|
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. |
On May 26 2017 07:31 pmh wrote:
This thread is really going downhill,it has become a mirror of the media when it comes to trump.
So many people who otherwise make well thought out posts are losing their objectivity when it comes to trump to just jump on the bash train.
Ima take a break from this,its probably not a loss anyway ha ha.
Trump is just that bad...if you hadn't noticed.
|
On May 26 2017 07:31 pmh wrote:
This thread is really going downhill,it has become a mirror of the media when it comes to trump.
So many people who otherwise make well thought out posts are losing their objectivity when it comes to trump to just jump on the bash train.
Ima take a break from this,its probably not a loss anyway ha ha.
If you'd like to list some positive things go ahead. I'll I've seen is praising authoritarians and congratulating the head of the philipines for sending execution squads that ended up causing an international incident with South Korea.
|
On May 26 2017 07:34 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Calling bullshit. Show nested quote +House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on Thursday vowed to take up a $15 minimum wage in the first 100 hours of the next Congress if Democrats take back the chamber next year.
Pelosi offered the commitment while appearing alongside fellow Democratic leaders and advocates to release new legislation raising the minimum wage to $15. Her comments offer an early view at Democrats' potential agenda for the House if they can regain control in 2018, a long-shot prospect that some in the party think could grow increasingly more realistic given President Donald Trump and the GOP's recent struggles.
If "we win the election," Pelosi told the gathered audience, "in the first 100 hours we will pass a $15 minimum wage."
The California Democrat conspicuously harkened to 2007, when her caucus raised the minimum wage to its current level of $7.25 as part of an ambitious campaign for its first 100 hours in power. That 10-year-old agenda also included lowering the interest rate on student loans and allowing the government to negotiate drug prices under Medicare.
Pelosi endorsed a $15 minimum wage in 2015, aligning with Bernie Sanders on an issue that became a foundation of the Vermont independent senator's unsuccessful bid for last year's Democratic presidential nomination. The broad Democratic support for Thursday's minimum wage hike illustrates the extent of Sanders' influence on the agenda of the party whose leadership he has joined — without formally becoming a Democrat.
The minimum wage hike also has drawn early fire from conservatives who want to use Sanders' rising influence as a weapon against a Democratic party moving to the left as it pushes back hard against Trump.
"This is a significant moment since it confirms that the Democrat Party is now in the hands of extreme liberals that have more in common with European Socialism than the free enterprise principles that have guided America for generations," Jeremy Adler, spokesman for the conservative group America Rising, said in a statement.
Even so, Democrats reiterated that the gradual increase of the minimum wage to $15 would be a core part of their economic agenda heading into the midterms. Trump should "stick up for working people by supporting our bill," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Thursday. Source
Of course it's bullshit, Perez pretended it would take being King to make Medicare for All happen (like it's not more popular than both the ACA and the AHCA).
They are simply trying to find language to co-opt the progressive movement, and so far it's going pretty poorly.
|
15 dollar minimum wage is a stupid idea.
|
It does seem like Trump has totally avoided this healthcare bill being branded Trumpcare; it's almost entirely viewed as a GOP bill, not his bill. Whether intentional or not, it seems bigly to his benefit.
|
On May 26 2017 07:31 pmh wrote:
This thread is really going downhill,it has become a mirror of the media when it comes to trump.
So many people who otherwise make well thought out posts are losing their objectivity when it comes to trump to just jump on the bash train.
Ima take a break from this,its probably not a loss anyway ha ha.
trump just makes it too easy; you don't need to be a professional to mock him effectively.
also, it's not so much a lack of objectivity as that trump is jsut soooooo easy to bash, and he deserves it a lot o fhte time too, so we get a lot of trump bash.
it is starting to get a bit boring though, like Garfield, it's running the same jokes over and over and over.
i'm sure if there was a substantive issue to discuss we'd discuss it for a little bit; but not a lot of substance is being put out by the politicians, so we work with what we have.
do you have a topic you want to discuss?
|
On May 26 2017 07:34 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Calling bullshit. Show nested quote +House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on Thursday vowed to take up a $15 minimum wage in the first 100 hours of the next Congress if Democrats take back the chamber next year.
Pelosi offered the commitment while appearing alongside fellow Democratic leaders and advocates to release new legislation raising the minimum wage to $15. Her comments offer an early view at Democrats' potential agenda for the House if they can regain control in 2018, a long-shot prospect that some in the party think could grow increasingly more realistic given President Donald Trump and the GOP's recent struggles.
If "we win the election," Pelosi told the gathered audience, "in the first 100 hours we will pass a $15 minimum wage."
The California Democrat conspicuously harkened to 2007, when her caucus raised the minimum wage to its current level of $7.25 as part of an ambitious campaign for its first 100 hours in power. That 10-year-old agenda also included lowering the interest rate on student loans and allowing the government to negotiate drug prices under Medicare.
Pelosi endorsed a $15 minimum wage in 2015, aligning with Bernie Sanders on an issue that became a foundation of the Vermont independent senator's unsuccessful bid for last year's Democratic presidential nomination. The broad Democratic support for Thursday's minimum wage hike illustrates the extent of Sanders' influence on the agenda of the party whose leadership he has joined — without formally becoming a Democrat.
The minimum wage hike also has drawn early fire from conservatives who want to use Sanders' rising influence as a weapon against a Democratic party moving to the left as it pushes back hard against Trump.
"This is a significant moment since it confirms that the Democrat Party is now in the hands of extreme liberals that have more in common with European Socialism than the free enterprise principles that have guided America for generations," Jeremy Adler, spokesman for the conservative group America Rising, said in a statement.
Even so, Democrats reiterated that the gradual increase of the minimum wage to $15 would be a core part of their economic agenda heading into the midterms. Trump should "stick up for working people by supporting our bill," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Thursday. Source
Not at all bullshit. Schumer, 28 Senators, 152 congressmen.
Vermont Business Magazine Senators Bernie Sanders (I-Vt), Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY), joined by 28 of their colleagues in the Senate, introduced legislation to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Reps Bobby Scott (D-Va) and Keith Ellison (D-Minn) introduced a companion bill Thursday with 152 cosponsors in the House.
http://www.vermontbiz.com/news/may/sanders-introduces-15-minimum-wage
Here is a summary of the bill that has 152 cosponsors in the house (you better believe it is almost all Dems).
The Raise the Wage Actof 2017would:Raise the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to$15 over the next sevenyears; Index future increases in the federal minimum wage to median wage growth; Gradually phase out the outdated and unfair tipped minimum wage; Gradually phase out the unused youth wage; andEnd subminimum wage certificates for individuals with disabilities.
https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/raise-the-wage-fact-sheet?id=3172D6C0-78FD-4EA7-875F-36F1815325CF&download=1&inline=file
|
On May 26 2017 07:31 pmh wrote:
This thread is really going downhill,it has become a mirror of the media when it comes to trump.
So many people who otherwise make well thought out posts are losing their objectivity when it comes to trump to just jump on the bash train.
Ima take a break from this,its probably not a loss anyway ha ha.
Republicans can't do basic math, offering budgets where 2 trillion dollars manifests out of thin air.
Trump bragged to Europe about Putin's approval ratings. And apparently insulted German automotive-engineering, because that makes sense.
Republicans assault reporters for approval ratings.
Sure, let's argue substance. Thanks for offering us some. How about this: I think my country has become a wee bit fascist, and thus the world has a really big fucking problem that it needs to address.
edit: And, yes, of course, the "death" tax. Gotta make sure little Billy has his all of $500,000,000 inheritance.
|
On May 26 2017 08:10 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2017 07:31 pmh wrote:
This thread is really going downhill,it has become a mirror of the media when it comes to trump.
So many people who otherwise make well thought out posts are losing their objectivity when it comes to trump to just jump on the bash train.
Ima take a break from this,its probably not a loss anyway ha ha. Republicans can't do basic math, offering budgets where 2 trillion dollars manifests out of thin air. Trump bragged to Europe about Putin's approval ratings. And apparently insulted German automotive-engineering, because that makes sense. Republicans assault reporters for approval ratings. Sure, let's argue substance. Thanks for offering us some.
also simultaneously cutting the estate tax and counting it as a revenue source
|
|
|
On May 26 2017 07:34 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Calling bullshit. Show nested quote +House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on Thursday vowed to take up a $15 minimum wage in the first 100 hours of the next Congress if Democrats take back the chamber next year.
Pelosi offered the commitment while appearing alongside fellow Democratic leaders and advocates to release new legislation raising the minimum wage to $15. Her comments offer an early view at Democrats' potential agenda for the House if they can regain control in 2018, a long-shot prospect that some in the party think could grow increasingly more realistic given President Donald Trump and the GOP's recent struggles.
If "we win the election," Pelosi told the gathered audience, "in the first 100 hours we will pass a $15 minimum wage."
The California Democrat conspicuously harkened to 2007, when her caucus raised the minimum wage to its current level of $7.25 as part of an ambitious campaign for its first 100 hours in power. That 10-year-old agenda also included lowering the interest rate on student loans and allowing the government to negotiate drug prices under Medicare.
Pelosi endorsed a $15 minimum wage in 2015, aligning with Bernie Sanders on an issue that became a foundation of the Vermont independent senator's unsuccessful bid for last year's Democratic presidential nomination. The broad Democratic support for Thursday's minimum wage hike illustrates the extent of Sanders' influence on the agenda of the party whose leadership he has joined — without formally becoming a Democrat.
The minimum wage hike also has drawn early fire from conservatives who want to use Sanders' rising influence as a weapon against a Democratic party moving to the left as it pushes back hard against Trump.
"This is a significant moment since it confirms that the Democrat Party is now in the hands of extreme liberals that have more in common with European Socialism than the free enterprise principles that have guided America for generations," Jeremy Adler, spokesman for the conservative group America Rising, said in a statement.
Even so, Democrats reiterated that the gradual increase of the minimum wage to $15 would be a core part of their economic agenda heading into the midterms. Trump should "stick up for working people by supporting our bill," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Thursday. Source
I totally believe the house will pass that. They are entirely aware that the GOP senate will shoot it down.
edit : I hate to agree with ticklish, but 15$ is too high a minimum wage for parts of the country. It's great for some cities, and there's a problem with some states preventing cities from raising wages that probably can't be solved in any other way, but it'll suck for some of the rural towns. Basically the minimum wage needs reformed entirely to account for massive economic discrepancies rather than a mere increase - a minimum livable wage in silicon valley is going to be massively different from podunk idaho. I saw most economists in favor of an increase say 12$ around the election was a much better starting point.
15$ wage increasing the speed of automation is probably a good thing - it's coming and the faster we can deal with the societal change the better off we'll be.
|
If there are any bright sides to what's going on with this administration, they're far and away outweighed by all the scandalous stories we're seeing. Literally every day there's a new story to headdesk about. Of course my overarching tone in political conversation right now is going to be negative.
|
On May 26 2017 04:20 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2017 03:16 xDaunt wrote:On May 26 2017 03:13 ticklishmusic wrote:On May 26 2017 02:59 KwarK wrote:On May 26 2017 02:51 xDaunt wrote:On May 26 2017 02:41 Mohdoo wrote:On May 26 2017 02:33 Sadist wrote:On May 26 2017 02:27 KwarK wrote:On May 26 2017 02:20 Sadist wrote:On May 26 2017 02:07 jcarlsoniv wrote:
[quote]
As someone who hasn't ever had to deal with non-employer provided healthcare, isn't part of the idea (whether just in theory or actual practice) of AHCA to reduce the cost of things like COBRA?
I'm pretty ignorant of how it all works since I've fortunately never had to go through any part of that process. COBRA as i know it allows you the option to stay on your previous employers insurance plan if you lose your job. The thing is in the USA your employer pays all or part of your premium pre tax. You do the same if you are responsible for part of the premium. The thing is the cost of healthcare insurance that your employer pays is pretty much invisible to most americans. Its also pretty expensive. For example. Your employer might pay a $500 premium for your insurance pre tax. You may pay $100 so the total cost is $600. With Cobra you can buy the same coverage for $600 + a fee but its out of pocket after taxes. So you get double fucked. You are responsible for the employers portion of the premium plus your portion but its after taxes instead of before. So you lost your job but pay way more premium in cost + get fucked by taxes. Unemployment is $362 /week if you cap out so about half of your unemployment goes to your premium. I think you can recoup some of the premium on your taxes but im not sure. You can get insurance on the exchanges instead if you want. It really becomes apparent why health insurance should not be related to employment at all when you look at this stuff If you're itemizing then the tax deductibility of the insurance premiums is unchanged. You were always allowed to deduct health insurance costs on the Schedule A as long as they were paid with post-tax money (because a deduction is essentially claiming back the tax you paid on an expense and if you pay with pre-tax money then you never paid any tax on that money in the first place so you can't get it back). It's one of those things where if you're one of the poorer Americans who doesn't itemize then you're fucked but if you're itemizing (middle class/homeowners with expensive houses etc) then you're fine. TLDR: You can claim back the taxes on your premiums if you already had $12,600 of deductible expenses to make itemizing worth it. It still means you have to eat the cost until tax season right? You eat the cost upfront but get it back later. Hopefully there is enough cash around to get a person through. This is a problem. The average American household savings do not allow for this. Sure, people should save more, but they aren't. When people get these medical bills, it creates secondary costs and issues. When people can't afford care, or end up in too much debt, society as a whole suffers more secondary costs. At the end of the day, a policy which assumes people can cover some up front cost is illogical. It is based on a situation that has been shown does not exist. The savings rate of the average American is a problem in and of itself. It's a cultural problem. Americans don't like to save unless they're forced to through things like Social Security. A lot of the Republican policies like HSAs, 401ks, IRAs, insurance and so forth that give the individual far more autonomy to control their own finances would be great in a country like Germany where people save. But the United States needs big government solutions because Americans want to spend their money today and then vote for the government to pay the bill when it's due. And if the government is going to pick up the tab (paying for retirees for example) then the government needs to force people to pay ahead of time (through systems like social security payroll deductions). The problem isn't that the Republican ideas are dumb, it's that the American population is dumb and the Republicans refuse to put dumb people into their models when they're creating the solutions because they believe in perfectly informed, perfectly rational consumers. i think you give republicans waaaay too much credit. The savings problem really has nothing to do with republican or democrat policy. Like Kwark pointed out, it's a cultural issue. And it's one that you can't really appreciate until you familiarize yourself with how other cultures and peoples live. Americans have a fundamentally different mindset. It would certainly cause more ire about minimum essential benefits of insurance had the reverse been true and Americans saved. "What do you mean I have to buy insurance for the risk of purchasing a recurring budgetable item? I have savings for that, my insurance is for risk of an unseen major health disaster!" I think both parties would look much different if that was baked into the culture as much as independence/disrespect for authority (for example) is.
Yes, but in case of healthcare, if your insurance company is really on the hook for major disasters, it suddenly become their interest that you do regular checkups at your doctor. To the point where it is cheaper for them if they pay for your regular checkups, rather than having you decide not to do them and at some point notice that you have major cancer everywhere, which is fucking expensive for the insurance company, and would have been way cheaper if noticed earlier. However, if the insurance company can instead just wriggle out of actually paying in that case, it becomes cheaper for them to not pay for your regular checkups.
If you have to pay out of your pocket for your checkups, a lot of people will just not do those, and rather spend the money on whatever else, because it doesn't seem like a good return on investment in the short run. Which is bad for everyone. Your disease gets more expensive the longer you wait to treat it, eventually someone is going to pay for it, and you get more sick.
In a good healthcare system, the interests of the insurer (or the state, or whoever else organises and pays for healthcare) and yours should line up. It is in the interest of both parties that you stay healthy, because it is expensive for the insurance company if you get sick, and you personally also don't want to be sick. It might even happen that they subsidize you when you do sports, because that also makes you cheaper on average (That happens here in Germany). Important for this to happen is that the insurer knows that they can't get out of paying, and that they can't just have you pay more if they think you are a higher risk. In both cases, they no longer care whether you get sick or not, they care about guessing correctly how likely you are going to get sick.
|
Canada13389 Posts
|
On May 26 2017 07:31 pmh wrote:
This thread is really going downhill,it has become a mirror of the media when it comes to trump.
So many people who otherwise make well thought out posts are losing their objectivity when it comes to trump to just jump on the bash train.
Ima take a break from this,its probably not a loss anyway ha ha.
It can stand being a liberal echo chamber in a left leaning forum for a few pages or even weeks, that's for sure. Interact as you find it fun and stimulating, you won't change many (any?) minds but you'll get the gist of how the other side thinks and feels.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
In a way I would really like to label Trump support in a "this is what happens when you" way. It'd be easy and I'd be preaching to the choir. Times like that, though, I'm forced to remember what our alternative was and why the failure managed to have an opening that ultimately became a win. Not all of the criticisms against him are fair but it almost doesn't matter because he genuinely is pretty bad.
Oh well, I guess I'm in a position where I don't really suffer too much from the shittiness of our government. Time to throw a chaos party or something.
|
The lack of a commitment to both Russian sanctions and article 5 is deeply troubling.
|
On May 26 2017 09:21 LegalLord wrote:
In a way I would really like to label Trump support in a "this is what happens when you" way. It'd be easy and I'd be preaching to the choir. Times like that, though, I'm forced to remember what our alternative was and why the failure managed to have an opening that ultimately became a win. Not all of the criticisms against him are fair but it almost doesn't matter because he genuinely is pretty bad.
Oh well, I guess I'm in a position where I don't really suffer too much from the shittiness of our government. Time to throw a chaos party or something.
I'm fairly sure Cthulhu could've beaten the nominees of any of the political parties in the 2016 presidential election .
|
On May 26 2017 09:09 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2017 04:20 Danglars wrote:On May 26 2017 03:16 xDaunt wrote:On May 26 2017 03:13 ticklishmusic wrote:On May 26 2017 02:59 KwarK wrote:On May 26 2017 02:51 xDaunt wrote:On May 26 2017 02:41 Mohdoo wrote:On May 26 2017 02:33 Sadist wrote:On May 26 2017 02:27 KwarK wrote:On May 26 2017 02:20 Sadist wrote:
[quote]
COBRA as i know it allows you the option to stay on your previous employers insurance plan if you lose your job. The thing is in the USA your employer pays all or part of your premium pre tax. You do the same if you are responsible for part of the premium. The thing is the cost of healthcare insurance that your employer pays is pretty much invisible to most americans. Its also pretty expensive.
For example. Your employer might pay a $500 premium for your insurance pre tax. You may pay $100 so the total cost is $600. With Cobra you can buy the same coverage for $600 + a fee but its out of pocket after taxes. So you get double fucked. You are responsible for the employers portion of the premium plus your portion but its after taxes instead of before. So you lost your job but pay way more premium in cost + get fucked by taxes.
Unemployment is $362 /week if you cap out so about half of your unemployment goes to your premium.
I think you can recoup some of the premium on your taxes but im not sure.
You can get insurance on the exchanges instead if you want.
It really becomes apparent why health insurance should not be related to employment at all when you look at this stuff If you're itemizing then the tax deductibility of the insurance premiums is unchanged. You were always allowed to deduct health insurance costs on the Schedule A as long as they were paid with post-tax money (because a deduction is essentially claiming back the tax you paid on an expense and if you pay with pre-tax money then you never paid any tax on that money in the first place so you can't get it back). It's one of those things where if you're one of the poorer Americans who doesn't itemize then you're fucked but if you're itemizing (middle class/homeowners with expensive houses etc) then you're fine. TLDR: You can claim back the taxes on your premiums if you already had $12,600 of deductible expenses to make itemizing worth it. It still means you have to eat the cost until tax season right? You eat the cost upfront but get it back later. Hopefully there is enough cash around to get a person through. This is a problem. The average American household savings do not allow for this. Sure, people should save more, but they aren't. When people get these medical bills, it creates secondary costs and issues. When people can't afford care, or end up in too much debt, society as a whole suffers more secondary costs. At the end of the day, a policy which assumes people can cover some up front cost is illogical. It is based on a situation that has been shown does not exist. The savings rate of the average American is a problem in and of itself. It's a cultural problem. Americans don't like to save unless they're forced to through things like Social Security. A lot of the Republican policies like HSAs, 401ks, IRAs, insurance and so forth that give the individual far more autonomy to control their own finances would be great in a country like Germany where people save. But the United States needs big government solutions because Americans want to spend their money today and then vote for the government to pay the bill when it's due. And if the government is going to pick up the tab (paying for retirees for example) then the government needs to force people to pay ahead of time (through systems like social security payroll deductions). The problem isn't that the Republican ideas are dumb, it's that the American population is dumb and the Republicans refuse to put dumb people into their models when they're creating the solutions because they believe in perfectly informed, perfectly rational consumers. i think you give republicans waaaay too much credit. The savings problem really has nothing to do with republican or democrat policy. Like Kwark pointed out, it's a cultural issue. And it's one that you can't really appreciate until you familiarize yourself with how other cultures and peoples live. Americans have a fundamentally different mindset. It would certainly cause more ire about minimum essential benefits of insurance had the reverse been true and Americans saved. "What do you mean I have to buy insurance for the risk of purchasing a recurring budgetable item? I have savings for that, my insurance is for risk of an unseen major health disaster!" I think both parties would look much different if that was baked into the culture as much as independence/disrespect for authority (for example) is. Yes, but in case of healthcare, if your insurance company is really on the hook for major disasters, it suddenly become their interest that you do regular checkups at your doctor. To the point where it is cheaper for them if they pay for your regular checkups, rather than having you decide not to do them and at some point notice that you have major cancer everywhere, which is fucking expensive for the insurance company, and would have been way cheaper if noticed earlier. However, if the insurance company can instead just wriggle out of actually paying in that case, it becomes cheaper for them to not pay for your regular checkups. If you have to pay out of your pocket for your checkups, a lot of people will just not do those, and rather spend the money on whatever else, because it doesn't seem like a good return on investment in the short run. Which is bad for everyone. Your disease gets more expensive the longer you wait to treat it, eventually someone is going to pay for it, and you get more sick. In a good healthcare system, the interests of the insurer (or the state, or whoever else organises and pays for healthcare) and yours should line up. It is in the interest of both parties that you stay healthy, because it is expensive for the insurance company if you get sick, and you personally also don't want to be sick. It might even happen that they subsidize you when you do sports, because that also makes you cheaper on average (That happens here in Germany). Important for this to happen is that the insurer knows that they can't get out of paying, and that they can't just have you pay more if they think you are a higher risk. In both cases, they no longer care whether you get sick or not, they care about guessing correctly how likely you are going to get sick.
If it's in the financial best interests of the insurer, then they must be a colossal lot of fools to go into the Insurance business. If we're talking about deceptive sales practices on what's covered, I'll have no argument with you over the government's role legislatively and judicially in the prevention of fraud.
On the issue of checkups, I still don't see why a free society should compel them. There's a whole host of recreational and social activities that are provably costly to your health. I will tolerate my neighbors overdrinking and expect him to allow me to game a little much. I won't go around putting a 50% tax on his third 6-pack even if I thought I was genuinely motivated by his health and well-being. If some 20 something wants to go straight-catastrophic coverage (like I did in my 20s) and only see the doctor for major symptoms, I argue for his right to pick that plan from a market. Not that your government nanny compels maternity care be paid for by your insurance policy because you're too dumb to use your freedom wisely. So when you say it's "bad for everyone," I disagree. You're paying in access or quality if you try and pervert the pricing mechanism (to the extent that we already have a government that destroys the market atmosphere and then blames private insurance for their handiwork.
I'm glad to see where you're coming from with interests aligning. I'm more of the guy that argues you're hoping for a utopia where the economic reality of scarce resources does not apply. Doctors grow on trees, medicines on bushes, and everybody provides their services out of altruistic impulses disconnected with their profit motive and their comparative proficiencies. But I don't expect I'll have the time to really lay out a convincing argument hitting all the necessary points ... knowing if I was of your persuasion I would remain unconvinced. So take this to be an admission that I lack the eloquence and persuasion to really drive an economic perspective past the usual counter arguments. In a good healthcare system, the provider and consumer agree on a price for the services, and insurance policies are priced and tax-treated apart from employers with a focus on continuity of policy. And for the policy perspective, the states citizens should have a choice to the manner and means their population is subsidized by taxation for the poor, dumb, and infirm.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On May 26 2017 09:46 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2017 09:21 LegalLord wrote:
In a way I would really like to label Trump support in a "this is what happens when you" way. It'd be easy and I'd be preaching to the choir. Times like that, though, I'm forced to remember what our alternative was and why the failure managed to have an opening that ultimately became a win. Not all of the criticisms against him are fair but it almost doesn't matter because he genuinely is pretty bad.
Oh well, I guess I'm in a position where I don't really suffer too much from the shittiness of our government. Time to throw a chaos party or something. I'm fairly sure Cthulhu could've beaten the nominees of any of the political parties in the 2016 presidential election .
Well if nothing else Cthulhu would be a strong leader.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
