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.
On January 04 2014 06:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Side note - I'm not sure why you're figuring that low income / low education voters are opposed to single payer healthcare. I haven't seen that statistic.
I was mainly referring to the surprisingly large group of "working class whites" that seem to root with the Tea Party or other Libertarian groups, or the Anti - Government agenda of the Republican party(which from a foreign perspective seems what they have been shifting towards). I am aware that lower income voters generally tend to favor the Democrats, but given the fact that the country is nearly split in half while the agenda of the GOP is basically putting 90% of the people at disadvantage is astonishing to me.
Perhaps because the perspectives of comfortable middle-class people on the benefits of a heavy government blanket for all do not quite match up to the reality of the working poor trying to deal with the behemoth.
I actually am one of those working poor, and dealing with the government on anything is about eight bitches and a half. What is promised by government and what is delivered by government "where the rubber hits the road" are two vastly different things.
And it only gets worse when you're an employer or some kind of wealth creator trying to deal with the government. You guys can go on and on about how competently you do it in Europe but if that were actually true to the degree claimed, Hollande wouldn't be going all Reagan in a desperate attempt to save his bacon right now, your rich countries wouldn't be bullying the poor ones around to get their houses in order, the NHS wouldn't be treating patients like grandma and grandpa in the cheapest, most loathsome "retirement homes" in the US South, and immigration wouldn't be such a controversial issue. Sorry but it actually is true that you do eventually run out of other people's money, it actually is true that economic innovation and vitality are sapped by too much taxation and regulation, and it actually is true that the US economy is more resilient because we put less weights on it "for the common good" than Europe does. You've chosen the trade-off at a different point than the US has, and it hasn't leapfrogged you past us.
Of course it is astonishing to you, when you think of economic advancement you don't look toward yourself, you look toward the government. Americans look more to themselves. And it's a laugh and a half that the "agenda of the GOP is basically putting 90% of the people at disadvantage." That is stupid. The GOP is the nationalist party, remember? What kind of nationalism is it to intend to "disadvantage" 90% of the people? "Shoot your country in the foot" nationalism? The GOP wants everybody to be as rich as they can possibly be, just like all political parties have their idealistic nonsense.
Arguing that the people vote against their interest because they're ignorant or mystified or stupid never has been a winner and never will be. We live in democracies, the people decide what their interest is and if you don't like it, that's really just too bad.
Arguing that the people vote against their interest because they're ignorant or mystified or stupid never has been a winner and never will be. We live in democracies, the people decide what their interest is and if you don't like it, that's really just too bad.
Of course, in Europe we have an awesome solution to this problem. An EU government that we have never voted for. Beat that, Americans!
Arguing that the people vote against their interest because they're ignorant or mystified or stupid never has been a winner and never will be. We live in democracies, the people decide what their interest is and if you don't like it, that's really just too bad.
Of course, in Europe we have an awesome solution to this problem. An EU government that we have never voted for. Beat that, Americans!
Yeah, you can't quite claim you voted in your own undoing. We'll just have to try to devalue the dollar faster than the issues of PIIGS & the euro. The race is on.
On January 04 2014 06:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Side note - I'm not sure why you're figuring that low income / low education voters are opposed to single payer healthcare. I haven't seen that statistic.
I was mainly referring to the surprisingly large group of "working class whites" that seem to root with the Tea Party or other Libertarian groups, or the Anti - Government agenda of the Republican party(which from a foreign perspective seems what they have been shifting towards). I am aware that lower income voters generally tend to favor the Democrats, but given the fact that the country is nearly split in half while the agenda of the GOP is basically putting 90% of the people at disadvantage is astonishing to me.
Perhaps because the perspectives of comfortable middle-class people on the benefits of a heavy government blanket for all do not quite match up to the reality of the working poor trying to deal with the behemoth.
I actually am one of those working poor, and dealing with the government on anything is about eight bitches and a half. What is promised by government and what is delivered by government "where the rubber hits the road" are two vastly different things.
And it only gets worse when you're an employer or some kind of wealth creator trying to deal with the government. You guys can go on and on about how competently you do it in Europe but if that were actually true to the degree claimed, Hollande wouldn't be going all Reagan in a desperate attempt to save his bacon right now, your rich countries wouldn't be bullying the poor ones around to get their houses in order, the NHS wouldn't be treating patients like grandma and grandpa in the cheapest, most loathsome "retirement homes" in the US South, and immigration wouldn't be such a controversial issue. Sorry but it actually is true that you do eventually run out of other people's money, it actually is true that economic innovation and vitality are sapped by too much taxation and regulation, and it actually is true that the US economy is more resilient because we put less weights on it "for the common good" than Europe does. You've chosen the trade-off at a different point than the US has, and it hasn't leapfrogged you past us.
Of course it is astonishing to you, when you think of economic advancement you don't look toward yourself, you look toward the government. Americans look more to themselves. And it's a laugh and a half that the "agenda of the GOP is basically putting 90% of the people at disadvantage." That is stupid. The GOP is the nationalist party, remember? What kind of nationalism is it to intend to "disadvantage" 90% of the people? "Shoot your country in the foot" nationalism? The GOP wants everybody to be as rich as they can possibly be, just like all political parties have their idealistic nonsense.
Arguing that the people vote against their interest because they're ignorant or mystified or stupid never has been a winner and never will be. We live in democracies, the people decide what their interest is and if you don't like it, that's really just too bad.
The problem is "interest". It doesn't mean shit. People build up their interest, by staying in specific group, by talking with people, by reading some books, etc. People always see their interest from a specific perspective. In reality, you never do something "for your interests", but you make a trade off between multiple gain and loss, and that trade off is not only directed by materialist gain but also by value and norm. Politics is not a science where you can calculate an optimum and just struggle to reach that goal. For exemple, you, like Danglars, seems to believe that your interests lies in a smaller government (and you would surely gain things from a smaller government), but it's like a fish in an aquarium thinking he can happily live with the sharks.
I'm totally for democraty, but just like mariage it's for the best and the worst. As for the euro, we will never devaluate that because it goes against Germany's short term economic interest - because in our society, people are only educated to see their short term economic interests.
On January 04 2014 05:48 farvacola wrote: He's one of this threads biggest contributors, as much as it pains me to say , and in terms of substance, I'd definitely say that the "horrors of government regulated healthcare" are represented by more than not much talk.
I've gotta be past 5th and 6th for posters in this thread honestly. It's just the minority of US-conservative posters that makes it seem like a lot. That and perhaps the longevity of my posting.
Just one guy who cringes at what goes by "government investment" these days.
On January 04 2014 18:34 DeepElemBlues wrote: some kind of wealth creator
Isn't wealth creator a troll term invented to parody the way free market ideologues see the world? As in "poverty is caused by the 1% not having a great enough proportion of all the money so we need to give them more money so they can create money and jobs for us". Is there some kind of right wing reclaiming the term going on here or am I missing something?
On January 03 2014 19:01 Wegandi wrote: Missing from this entire argument is the fact that the US Healthcare system is this mangled garbage of a system of socialism and fascism. Then, the critics of such system label this abomination, a 'market system', to which I can only imagine their definition to be 'money passes from one party to another', or some other vagaries. Then there are the reactionaries, who defend this abomination with the same tortured argument of it being a 'market'. Between these two factions I can only shake my head in disbelief. I am sure the AMA, FDA, Medicare, SCHIP, Medicaid, Tri-care, VA, and the trillions of dollars of Government-money funneling into the system means relatively little...it's all those insurance companies fault! The fact is, the insurance industry is partly to blame for their lobbying to crush competition via writs and regulation and mass subsidy, and the other side of the equation being Government mandates and outlawing of contractual arrangements between parties (especially re: insurance pooling, list of conditions that all policies must have, etc. etc.).
There are also a ton of other causes such as the Government outlawing importation of drugs especially generic. Which is to say, those making the argument we have some 'free market' in healthcare to shout down market proponents of change, is laughable, just as much are the 'market' reactionaries who actually think we have some semblance of 'market' healthcare, to which I can only laugh just as much. The foreplay these two groups constantly interchange only obfuscates the real heart of the issue.
Our healthcare 'care' is very good, it is the cost which is the problem, a problem which can only be solved by understanding the causes, and they aren't boiled down to 'greed' or 'this is the market price!'. Of course, there are those who do understand the cause of the prices we currently see and defend those causes (AMA, licensures, FDA, Medicaid/Medicare/Regulatory State/etc.), but then whine about the prices, or use it to push for even more socializing of the hideous system we have to endure. The latter group knows who they are.
On January 03 2014 19:41 IgnE wrote: You live in a fantasy land if you think healthcare could ever operate under some kind of radical laissez faire market.
It is a radical idea to let people know how much their procedure will cost; we need to banish the thought from our minds. It is a radical idea to let people choose their health insurance for their time of life and situations in life. It is better to remain ignorant and let these wizards of smart tell us how much it should cost actually just banish greed and make it free! We've seen clearly the masses are too dumb to choose it for themselves, they must be forced into the right choices. Freedom is overrated.
Yes i know your being sarcastic but yes, people are sometimes to dumb to choose for themselves. Young people thinking they dont need to cover cancer cause its 'no big deal' and then they get it, cant pay for it and are fucked while being society has to pay for them. Now ofc there are limits and degrees to this but as has been argued about months ago a lot of people have no idea what they do or do not need insurance for.
I give you credit for coming out and stating it openly, the fundamental premise for centrally-controlled anything. Sometimes, or a lot of, people are too dumb to choose for themselves so a benevolent nanny-state needs to come in and choose for you. Krauthammer laid his finger on that not too long ago either
You want a catastrophic plan which is very rational, but Jay Carney is saying, you know, 'you're too stupid to understand what you want.' Once you eliminate the market response, which is a lot of people decide I know what I want better than the bureaucrat and they're eliminating this. That's the essence of what's happening and that's why it's not going to work.
It's the age old problem ... you put it in the hands of the bureaucrat and not the individual and you simultaneously set up a perverse system. The bureaucrat responds to what is politically advantageous for him and his masters because he is not an infallible angel. You have fallible men governing fallible men until you find these angels who will organize society on our behalf.
And yet it can work well. You are living in black-and-white illusion. You try to paint everyone in those systems as bureaucrats, thus stretching the meaning of that word beyond reasonable use. There is difference between professional organizations, scientific organizations and state bureaucrats. Well setup system relies on bureaucrats as little as possible. As much of the system should be set up by experts, and they actually know better than you do. The rest of the system should be set up based on society's demand. Bureaucrats should have as little power as possible and only as much as necessary for the system to work. In reality they of course have more power than that and keeping them down is constant struggle, but that does not negate the fact that those systems still work if there is enough work put in making them function.
Krauthammer, isn't that the guy that had once interview with John Stewart and showed he is prime example of what KwarK described in the post starting this discussion ? He has absolutely no idea about anything outside US and was just making shit up, not very good for someone trying to publicly discuss the issue.
I think 2013 was a case in point as evidence against these beloved technocrats, or experts if you prefer. They actually know more than we do, can design something greater--famous last words. Can you not hear the cry of people saying that I know better than this enlightened bureaucrat what health plan works for myself and my family? That 40% AV plans are too expensive for me, that wide swaths of what's now "essential benefits" are hardly essential at all? You're acting like society's demands are knowable in the aggregate, whereas in reality, cases are very unique and the only good system is the one with high choice and freedom of choice. Negotiate health insurance that's right for you with an insurer, not with your mouth sewn shut while the nice man from the government negotiates it with the insurer for you.
Obama promised a move away from the old debate of small government vs big government; he proposed smarter government with audacity ... created hashtag smartergovernment. Walked into office with majorities in the House and Senate; the world was his. His adminstration and party made it clear they had all the good ideas by passing through PPACA without a single Republican vote. What do we have now? Amendments, exclusions, legislation by executive decree, millions losing their insurance, and widespread dissatisfaction.
It's all well and good talking about these dispassionate experts in the abstract. We just get the smartest people together that know better than the rest and everything will be great. In the US, what happens is you fail again and again, and try your hardest to blame everything except the creators.
I'm not the biggest fan of Krauthammer, but he said it correctly and concisely this time. Did you even read it, or listen to the video?
Notice that I mentioned that the such systems can be done, not that current incarnation in US is example of that. You continue to state claims like "only good system is the one with high choice and freedom of choice" and your only argument is pointing to current US situation once again displaying the thing we were discussing. You are still confusing bureaucrats with experts. Experts are doctors, scientists, ... , not someone in government or insurance company designing specific plans.
The basic mistake of US system is trying to have some kind of public insurance without actually having public insurance. Doing public system by forcing private system to bow down to some rules won't work for multiple reasons. Failure of US attempts has no bearing on the overall point that forced insurance with predetermined coverage can work, examples can be seen everywhere outside US. For less money and with better results. How much choice is involved and how much private sector is involved differs a lot from country to country with actually very little differences in results. There is somewhere OECD study pointing out that there is no significant difference between countries that have public systems, no matter how much private system is involved. Seems once you have public system it is cosmetic choice how much choice and private involvement is present.
On January 04 2014 02:12 Falling wrote: Also public healthcare is not synonymous with centrally planned public healthcare by the public healthcare. I think in this way, the Canadian system is a better parallel due to US's value on State's rights. Our fathers of Confederation planned for a much more centrally controlled government in reaction to the blown apart States during the Civil War, but we wound up pretty decentralized just the same.
At the federal level you have the Health Canada Act which lays out the guidelines of the minimum requirements that that provinces must meet.
Public administration: each provincial health care insurance plan must be administered on a non-profit basis by a public authority, which is accountable to the provincial government for its financial transactions. Comprehensiveness: provincial health care insurance plans must cover all “insured health services” (hospital care, physician services and medically required surgical dental procedures which can be properly carried out only in a hospital). Universality: all residents in the province must have access to public health care insurance and insured health services on uniform terms and conditions. Portability: provinces and territories must cover insured health services provided to their citizens while they are temporarily absent from their province of residence or from Canada. Accessibility: insured persons must have reasonable and uniform access to insured health services, free of financial or other barriers. This condition is emphasized by two provisions of the Act which specifically discourage financial contributions by patients, either through user charges or extra-billing, for services covered under provincial health care insurance plans.(6)
And because provincial governments gave over a lot of their taxation power years ago, the federal government transfers money to the provinces. But it does not run day to day operations- that would be far too inefficient as Canada (similar to the States) is super spread out and regionally diverse.
So it is the provinces that actually have control on how the healthcare is delivered, but it must meet the Canada Health Act if they want the funding. But much of the real decisions are actually made at the regional level
The major distinction is publically funded and for the must part, privately delivered.
Two major branches: I) Public funded- 1) Public Delivery- Public Health, Provincial psychiatric institutions, Home Care in some provinces 2) Private Not-for-Profit Delivery- Most hospitals, addiction treatment 3) Private For-Profit Delivery- Primary health care physicians, Ancillary services in hospitals (laundry services, meal prep & maintenance), Labs & diagnostic services in most provinces, some hospitals
II) Privately funded- 1) Public Delivery- Enhanced non-medical (private room) & medical (eg fibreglass cast) goods and services in a publicly owned hospital 2) Private Not-for Profit Delivery- Some home care and nursing homes in some provinces 3) Private For-Profit Delivery- Cosmetic surgery, long-term care, extended health care benefits such as prescription drugs, dental care and eye care in some provinces, some MRI and CT scan clinics, some surgery clinics
The point is not that this is a perfect system, but I think it is a system that is at least comparably applicable to the American situation (ignoring American exceptionalism that makes everything inapplicable.) But when people say government is inherently inefficient, I suspect what they actually tend to mean is the federal government is inherently inefficient- unless they are of the libertarian into anarcho-capitalist brand. But if the federal government's role was bloc transfers and criteria to meet to get those bloc transfers, then doesn't that fulfill the rather common American desire to keep State control over most things including healthcare?
Furthermore as it is the doctor who handles insurance claims against the provincial insurer, it generally cuts out government bureaucrats from deciding whether you get funded or not.
It's too simplistic to say that public healthcare is inherently inefficient when there is such a multitude of ways to deliver healthcare while funding it publicly (and privately.)
It makes sense for the state to be involved in assisting the truly destitute pay for basic healthcare. As you say, its demonstrably more efficient the better these programs are administered locally. As with everything, the goal should be to allow these people the opportunities to succeed, without the aim or perverse incentives to stay in their current income bracket to dodge taxes, penalties, and reduced benefits.
Difficulties arise in a public and private system existing side by side. Public can spend themselves deep into the red; their costs are not examined by the consumer--they're far removed. In fact, it is the consumer best able to judge their treatment costs and satisfaction. Private cannot tax individuals to help pay their costs, and end up uncompetitive across large sections of the population.
I'm not very current on my Canada-US statistics on transborder movement for healthcare. Every time I read up on the canadian system, those wait times for treatment by specialists are just ridiculous. I don't know your opinion of the Fraser institute, but they found in 2011 that wait times for treament had increased 104%. 19 weeks between visiting your general practitioner and seeing that specialist will lead to all that medical tourism. It really appears to be the choice between: It's free, but you can't get it; It's costly, but it's readily available.
What's your tax burden and percent of the budget spent on public health care these days? I remember reading an article on the increasing costs and increasing wait times, but can't find it at this moment.
Public systems often work on the same principle as insurance companies. Thus there is absolutely no reason for those systems to go to red. They can calculate how much money will be needed to cover the population and then spread the costs over the income brackets as necessary pretty well to avoid going into red. You can even make sure legally that that part of taxes is not touched by any other part of the government. Details again vary.
Wait times are not ridiculous if you actually include the information on how necessary such a visit is. You seem to ignore the point that was being made that access to specialists is based on need, thus people who can wait, might wait quite some time.
On January 04 2014 06:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Side note - I'm not sure why you're figuring that low income / low education voters are opposed to single payer healthcare. I haven't seen that statistic.
I was mainly referring to the surprisingly large group of "working class whites" that seem to root with the Tea Party or other Libertarian groups, or the Anti - Government agenda of the Republican party(which from a foreign perspective seems what they have been shifting towards). I am aware that lower income voters generally tend to favor the Democrats, but given the fact that the country is nearly split in half while the agenda of the GOP is basically putting 90% of the people at disadvantage is astonishing to me.
Perhaps because the perspectives of comfortable middle-class people on the benefits of a heavy government blanket for all do not quite match up to the reality of the working poor trying to deal with the behemoth.
I actually am one of those working poor, and dealing with the government on anything is about eight bitches and a half. What is promised by government and what is delivered by government "where the rubber hits the road" are two vastly different things.
And it only gets worse when you're an employer or some kind of wealth creator trying to deal with the government. You guys can go on and on about how competently you do it in Europe but if that were actually true to the degree claimed, Hollande wouldn't be going all Reagan in a desperate attempt to save his bacon right now, your rich countries wouldn't be bullying the poor ones around to get their houses in order, the NHS wouldn't be treating patients like grandma and grandpa in the cheapest, most loathsome "retirement homes" in the US South, and immigration wouldn't be such a controversial issue. Sorry but it actually is true that you do eventually run out of other people's money, it actually is true that economic innovation and vitality are sapped by too much taxation and regulation, and it actually is true that the US economy is more resilient because we put less weights on it "for the common good" than Europe does. You've chosen the trade-off at a different point than the US has, and it hasn't leapfrogged you past us.
Of course it is astonishing to you, when you think of economic advancement you don't look toward yourself, you look toward the government. Americans look more to themselves. And it's a laugh and a half that the "agenda of the GOP is basically putting 90% of the people at disadvantage." That is stupid. The GOP is the nationalist party, remember? What kind of nationalism is it to intend to "disadvantage" 90% of the people? "Shoot your country in the foot" nationalism? The GOP wants everybody to be as rich as they can possibly be, just like all political parties have their idealistic nonsense.
Arguing that the people vote against their interest because they're ignorant or mystified or stupid never has been a winner and never will be. We live in democracies, the people decide what their interest is and if you don't like it, that's really just too bad.
Why are you mixing up all social systems when we are discussing healthcare systems ? Can you tell the difference ? Healthcare systems cost problems that Europe have nothing to do with the basic setup. They are more than capable of running without loss.
Public system does actually benefit employers as they do not have to worry about providing it for their employees. Yes, you cannot gain competitive advantage by not providing your employees with one, but the same is true for your competitors, so playing field is level and people are covered (international competition of course changes the scenario, but not really that much in context of this discussion).
Bipartisan push for sentencing changes underway in Congress
WASHINGTON (AP) -- An unusual alliance of tea party enthusiasts and liberal leaders in Congress is pursuing major changes in the country's mandatory sentencing laws.
What's motivating them are growing concerns about both the fairness of the sentences and the expense of running federal prisons.
The congressional push comes as President Barack Obama and his Cabinet draw attention to the issue of mandatory sentences, particularly for nonviolent drug offenders.
Supporters say mandatory minimum sentences are outdated, lump all offenders into one category and rob judges of the ability to use their own discretion.
They also cite the high costs of the policies. The Justice Department spends some $6.4 billion, about one-quarter of its budget, on prisons each year, and that number is growing steadily. ...
The number of homicides in the United States’ biggest cities hit record lows again in 2013 as the murder rate nationally continued to drop to levels not seen since the 1960s. ...
On January 04 2014 18:34 DeepElemBlues wrote: some kind of wealth creator
Isn't wealth creator a troll term invented to parody the way free market ideologues see the world? As in "poverty is caused by the 1% not having a great enough proportion of all the money so we need to give them more money so they can create money and jobs for us". Is there some kind of right wing reclaiming the term going on here or am I missing something?
I have only heard the phrase used in earnest on this side of the atlantic.
On January 04 2014 06:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Side note - I'm not sure why you're figuring that low income / low education voters are opposed to single payer healthcare. I haven't seen that statistic.
I was mainly referring to the surprisingly large group of "working class whites" that seem to root with the Tea Party or other Libertarian groups, or the Anti - Government agenda of the Republican party(which from a foreign perspective seems what they have been shifting towards). I am aware that lower income voters generally tend to favor the Democrats, but given the fact that the country is nearly split in half while the agenda of the GOP is basically putting 90% of the people at disadvantage is astonishing to me.
Perhaps because the perspectives of comfortable middle-class people on the benefits of a heavy government blanket for all do not quite match up to the reality of the working poor trying to deal with the behemoth.
I actually am one of those working poor, and dealing with the government on anything is about eight bitches and a half. What is promised by government and what is delivered by government "where the rubber hits the road" are two vastly different things.
And it only gets worse when you're an employer or some kind of wealth creator trying to deal with the government. You guys can go on and on about how competently you do it in Europe but if that were actually true to the degree claimed, Hollande wouldn't be going all Reagan in a desperate attempt to save his bacon right now, your rich countries wouldn't be bullying the poor ones around to get their houses in order, the NHS wouldn't be treating patients like grandma and grandpa in the cheapest, most loathsome "retirement homes" in the US South, and immigration wouldn't be such a controversial issue. Sorry but it actually is true that you do eventually run out of other people's money, it actually is true that economic innovation and vitality are sapped by too much taxation and regulation, and it actually is true that the US economy is more resilient because we put less weights on it "for the common good" than Europe does. You've chosen the trade-off at a different point than the US has, and it hasn't leapfrogged you past us.
Of course it is astonishing to you, when you think of economic advancement you don't look toward yourself, you look toward the government. Americans look more to themselves. And it's a laugh and a half that the "agenda of the GOP is basically putting 90% of the people at disadvantage." That is stupid. The GOP is the nationalist party, remember? What kind of nationalism is it to intend to "disadvantage" 90% of the people? "Shoot your country in the foot" nationalism? The GOP wants everybody to be as rich as they can possibly be, just like all political parties have their idealistic nonsense.
Arguing that the people vote against their interest because they're ignorant or mystified or stupid never has been a winner and never will be. We live in democracies, the people decide what their interest is and if you don't like it, that's really just too bad.
The GOP wants everyone to be as rich as they can be? Well, it definitely wants the rich people + businesses to be as rich as possible. Although i'm sure you'll construct some argument to say that deregulation + cutting taxes on the rich will have a great trickle down effect, especially when coupled with cuts to all the programs that support the poorer Americans.
Because i'm sure that single mother who works 9-5 and is on food stamps isn't really working hard enough. I have a solution! Cut her welfare so that she has to feed her kids shittier food; THAT will motivate her to "work harder!"
For anyone interested in the issues of cutting welfare:
It's an informative and well presented documentary that challenges the stereotype of minorities feeding off the government as the principal welfare recipients.
You say people decide what their interests are? I agree. Perhaps that's why the GOP has been beaten soundly in the last two general elections. The most confusing thing about that, is that the GOP seems to have gone farther right after getting small %'s of everyone that isn't white. Hell, Al Gore even won the popular vote in 2000.
This is when someone says, "well the GOP controls the house, y'all got gerrymandered" and then no one is surprised why Republicans are losing ground across the board.
On January 04 2014 06:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Side note - I'm not sure why you're figuring that low income / low education voters are opposed to single payer healthcare. I haven't seen that statistic.
I was mainly referring to the surprisingly large group of "working class whites" that seem to root with the Tea Party or other Libertarian groups, or the Anti - Government agenda of the Republican party(which from a foreign perspective seems what they have been shifting towards). I am aware that lower income voters generally tend to favor the Democrats, but given the fact that the country is nearly split in half while the agenda of the GOP is basically putting 90% of the people at disadvantage is astonishing to me.
Perhaps because the perspectives of comfortable middle-class people on the benefits of a heavy government blanket for all do not quite match up to the reality of the working poor trying to deal with the behemoth.
I actually am one of those working poor, and dealing with the government on anything is about eight bitches and a half. What is promised by government and what is delivered by government "where the rubber hits the road" are two vastly different things.
And it only gets worse when you're an employer or some kind of wealth creator trying to deal with the government. You guys can go on and on about how competently you do it in Europe but if that were actually true to the degree claimed, Hollande wouldn't be going all Reagan in a desperate attempt to save his bacon right now, your rich countries wouldn't be bullying the poor ones around to get their houses in order, the NHS wouldn't be treating patients like grandma and grandpa in the cheapest, most loathsome "retirement homes" in the US South, and immigration wouldn't be such a controversial issue. Sorry but it actually is true that you do eventually run out of other people's money, it actually is true that economic innovation and vitality are sapped by too much taxation and regulation, and it actually is true that the US economy is more resilient because we put less weights on it "for the common good" than Europe does. You've chosen the trade-off at a different point than the US has, and it hasn't leapfrogged you past us.
Of course it is astonishing to you, when you think of economic advancement you don't look toward yourself, you look toward the government. Americans look more to themselves. And it's a laugh and a half that the "agenda of the GOP is basically putting 90% of the people at disadvantage." That is stupid. The GOP is the nationalist party, remember? What kind of nationalism is it to intend to "disadvantage" 90% of the people? "Shoot your country in the foot" nationalism? The GOP wants everybody to be as rich as they can possibly be, just like all political parties have their idealistic nonsense.
Arguing that the people vote against their interest because they're ignorant or mystified or stupid never has been a winner and never will be. We live in democracies, the people decide what their interest is and if you don't like it, that's really just too bad.
The GOP wants everyone to be as rich as they can be? Well, it definitely wants the rich people + businesses to be as rich as possible. Although i'm sure you'll construct some argument to say that deregulation + cutting taxes on the rich will have a great trickle down effect, especially when coupled with cuts to all the programs that support the poorer Americans.
Because i'm sure that single mother who works 9-5 and is on food stamps isn't really working hard enough. I have a solution! Cut her welfare so that she has to feed her kids shittier food; THAT will motivate her to "work harder!"
For anyone interested in the issues of cutting welfare:
It's an informative and well presented documentary that challenges the stereotype of minorities feeding off the government as the principal welfare recipients.
You say people decide what their interests are? I agree. Perhaps that's why the GOP has been beaten soundly in the last two general elections. The most confusing thing about that, is that the GOP seems to have gone farther right after getting small %'s of everyone that isn't white. Hell, Al Gore even won the popular vote in 2000.
What about when the GOP expands government programs like Medicare and cuts taxes for lower income people? Is that just for rich folks too?
On January 04 2014 18:34 DeepElemBlues wrote: some kind of wealth creator
Isn't wealth creator a troll term invented to parody the way free market ideologues see the world? As in "poverty is caused by the 1% not having a great enough proportion of all the money so we need to give them more money so they can create money and jobs for us". Is there some kind of right wing reclaiming the term going on here or am I missing something?
I look forward to the day when Barack Obama passes a law declaring that everyone shall be rich.
On January 04 2014 18:34 DeepElemBlues wrote: some kind of wealth creator
Isn't wealth creator a troll term invented to parody the way free market ideologues see the world? As in "poverty is caused by the 1% not having a great enough proportion of all the money so we need to give them more money so they can create money and jobs for us". Is there some kind of right wing reclaiming the term going on here or am I missing something?
Wealth is created over time, and people create it. I won't argue it's the rich who are solely (or even mainly) responsible for this, but life, and economics, is not a zero sum game. Everyone benefits from an efficient, competitive economy that prevents oligopolies and monopolies from dulling competition. As is apparent to everyone, there is something broken in our current system that causes our monumental inequality, and surely middle class entrepreneurs need more help in our economy. But the super rich spending money by creating and expanding businesses is certainly a good thing.
On January 04 2014 18:34 DeepElemBlues wrote: some kind of wealth creator
Isn't wealth creator a troll term invented to parody the way free market ideologues see the world? As in "poverty is caused by the 1% not having a great enough proportion of all the money so we need to give them more money so they can create money and jobs for us". Is there some kind of right wing reclaiming the term going on here or am I missing something?
Wealth is created over time, and people create it. I won't argue it's the rich who are solely (or even mainly) responsible for this, but life, and economics, is not a zero sum game. Everyone benefits from an efficient, competitive economy that prevents oligopolies and monopolies from dulling competition. As is apparent to everyone, there is something broken in our current system that causes our monumental inequality, and surely middle class entrepreneurs need more help in our economy. But the super rich spending money by creating and expanding businesses is certainly a good thing.
Except the super rich don't spend there money on making jobs. Gates spending money doesnt give more people work. Trump spending money doesnt give people work.
On January 04 2014 18:34 DeepElemBlues wrote: some kind of wealth creator
Isn't wealth creator a troll term invented to parody the way free market ideologues see the world? As in "poverty is caused by the 1% not having a great enough proportion of all the money so we need to give them more money so they can create money and jobs for us". Is there some kind of right wing reclaiming the term going on here or am I missing something?
Wealth is created over time, and people create it. I won't argue it's the rich who are solely (or even mainly) responsible for this, but life, and economics, is not a zero sum game. Everyone benefits from an efficient, competitive economy that prevents oligopolies and monopolies from dulling competition. As is apparent to everyone, there is something broken in our current system that causes our monumental inequality, and surely middle class entrepreneurs need more help in our economy. But the super rich spending money by creating and expanding businesses is certainly a good thing.
Except the super rich don't spend there money on making jobs. Gates spending money doesnt give more people work. Trump spending money doesnt give people work.
How do you mean?
If Trump decides to build a giant new hotel in Las Vegas to try to make money for himself, he has to hire thousands of people to build the hotel, and the hundreds (or thousands) to manage and work in the hotel. That's a lot of work for people.
If Bill Gates decides he wants to make some new software and sell it at a profit, he has to hire people to write it.
If they decide that the regulatory/tax climate is shitty (business ventures aren't as likely to be profitable) then I guess they just keep their money in a swiss bank account. Or maybe build the hotel in Macau instead...
On January 04 2014 18:34 DeepElemBlues wrote: some kind of wealth creator
Isn't wealth creator a troll term invented to parody the way free market ideologues see the world? As in "poverty is caused by the 1% not having a great enough proportion of all the money so we need to give them more money so they can create money and jobs for us". Is there some kind of right wing reclaiming the term going on here or am I missing something?
You could describe it as a finance / business view of the economy. Someone or some organization figures out how to make money in the future, capital is attracted to finance it and if the venture is successful new wealth is created.
It's not an incorrect way to view the economy, but like any viewpoint it doesn't capture 100% of reality either.
On January 04 2014 18:34 DeepElemBlues wrote: some kind of wealth creator
Isn't wealth creator a troll term invented to parody the way free market ideologues see the world? As in "poverty is caused by the 1% not having a great enough proportion of all the money so we need to give them more money so they can create money and jobs for us". Is there some kind of right wing reclaiming the term going on here or am I missing something?
Wealth is created over time, and people create it. I won't argue it's the rich who are solely (or even mainly) responsible for this, but life, and economics, is not a zero sum game. Everyone benefits from an efficient, competitive economy that prevents oligopolies and monopolies from dulling competition. As is apparent to everyone, there is something broken in our current system that causes our monumental inequality, and surely middle class entrepreneurs need more help in our economy. But the super rich spending money by creating and expanding businesses is certainly a good thing.
Except the super rich don't spend there money on making jobs. Gates spending money doesnt give more people work. Trump spending money doesnt give people work.
How do you mean?
If Trump decides to build a giant new hotel in Las Vegas to try to make money for himself, he has to hire thousands of people to build the hotel, and the hundreds (or thousands) to manage and work in the hotel. That's a lot of work for people.
If Bill Gates decides he wants to make some new software and sell it at a profit, he has to hire people to write it.
If they decide that the regulatory/tax climate is shitty (business ventures aren't as likely to be profitable) then I guess they just keep their money in a swiss bank account. Or maybe build the hotel in Macau instead...
Does Trump pay out of his pocket for new hotels or does his hotel chain pay for it? Does Gates pay for a new windows out of his own pocket or does Microsoft pay for it?
Additionally even the companies who spend the money will almost always spend that money regardless of tax-rates. Microsoft doesnt stop producing software because taxes went up 5%.
EPT
, and in terms of substance, I'd definitely say that the "horrors of government regulated healthcare" are represented by more than not much talk. 
