|
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 June 02 2017 01:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 00:59 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 00:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 00:50 Nebuchad wrote:On June 02 2017 00:43 Mohdoo wrote:On June 02 2017 00:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 00:36 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 00:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 00:28 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 00:06 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
You supported the worst (possibly second if you want to make the case for Trump being worse with significantly less money) abuser of campaign finance in history. You don't see how that's problematic? Of course I see it as problematic. But I am not a single issue voter and Bernie didn’t sell me on his healthcare plan being viable. Viable how? It's more popular than the ACA or ACHA? He's also more popular than any other active politician, so what wasn't viable was Hillary. Also lol @ Woods probably getting off for being passed out high on the road because they gave him a breathalyzer. GH, I give zero shits about how something polls in a vacuum. I pay attention to people when they say how much something will cost and if it will pass as a law. I did not want another 2 years knock down drag out over a law I was not confident would pass. I wanted the ACA updated and to move on to other shit. rofl, how was ACA going to get updated? You're saying there is a scenario where the ACA is denied, but the Bernie healthcare plan is approved? There is one yeah. There is the scenario when you energize your base because you have a good plan, and when people start opposing it for the bad reasons that they'll find, they get voted out of office. You can make the case that it's gonna be much harder to do with a weaksauce and flawed ACA. It's a little more long term but not that much. I can't believe how stubborn they are about this. The Democratic party is a flaming dumpster fire, but they really are the best we can hope for according to these guys. On June 02 2017 00:55 Nebuchad wrote:On June 02 2017 00:50 Mohdoo wrote:On June 02 2017 00:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 00:42 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 00:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 00:36 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 00:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Viable how? It's more popular than the ACA or ACHA? He's also more popular than any other active politician, so what wasn't viable was Hillary.
Also lol @ Woods probably getting off for being passed out high on the road because they gave him a breathalyzer. GH, I give zero shits about how something polls in a vacuum. I pay attention to people when they say how much something will cost and if it will pass as a law. I did not want another 2 years knock down drag out over a law I was not confident would pass. I wanted the ACA updated and to move on to other shit. rofl, how was ACA going to get updated? Given the stance of the GOP, I don’t know. I hoped the moderates like Olympia Snowe and others gain enough traction to work with the Democrats. But if we can’t pass an update to the ACA, single payer would never happen either so the point is moot. Unless of course we had someone who ran on it, won the presidency, then helped take the house and senate on a policy that's popular with nurses from California to coal miners in West Virginia. Also the guy who wanted to clean up campaign finance (and was raising money at a competitive clip to Hillary off of small donations) which also happens to be an extremely popular policy. What value do you see in these silly little "what if" scenarios? This is another example of a post that is practically copied and pasted from 1, 2, 3, and 4 months ago. So let's say everyone says "GH, you are right. Bernie should have been the nominee", what then? It is clearly what you are going for, but I don't see where that takes us or what the purpose is. Well next time around the same question will be asked in the democratic primary, and GH hopes you'll find a different answer, which you certainly will if everyone says "GH you are right. Bernie should have been the nominee", that one seems pretty straightforward. Yup. I’ve seen the Bernie supporters, Green party and Naders of the world. You might need to accept that all political parties are dumpster fires, including the one you would make. I wager some parties around the world are able to keep it to a mild barrel fire.
This is America, bigger is better. The size and scope of our nation requires the biggest tire fire to be seen above all the barrel and dumpster fires.
|
On June 02 2017 01:01 Plansix wrote:
I am with Franken on this one, that we need to slow roll to single payer and get all the states on board. It could take a decade or longer, but the ACA is the first step.
Probably going to end up the same as cannabis. Some states have wild success and others start to slowly join while putting pressure on the federal government.
|
On June 02 2017 01:05 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 01:01 Plansix wrote:
I am with Franken on this one, that we need to slow roll to single payer and get all the states on board. It could take a decade or longer, but the ACA is the first step. Probably going to end up the same as cannabis. Some states have wild success and others start to slowly join while putting pressure on the federal government.
Wish we could be more urgent about these things since people are dying or having their lives destroyed in the meantime. I know it's none of the people making the decisions or saying wait, but those that are suffering don't feel like they can wait decades. It's easy as people who will be okay with the ACA and criminal cannabis to say wait, tougher if you're uninsured or in prison, unable to vote, dying, etc...
|
On June 02 2017 01:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 01:05 Mohdoo wrote:On June 02 2017 01:01 Plansix wrote:
I am with Franken on this one, that we need to slow roll to single payer and get all the states on board. It could take a decade or longer, but the ACA is the first step. Probably going to end up the same as cannabis. Some states have wild success and others start to slowly join while putting pressure on the federal government. Wish we could be more urgent about these things since people are dying or having their lives destroyed in the meantime. I know it's none of the people making the decisions or saying wait, but those that are suffering don't feel like they can wait decades. It's easy as people who will be okay with the ACA and criminal cannabis to say wait, tougher if you're uninsured or in prison, unable to vote, dying, etc...
Me too. In the meantime, PNW will remain a safe haven and I ain't leaving.
|
On June 02 2017 00:43 Danglars wrote:It's a big story. Russian influence on the election and Trump obstruction with Comey are big stories. The NSA, CIA, and FBI have stopped cooperating with the House investigation. But since this is before Trump without the Trump histeria, partisans pass over it. Using intelligence agencies to unmask and leak is a power you don't want Trump or future presidents to have, trust me.
I may just not be tracking the situation but I don't see how the timeline will help.
The sinister conspiracy is that the person who ordered the unmasking did so and then either leaked unmasked info themselves or purposefully had someone else leak it (after all, unmasking is in no way illegal).
Regardless of whether that happened it's obvious that the timeline is "request for unmasking places -> names unmasked -> leaked to media."
Are they looking for some smoking gun communication saying "please leak this?" Because I am very skeptical that will ever be found, but could be looked for forever amongst all the people that saw the information. If they found one, it wouldn't really matter when it fell on the timeline.
It doesn't help that the loosest conspiracy (the unmasking was ordered with the intent to cause a future leak, but no concrete instruction was given) is literally impossible to prove as distinct from ordering the unmasking because it was important to know who the person was.
|
On June 02 2017 00:51 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 00:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 00:42 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 00:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 00:36 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 00:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 00:28 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 00:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 00:03 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 00:00 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Tell me about it...
You really should show more concern, but I would hardly call that anger. I have said over and over the election reform is an issue I care about and it impacts my vote. But I’m also aware that the office of the President isn’t where that change is going to take place. Both my senators support election reform and limiting money in politics. Don’t confuse me being aware of the scope of the problem and difficulties in addressing it with lack of concern. You supported the worst (possibly second if you want to make the case for Trump being worse with significantly less money) abuser of campaign finance in history. You don't see how that's problematic? Of course I see it as problematic. But I am not a single issue voter and Bernie didn’t sell me on his healthcare plan being viable. Viable how? It's more popular than the ACA or ACHA? He's also more popular than any other active politician, so what wasn't viable was Hillary. Also lol @ Woods probably getting off for being passed out high on the road because they gave him a breathalyzer. GH, I give zero shits about how something polls in a vacuum. I pay attention to people when they say how much something will cost and if it will pass as a law. I did not want another 2 years knock down drag out over a law I was not confident would pass. I wanted the ACA updated and to move on to other shit. rofl, how was ACA going to get updated? Given the stance of the GOP, I don’t know. I hoped the moderates like Olympia Snowe and others gain enough traction to work with the Democrats. But if we can’t pass an update to the ACA, single payer would never happen either so the point is moot. Unless of course we had someone who ran on it, won the presidency, then helped take the house and senate on a policy that's popular with nurses from California to coal miners in West Virginia. Also the guy who wanted to clean up campaign finance (and was raising money at a competitive clip to Hillary off of small donations) which also happens to be an extremely popular policy. I went through the first fight to reform healthcare. I'm not into magical thinking that the second will be easier.
I think it's a pretty safe bet at this point that no matter what direction things are pushing, we're going to continue to fight about healthcare for the foreseeable future.
|
On June 02 2017 01:11 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 01:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 01:05 Mohdoo wrote:On June 02 2017 01:01 Plansix wrote:
I am with Franken on this one, that we need to slow roll to single payer and get all the states on board. It could take a decade or longer, but the ACA is the first step. Probably going to end up the same as cannabis. Some states have wild success and others start to slowly join while putting pressure on the federal government. Wish we could be more urgent about these things since people are dying or having their lives destroyed in the meantime. I know it's none of the people making the decisions or saying wait, but those that are suffering don't feel like they can wait decades. It's easy as people who will be okay with the ACA and criminal cannabis to say wait, tougher if you're uninsured or in prison, unable to vote, dying, etc... Me too. In the meantime, PNW will remain a safe haven and I ain't leaving.
Shh, trying to help the rest of the country to not suck, not trying to get all the people who think it sucks to come ruin the PNW.
PS: It's raining and cold right now. Dirty hippies everywhere.
|
On June 02 2017 01:13 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 00:43 Danglars wrote:https://twitter.com/alimhaider/status/870074464964235264It's a big story. Russian influence on the election and Trump obstruction with Comey are big stories. The NSA, CIA, and FBI have stopped cooperating with the House investigation. But since this is before Trump without the Trump histeria, partisans pass over it. Using intelligence agencies to unmask and leak is a power you don't want Trump or future presidents to have, trust me. I may just not be tracking the situation but I don't see how the timeline will help. The sinister conspiracy is that the person who ordered the unmasking did so and then either leaked unmasked info themselves or purposefully had someone else leak it (after all, unmasking is in no way illegal). Regardless of whether that happened it's obvious that the timeline is "request for unmasking places -> names unmasked -> leaked to media." Are they looking for some smoking gun communication saying "please leak this?" Because I am very skeptical that will ever be found, but could be looked for forever amongst all the people that saw the information. If they found one, it wouldn't really matter when it fell on the timeline. It doesn't help that the loosest conspiracy (the unmasking was ordered with the intent to cause a future leak, but no concrete instruction was given) is literally impossible to prove as distinct from ordering the unmasking because it was important to know who the person was.
The key part of the narrative is that someone who worked for Obama asked for the unmasking, therefore the unmasking is unlawful and the source of a leak.
|
On June 02 2017 01:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 01:05 Mohdoo wrote:On June 02 2017 01:01 Plansix wrote:
I am with Franken on this one, that we need to slow roll to single payer and get all the states on board. It could take a decade or longer, but the ACA is the first step. Probably going to end up the same as cannabis. Some states have wild success and others start to slowly join while putting pressure on the federal government. Wish we could be more urgent about these things since people are dying or having their lives destroyed in the meantime. I know it's none of the people making the decisions or saying wait, but those that are suffering don't feel like they can wait decades. It's easy as people who will be okay with the ACA and criminal cannabis to say wait, tougher if you're uninsured or in prison, unable to vote, dying, etc...
Like with cannabis you just need that first state or two to start it up and then when its successful it wont have that aura of fear attached to it anymore and you can begin doing it on a national level.
|
On June 02 2017 01:24 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 01:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 01:05 Mohdoo wrote:On June 02 2017 01:01 Plansix wrote:
I am with Franken on this one, that we need to slow roll to single payer and get all the states on board. It could take a decade or longer, but the ACA is the first step. Probably going to end up the same as cannabis. Some states have wild success and others start to slowly join while putting pressure on the federal government. Wish we could be more urgent about these things since people are dying or having their lives destroyed in the meantime. I know it's none of the people making the decisions or saying wait, but those that are suffering don't feel like they can wait decades. It's easy as people who will be okay with the ACA and criminal cannabis to say wait, tougher if you're uninsured or in prison, unable to vote, dying, etc... Like with cannabis you just need that first state or two to start it up and then when its successful it wont have that aura of fear attached to it anymore and you can begin doing it on a national level.
That's not how single payer works really. Luckily California is a large enough market where they could feasibly play that role. Just have to get past the trading paying premiums to insurers so their CEO's can buy yachts, for comparable but likely less in taxes (depending on income).
People really like buying rich people yachts and jets and crap. In fairness it is a bit of "concentration of waste" (meaning instead of overpaying many workers a little, you overpay handful of workers a lot).
|
Single payer works in European countries that are smaller than many US states, I don't see how scale is an issue apart from the really unpopulated ones like.
|
On June 02 2017 01:41 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 01:24 Adreme wrote:On June 02 2017 01:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 01:05 Mohdoo wrote:On June 02 2017 01:01 Plansix wrote:
I am with Franken on this one, that we need to slow roll to single payer and get all the states on board. It could take a decade or longer, but the ACA is the first step. Probably going to end up the same as cannabis. Some states have wild success and others start to slowly join while putting pressure on the federal government. Wish we could be more urgent about these things since people are dying or having their lives destroyed in the meantime. I know it's none of the people making the decisions or saying wait, but those that are suffering don't feel like they can wait decades. It's easy as people who will be okay with the ACA and criminal cannabis to say wait, tougher if you're uninsured or in prison, unable to vote, dying, etc... Like with cannabis you just need that first state or two to start it up and then when its successful it wont have that aura of fear attached to it anymore and you can begin doing it on a national level. That's not how single payer works really. Luckily California is a large enough market where they could feasibly play that role. Just have to get past the trading paying premiums to insurers so their CEO's can buy yachts, for comparable but likely less in taxes (depending on income). People really like buying rich people yachts and jets and crap. In fairness it is a bit of "concentration of waste" (meaning instead of overpaying many workers a little, you overpay handful of workers a lot).
Any state with a large enough population (I would say 8m+) could make it work. The fact that it will get better when it goes national is a great selling point if you can get it work in a few states.
|
On June 02 2017 01:01 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 00:55 Nebuchad wrote:On June 02 2017 00:50 Mohdoo wrote:On June 02 2017 00:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 00:42 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 00:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 00:36 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 00:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 00:28 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 00:06 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
You supported the worst (possibly second if you want to make the case for Trump being worse with significantly less money) abuser of campaign finance in history. You don't see how that's problematic? Of course I see it as problematic. But I am not a single issue voter and Bernie didn’t sell me on his healthcare plan being viable. Viable how? It's more popular than the ACA or ACHA? He's also more popular than any other active politician, so what wasn't viable was Hillary. Also lol @ Woods probably getting off for being passed out high on the road because they gave him a breathalyzer. GH, I give zero shits about how something polls in a vacuum. I pay attention to people when they say how much something will cost and if it will pass as a law. I did not want another 2 years knock down drag out over a law I was not confident would pass. I wanted the ACA updated and to move on to other shit. rofl, how was ACA going to get updated? Given the stance of the GOP, I don’t know. I hoped the moderates like Olympia Snowe and others gain enough traction to work with the Democrats. But if we can’t pass an update to the ACA, single payer would never happen either so the point is moot. Unless of course we had someone who ran on it, won the presidency, then helped take the house and senate on a policy that's popular with nurses from California to coal miners in West Virginia. Also the guy who wanted to clean up campaign finance (and was raising money at a competitive clip to Hillary off of small donations) which also happens to be an extremely popular policy. What value do you see in these silly little "what if" scenarios? This is another example of a post that is practically copied and pasted from 1, 2, 3, and 4 months ago. So let's say everyone says "GH, you are right. Bernie should have been the nominee", what then? It is clearly what you are going for, but I don't see where that takes us or what the purpose is. Well next time around the same question will be asked in the democratic primary, and GH hopes you'll find a different answer, which you certainly will if everyone says "GH you are right. Bernie should have been the nominee", that one seems pretty straightforward. A lot of us supported Bernie until he was mathematically eliminated. Speaking personally, when I hopped on the Hilary train, the Bernie train had already fallen off a cliff. How many posters here still defend the DNC? How many people still think Clinton ran a good campaign? It's an empty argument because no one is even disputing it. The only issue people are actually disagreeing with is this fabled Bernie revolution. It is remarkably pointless to discuss because it is like some horrendously worse version of theorycrafting. Moreover, it is utterly pointless.
There are countless of people in this thread defending money in politics though. "Keep voting for the ones who use money to win, because you need money to win, just accept it".
Yet, for others, that is in fact unacceptable.
And when I point out the problem, and defend one of the main paths that could be taken to resolve this issue, I am told it is obvious and everyone already knows it.
But still, those same people that say it is obvious and everyone already knows it, condemn those who walk that path as foolish and say they are taking the wrong approach.
|
|
|
according to the 2010 census only 12 states fit the bill.
also wow TIL (if D.C. was a state) DC would be the second least populous state.. that's amazing.
whoops that'll teach me to not use the quote button.
|
On June 02 2017 01:43 opisska wrote:
Single payer works in European countries that are smaller than many US states, I don't see how scale is an issue apart from the really unpopulated ones like.
I don't know much about the following variable, but would you say that some states have a far wider socioeconomic spectrum (from super poor to super rich) than those European countries? I'd imagine that the width of that spectrum, plus how bottom-heavy (if a large percentage are working class/ barely middle class) a state may be socioeconomically may be an important factor in gauging how effective and practical a single-payer system would be in a very large, very heterogeneous country like the United States.
|
On June 02 2017 01:43 opisska wrote:
Single payer works in European countries that are smaller than many US states, I don't see how scale is an issue apart from the really unpopulated ones like.
That's kind of what I mean. So it's not as if Vermont could get the kind of savings people in Vermont would see if the single payer was 300 million, instead of 600k, plus you need the government/courts to take your side when the pharmaceutical companies fight back.
Like if you're buying insulin for 6k people you can get one deal, but if you're buying insulin for 6 million they can cut you a better deal.
|
Biggest problem with single payer is that if the government budget goes down the shitter then you will have a sad life. Beats the current system easily.
|
On June 02 2017 01:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 01:43 opisska wrote:
Single payer works in European countries that are smaller than many US states, I don't see how scale is an issue apart from the really unpopulated ones like. I don't know much about the following variable, but would you say that some states have a far wider socioeconomic spectrum (from super poor to super rich) than those European countries? I'd imagine that the width of that spectrum, plus how bottom-heavy (if a large percentage are working class/ barely middle class) a state may be socioeconomically may be an important factor in gauging how effective and practical a single-payer system would be in a very large, very heterogeneous country like the United States.
But the advantages of universal healthcare (which is somehow absurdly called single-payer in US) are actually bigger in countries with larger income inequalities, because these are the countries where the commercial system fails the most. In a commercial setup, people will tend to pay according to how ill they are, whereas in universal systems, people pay according to how much they make. In heavily unequal societies, the costs are unaffordable for the poor, whereas this problem is largely eliminated in universal healthcare.
|
This will go down very badly for Trump.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
