|
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 July 02 2017 04:36 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2017 04:31 zlefin wrote:
the passport bit made me wonder so I checked the landsize; the US has more than twice the land area of the EU. I thought it was closer than that. Yeah, it's a pretty stark difference. France is one of EU's biggest countries and is about the size of Texas. They also both have a Paris. So what? France has twice as many people. Europe in general has twice as many people as USA. The countries which make up the EU contains more people, yet the idea to only travel within the EU is a pretty strange one for those living within it. Yet most Europeans in the high income European countries have travelled outside to another continent within their lifetimes. Nearly everyone owns a passport irregardless of whether they need one to travel within the EU. Even the poor. It's pretty obvious why you feel a bit diminshed about the whole passport thing, but saying that USA is a large country doesn't explain it.
|
On July 02 2017 07:35 Monochromatic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2017 05:55 KwarK wrote:
Healthcare is a hot potato where you get nothing but problems for doing anything. Provide healthcare and people don't want to pay. Take away healthcare and people don't want to die. With that statement in mind, how can you advocate for universal healthcare? A very clear solution to this problem is to never get involved in the first place.
That's neither a solution nor clear.
|
indeed; a clearer solution would be to talk about the known psychological underpinnings of people, and try to devise a way to adjust democracy to account for the problems caused by them. and that isn't much clearer 
|
So... he's slowly quickly and steadily going off the deep end...
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2TNskfD.jpg)
|
I still don't see *anyone* in Congress talking about the supply side of health care. It's like they think they can fix the problems by throwing money at them.
|
On July 02 2017 09:36 Buckyman wrote:
I still don't see *anyone* in Congress talking about the supply side of health care. It's like they think they can fix the problems by throwing money at them.
That's because you don't hear much about the policy tlak; few people actually want to listen to policy, so you don't hear much about it unless you really go looking for it from the policy wonks.
the regular news doesn't report on it much because people don't bother reading it if they do.
and the realities of governing mean all actual proposals tend to hurt someone, so politicians tend to avoid specifics.
|
I mean I can totally appreciate the president useing twitter as a pipeline to increase transparency on a day to day "what am I up to and thinking about thing on the news and ask questions to tweeter-verse about random issues I want to peddle" but for god damm sake your the executive of the most powerful superpower the world has seen and you act like a child. You don't have to suffer insults because you're a warlord that controls the worlds seas. You don't have to give a shit about joe opposition because you're an emperor.
Everyone's whos been afraid of what trump will do and what he might do might turn out to be silly for thinking he could have gotten anything done in the first place. It won't be too long now until his window for any legislation closes and everyones looking down the barrel of the 2018 elections.
|
On July 02 2017 09:44 Sermokala wrote:
I mean I can totally appreciate the president useing twitter as a pipeline to increase transparency on a day to day "what am I up to and thinking about thing on the news and ask questions to tweeter-verse about random issues I want to peddle" but for god damm sake your the executive of the most powerful superpower the world has seen and you act like a child. You don't have to suffer insults because you're a warlord that controls the worlds seas. You don't have to give a shit about joe opposition because you're an emperor.
Everyone's whos been afraid of what trump will do and what he might do might turn out to be silly for thinking he could have gotten anything done in the first place. It won't be too long now until his window for any legislation closes and everyones looking down the barrel of the 2018 elections.
not if what they're afraid of is institutional damage, and the degradation of american prestige and international influence.
|
On July 02 2017 10:01 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2017 09:44 Sermokala wrote:
I mean I can totally appreciate the president useing twitter as a pipeline to increase transparency on a day to day "what am I up to and thinking about thing on the news and ask questions to tweeter-verse about random issues I want to peddle" but for god damm sake your the executive of the most powerful superpower the world has seen and you act like a child. You don't have to suffer insults because you're a warlord that controls the worlds seas. You don't have to give a shit about joe opposition because you're an emperor.
Everyone's whos been afraid of what trump will do and what he might do might turn out to be silly for thinking he could have gotten anything done in the first place. It won't be too long now until his window for any legislation closes and everyones looking down the barrel of the 2018 elections. not if what they're afraid of is institutional damage, and the degradation of american prestige and international influence.
Not that American Exceptionalism ever had any basis in reality to begin with, but we're gonna lose any excuse to have it real fast.
|
On July 02 2017 05:55 KwarK wrote:
Healthcare is a hot potato where you get nothing but problems for doing anything. Provide healthcare and people don't want to pay. Take away healthcare and people don't want to die. Nationalize things and Ben Carson says that this is literally slavery. Ration things and Fox News says the death panels are coming for grandma.
I can absolutely see why the Democrats don't want to push big idea plans. The American people won't thank them for it. Ultimately the problem with politics has always been the electorate.
I think they need to make an affirmative case for the policies they support. We saw in the election what happens when they spend all their energy talking about how terrible the other party is without making a case for their own policies.
They don't need to sell a whole white paper about how to restructure the healthcare system, but they should at least have a few generic talking points about their own ideas to use when journalists ask them about healthcare.
Public option + price controls has a nice ring to it, but there's lots of other ideas which would work instead. I just haven't heard them propose any meaningful ones.
|
On July 02 2017 10:18 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2017 05:55 KwarK wrote:
Healthcare is a hot potato where you get nothing but problems for doing anything. Provide healthcare and people don't want to pay. Take away healthcare and people don't want to die. Nationalize things and Ben Carson says that this is literally slavery. Ration things and Fox News says the death panels are coming for grandma.
I can absolutely see why the Democrats don't want to push big idea plans. The American people won't thank them for it. Ultimately the problem with politics has always been the electorate. I think they need to make an affirmative case for the policies they support. We saw in the election what happens when they spend all their energy talking about how terrible the other party is without making a case for their own policies. They don't need to sell a whole white paper about how to restructure the healthcare system, but they should at least have a few generic talking points about their own ideas to use when journalists ask them about healthcare. Public option + price controls has a nice ring to it, but there's lots of other ideas which would work instead. I just haven't heard them propose any meaningful ones.
As I'm reading it, though, the questions were not about "what is your goal with healthcare", but what would they try to do if the Republicans actually decided to try negotiating with Democrats in this current sitting government.
Granted, it doesn't make their answers less vague. But understandable, at least, that they aren't saying what their limits are before voting on a Republican bill.
|
On July 02 2017 08:05 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2017 04:36 Gahlo wrote:On July 02 2017 04:31 zlefin wrote:
the passport bit made me wonder so I checked the landsize; the US has more than twice the land area of the EU. I thought it was closer than that. Yeah, it's a pretty stark difference. France is one of EU's biggest countries and is about the size of Texas. They also both have a Paris. So what? France has twice as many people. Europe in general has twice as many people as USA. The countries which make up the EU contains more people, yet the idea to only travel within the EU is a pretty strange one for those living within it. Yet most Europeans in the high income European countries have travelled outside to another continent within their lifetimes. Nearly everyone owns a passport irregardless of whether they need one to travel within the EU. Even the poor. It's pretty obvious why you feel a bit diminshed about the whole passport thing, but saying that USA is a large country doesn't explain it.
It matters because the space that the USA takes up lets you experience a vast array of environments without needing a passport. I don't need a passport to go to Hawaii, while I'm pretty sure you need a passport to go to Mauritius. So unless I'm destination traveling, like if I wanted to see Venice, I don't have a purpose for owning a passport. I'm not going to spend money so I can get a new passport when I don't intend to use it.
|
His fingers really have a life all of their own.
|
On July 02 2017 10:18 Mercy13 wrote:
Public option + price controls has a nice ring to it, but there's lots of other ideas which would work instead. I just haven't heard them propose any meaningful ones.
What's the point of having price controls if there's a public option?
|
You all just don't appreciate Trump's beauty. Trump is avant-garde af.
|
As a follow up to this tweet: + Show Spoiler + it should serve as a good reason why we should be careful with tweets and who is tweeting.
Just from some google searching it seems like most red states are saying the following: We will provide publicly available information, but not things like Social Security numbers.
Some say they are prohibited by law from releasing the information. So, while I don't really object to states telling the federal government to pound sand, these reports are missing important details.
Edit: fixed link
|
The notion that hes defining what is and will in the future be considered presidential is a little unsettling.
God I hope that notion is as asinine as it feels and sounds.
|
On July 02 2017 11:41 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2017 10:18 Mercy13 wrote:
Public option + price controls has a nice ring to it, but there's lots of other ideas which would work instead. I just haven't heard them propose any meaningful ones.
What's the point of having price controls if there's a public option?
A public option would probably be too expensive without price controls. Medicaid and Medicare both include price controls for example.
Edit:
Price controls are a good idea regardless. The way providers currently set rates is rediculous.
Edit 2 (sorry):
A public option is different from single payer in case that's why you're confused.
|
On July 02 2017 12:48 Mercy13 wrote:
A public option is different from single payer in case that's why you're confused.
I understand what public option means. I must be confused about what you mean by price controls.
|
On July 02 2017 13:14 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2017 12:48 Mercy13 wrote:
A public option is different from single payer in case that's why you're confused. I understand what public option means. I must be confused about what you mean by price controls.
Price controls like in Medicaid, where the government specifies what it will pay for each procedure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
