem" comes at them from two sides. People end up going "Well, everywhere people are saying...". It's fucking bullshit, dude. People here kept saying how stupid Trump voters are - well, how about we stop the stupid people from being subjected to the retard television ads with nonsensical messages that basically help them ruin their own lives, and the lives of their fellow Americans to boot. The problem of people not accepting otherwise sensible solutions exists in the money that is being used to influence their poor little idiotic minds. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On May 21 2017 08:20 Plansix wrote: If you think single payer is is a hard sell simply because of massive campaign donations, you may not have been paying attention since 2010. The entire republican congress got elected running against a weak version of health care reform with some tax increases. The ACA may get repealed and then we are back to people getting denied healthcare because got hit by a car when they were 11. Personally I want them to patch up the ACA and then move on to election reform. We have only been focusing on healthcare for nearly a decade and there are other problems that need addressing. Education, increased wages, regulating airlines, updating consumer protection laws for companies like Facebook and Google, holy god reforming wall street so it isn't a dumpster fire. There are other things that need to be dealt with. If you have universal policies like social security, medicare, public education, it's much more difficult to sabotage because they are very popular and help almost everyone. Health insurance basically should not exist, if the insurance companies were literally gone and replaced with a single payer program it'd become much more difficult to sabotage because you wouldn't have this influential faction of corporations constantly lobbying for relaxed regulation. What the Dems constantly offer as policies are basically bandaids to damage caused by an unregulated capitalist economy. They offer no structural solutions to these problems other than trying to remove the sharp edges. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On May 21 2017 08:28 a_flayer wrote: We saw in the DNC e-mails that the big money donations help determine the platform that politicians run on, so that sets the message that gets spread from the politicians' side of things. On top of that, the advertisement campaigns paid for by those same companies put ideas in people heads, and then so the "problem" comes at them from two sides. People end up going "Well, everywhere people are saying...". It's fucking bullshit, dude. People here kept saying how stupid Trump voters are - well, how about we stop the stupid people from being subjected to the retard television ads with nonsensical messages that basically help them ruin their own lives, and the lives of their fellow Americans to boot. The problem of people not accepting otherwise sensible solutions exists in the money that is being used to influence their poor little idiotic minds. What part of election reform in my post confused you? Or are you so angry you didn't bother to read and just went off on your typical "fuck the DNC" rant? | ||
| ||
