|
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 August 29 2017 21:12 farvacola wrote:
Medicare For All is the current legislative title being floated, so no worries there. There's also a ton of work to be done if current proposals a la Conyers' are any indication, but it's a start.
I hope the democrats make it a state by state push, rather than trying to go at it from the federal level. The states would be a better proving ground for that system.
|
On August 29 2017 21:39 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2017 17:36 Artisreal wrote:A paragraph that sums up my opinion on the crappy BLM/antifa/KKK who's worse spiel Antifa is not the mirror image of white supremacy. While some of the antifa's methods are extremely objectionable, their stated goals -- to confront and combat racism, anti-Semitism and bigotry— are not. White supremacists' goals, on the other hand, are indefensible Antifa pose challenges for police and counter-protesters alike If wasn't antifa.
sorry, black block.
|
|
|
On August 29 2017 22:15 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2017 21:12 farvacola wrote:
Medicare For All is the current legislative title being floated, so no worries there. There's also a ton of work to be done if current proposals a la Conyers' are any indication, but it's a start. I hope the democrats make it a state by state push, rather than trying to go at it from the federal level. The states would be a better proving ground for that system.
Nah, I hope the exact opposite given the fact that many state-side proposals are having trouble offering cost-effective mechanisms through which prices are tamped down without reaching beyond state lines. It is precisely the respect for arbitrary state lines that leads to distorted markets with large payors unable to tamp down prices or, in the case of Medicaid, state healthcare schemes that produce worse outcomes at worse value, all in the name of state control.
There are a number of pressing issues that require national action and healthcare is one of them.
|
United States42605 Posts
The whole enterprise will depend upon strong legislative support to build the kind of structures that are needed. They will need to create a death panel to place a value on human life and on quality of life improvements. Insurance companies already have those, of course, and so does your employer when they pick which things to have covered by your health insurance. But socialized medicine depends upon it because rationing of care is a central part of the system. If they can't get either an overwhelming electoral mandate, or bipartisan support, they'll struggle. This is a situation where it works as it should only if you do it right. But, as the rest of the world has shown conclusively, it works really, really well.
A grand bargain will need to be struck with the insurance companies, I expect, in which a part of health insurance company premiums/revenue are harvested in order to offset the Medicare cost. It ought to work out because their costs ought to go down significantly. In the UK private health insurance is way cheaper than it is in the US, for example, because it functions as top up insurance, if you break your arm your private health insurance doesn't need to pay for any of the shit you'd have gotten for free had you not had insurance. There is already a system in place within the US for this, when you're covered by two insurers one will have primary liability and the other will have secondary liability for only the part the primary insurer did not pay for. Medicare acting as primary insurance would take care of the majority of all expenses paid by the private insurers so the government would need to harvest the difference to offset their increased Medicare costs.=
|
On August 29 2017 22:28 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2017 22:15 Plansix wrote:On August 29 2017 21:12 farvacola wrote:
Medicare For All is the current legislative title being floated, so no worries there. There's also a ton of work to be done if current proposals a la Conyers' are any indication, but it's a start. I hope the democrats make it a state by state push, rather than trying to go at it from the federal level. The states would be a better proving ground for that system. Nah, I hope the exact opposite given the fact that many state-side proposals are having trouble offering cost-effective mechanisms through which prices are tamped down without reaching beyond state lines. It is precisely the respect for arbitrary state lines that leads to distorted markets with large payors unable to tamp down prices or, in the case of Medicaid, state healthcare schemes that produce worse outcomes at worse value, all in the name of state control. There are a number of pressing issues that require national action and healthcare is one of them.
My major concern is turning healthcare into political football again, while issues like income disparity and voters rights take a back burner. Healthcare just seems to be this vortex that obfuscates all other issues.
|
Yes, it's worth mentioning that there are plenty of "bad" national proposals, including Conyers' given its utter lack of any kind of implementation gradation. That said, add in a long employer insurance grandfather clause and Medicare Part-specific changes in the interest of fixing problems like Medicare Advantage inefficiency and suddenly, it doesn't look so bad.
On August 29 2017 22:33 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2017 22:28 farvacola wrote:On August 29 2017 22:15 Plansix wrote:On August 29 2017 21:12 farvacola wrote:
Medicare For All is the current legislative title being floated, so no worries there. There's also a ton of work to be done if current proposals a la Conyers' are any indication, but it's a start. I hope the democrats make it a state by state push, rather than trying to go at it from the federal level. The states would be a better proving ground for that system. Nah, I hope the exact opposite given the fact that many state-side proposals are having trouble offering cost-effective mechanisms through which prices are tamped down without reaching beyond state lines. It is precisely the respect for arbitrary state lines that leads to distorted markets with large payors unable to tamp down prices or, in the case of Medicaid, state healthcare schemes that produce worse outcomes at worse value, all in the name of state control. There are a number of pressing issues that require national action and healthcare is one of them. My major concern is turning healthcare into political football again, while issues like income disparity and voters rights take a back burner. Healthcare just seems to be this vortex that obfuscates all other issues.
That's a valid concern, though I personally think coming together on the issue of healthcare will prove more easy than fighting poverty or voting rights infringements. It ends up coming down to whether one considers healthcare a quagmire or an area of legislative concern that is increasingly opening up given all the dancing in public federal politicians have been forced to do.
|
Not hiring people to do jobs congress decided were important and were necessary during previous crisis. This is pure hubris
|
A week ago I expressed the hope that President Donald Trump's lamentable performance after the Charlottesville protests would hurt his standing in the polls. This didn't happen. If there was a blip, it was in the other direction. I'd be pleased if Trump's regrettable decision to pardon former sheriff Joe Arpaio dented his popularity, too, but I'm not holding my breath.
Trump's supporters are loyal. What is one to make of this?
There are two main theories of Trump's support. One is that a large minority of Americans -- 40 percent, give or take -- are racist idiots. This theory is at least tacitly endorsed by the Democratic Party and the mainstream liberal media. The other is that a large majority of this large minority are good citizens with intelligible and legitimate opinions, who so resent being regarded as racist idiots that they'll back Trump almost regardless. They may not admire the man, but he's on their side, he vents their frustration, he afflicts the people who think so little of them -- and that's good enough.
It's disappointing that Charlottesville hasn't changed their minds -- but then it hasn't changed my mind either. I still think the first theory is absurd and the second theory basically correct.
The first theory, if it were true, would be an argument against democracy. If tens of millions of Americans are racist idiots, how do you defend the popular franchise? That isn't a sliver of reprehensible people who'll be safely overwhelmed when elections come around. And there's plainly nothing, according to the first theory, you can say to change their minds. Why even go through the motions of talking and listening to those people?
This sense that democratic politics is futile if not downright dangerous now infuses the worldview of the country's cultural and intellectual establishment. Trump is routinely accused of being authoritarian and anti-democratic, despite the fact that he won the election and, so far, has been checked at every point and has achieved almost nothing in policy terms. (He might wish he were an authoritarian, but he sure hasn't been allowed to function as one.) Many of his critics, on the other hand, are anti-democratic in a deeper sense: They appear to believe that a little less than half the country doesn't deserve the vote.
Bloomberg
I'm usually in the disapprove category, but think this kind of interplay is prevalent. It doesn't have good outcomes.
|
United States42605 Posts
On August 29 2017 23:59 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +A week ago I expressed the hope that President Donald Trump's lamentable performance after the Charlottesville protests would hurt his standing in the polls. This didn't happen. If there was a blip, it was in the other direction. I'd be pleased if Trump's regrettable decision to pardon former sheriff Joe Arpaio dented his popularity, too, but I'm not holding my breath.
Trump's supporters are loyal. What is one to make of this?
There are two main theories of Trump's support. One is that a large minority of Americans -- 40 percent, give or take -- are racist idiots. This theory is at least tacitly endorsed by the Democratic Party and the mainstream liberal media. The other is that a large majority of this large minority are good citizens with intelligible and legitimate opinions, who so resent being regarded as racist idiots that they'll back Trump almost regardless. They may not admire the man, but he's on their side, he vents their frustration, he afflicts the people who think so little of them -- and that's good enough.
It's disappointing that Charlottesville hasn't changed their minds -- but then it hasn't changed my mind either. I still think the first theory is absurd and the second theory basically correct.
The first theory, if it were true, would be an argument against democracy. If tens of millions of Americans are racist idiots, how do you defend the popular franchise? That isn't a sliver of reprehensible people who'll be safely overwhelmed when elections come around. And there's plainly nothing, according to the first theory, you can say to change their minds. Why even go through the motions of talking and listening to those people?
This sense that democratic politics is futile if not downright dangerous now infuses the worldview of the country's cultural and intellectual establishment. Trump is routinely accused of being authoritarian and anti-democratic, despite the fact that he won the election and, so far, has been checked at every point and has achieved almost nothing in policy terms. (He might wish he were an authoritarian, but he sure hasn't been allowed to function as one.) Many of his critics, on the other hand, are anti-democratic in a deeper sense: They appear to believe that a little less than half the country doesn't deserve the vote. BloombergI'm usually in the disapprove category, but think this kind of interplay is prevalent. It doesn't have good outcomes.
That article presents two possible explanations.
Theory A
Trump supporters support racist policies because they are racist. Clearly this is untrue because clearly racism couldn't be that popular in America because... After all, it's been 20 years since interracial marriage disapproval passed below the 50% mark. Ancient history.
Theory B
Trump supporters are so tired of being called racist that they support racist policies because the racist at the top doesn't call them a racist. This proves they're not racist because they're only doing the racist thing to get back at people for calling them racist and that makes sense somehow. Because if you're okay with supporting racism but only to get back at people for calling you a racist then clearly that wouldn't imply that you're a racist.
Additional ad hominem. If liberals think half the country can be racist then clearly they hate democracy because...
Here's the thing. Right and wrong don't change just because someone on the other side called you a name and hurt your feelings. If there is an injustice and someone who wants to change that injustice calls you a mean name, that doesn't mean it's excusable to fight to maintain that injustice. The Bloomberg article defends Trump supporters by saying that they're not really racists, they just have so little moral courage that they're happy supporting racism if it means that the other side loses. And it somehow thinks that's better. Honestly I have less contempt for a member of the KKK than I do for the author of that article.
|
Clovis, New Mexico (CNN)Two people are dead and four others were wounded after a gunman walked into a library in eastern New Mexico and opened fire Monday.
"He just started unloading pretty much the whole clip," said Sam Nathavong, who told CNN affiliate KRQE that he was in a room studying when he heard the shots.
"I threw the table against the door and I barricaded myself in there," Nathavong said. "I thought he was coming my way and by then the cops got there."
The gunman began shooting at the Clovis- Carver Library just after 4 p.m. local time and police said first responders were on scene quickly after the active shooter call came in.
Two women were found dead inside the library; two men and two women were injured. Three of them were airlifted to the hospital, Clovis Police Chief Douglas Ford said at a news conference.
Police confronted the gunman inside the library, but he was arrested without firing any more shots, he said.
"He gave up. He didn't resist," Ford said.
Source
|
If things really go south during Trump's term, which is entirely conceivable, the non-racist/non-birther portion of his voters will very much regret their choice. At that point, the "liberal attitudes are offensive" argument falls apart as a defensible position. They took too large of a risk on competence - on a fake tanned, hair dyed and veneer-teethed showbiz personality, no less.
|
On August 30 2017 00:07 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2017 23:59 Danglars wrote:A week ago I expressed the hope that President Donald Trump's lamentable performance after the Charlottesville protests would hurt his standing in the polls. This didn't happen. If there was a blip, it was in the other direction. I'd be pleased if Trump's regrettable decision to pardon former sheriff Joe Arpaio dented his popularity, too, but I'm not holding my breath.
Trump's supporters are loyal. What is one to make of this?
There are two main theories of Trump's support. One is that a large minority of Americans -- 40 percent, give or take -- are racist idiots. This theory is at least tacitly endorsed by the Democratic Party and the mainstream liberal media. The other is that a large majority of this large minority are good citizens with intelligible and legitimate opinions, who so resent being regarded as racist idiots that they'll back Trump almost regardless. They may not admire the man, but he's on their side, he vents their frustration, he afflicts the people who think so little of them -- and that's good enough.
It's disappointing that Charlottesville hasn't changed their minds -- but then it hasn't changed my mind either. I still think the first theory is absurd and the second theory basically correct.
The first theory, if it were true, would be an argument against democracy. If tens of millions of Americans are racist idiots, how do you defend the popular franchise? That isn't a sliver of reprehensible people who'll be safely overwhelmed when elections come around. And there's plainly nothing, according to the first theory, you can say to change their minds. Why even go through the motions of talking and listening to those people?
This sense that democratic politics is futile if not downright dangerous now infuses the worldview of the country's cultural and intellectual establishment. Trump is routinely accused of being authoritarian and anti-democratic, despite the fact that he won the election and, so far, has been checked at every point and has achieved almost nothing in policy terms. (He might wish he were an authoritarian, but he sure hasn't been allowed to function as one.) Many of his critics, on the other hand, are anti-democratic in a deeper sense: They appear to believe that a little less than half the country doesn't deserve the vote. BloombergI'm usually in the disapprove category, but think this kind of interplay is prevalent. It doesn't have good outcomes. That article presents two possible explanations. Theory A Trump supporters support racist policies because they are racist. Clearly this is untrue because clearly racism couldn't be that popular in America because... After all, it's been 20 years since interracial marriage disapproval passed below the 50% mark. Ancient history. Theory B Trump supporters are so tired of being called racist that they support racist policies because the racist at the top doesn't call them a racist. This proves they're not racist because they're only doing the racist thing to get back at people for calling them racist and that makes sense somehow. Because if you're okay with supporting racism but only to get back at people for calling you a racist then clearly that wouldn't imply that you're a racist. Additional ad hominem. If liberals think half the country can be racist then clearly they hate democracy because... Here's the thing. Right and wrong don't change just because someone on the other side called you a name and hurt your feelings. If there is an injustice and someone who wants to change that injustice calls you a mean name, that doesn't mean it's excusable to fight to maintain that injustice. The Bloomberg article defends Trump supporters by saying that they're not really racists, they just have so little moral courage that they're happy supporting racism if it means that the other side loses. And it somehow thinks that's better. '
This is the problem of the Trump vote. Either a staggering percentage of the population is super duper racist (my money). Or a staggering percentage of the population is willing to sign on with a super duper racist. Willing to throw all minority friends under the bus, willing to look past all the racist bullshit and be complicit when history looks back on this. That's not a better choice.
|
On August 30 2017 00:14 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +Clovis, New Mexico (CNN)Two people are dead and four others were wounded after a gunman walked into a library in eastern New Mexico and opened fire Monday.
"He just started unloading pretty much the whole clip," said Sam Nathavong, who told CNN affiliate KRQE that he was in a room studying when he heard the shots.
"I threw the table against the door and I barricaded myself in there," Nathavong said. "I thought he was coming my way and by then the cops got there."
The gunman began shooting at the Clovis- Carver Library just after 4 p.m. local time and police said first responders were on scene quickly after the active shooter call came in.
Two women were found dead inside the library; two men and two women were injured. Three of them were airlifted to the hospital, Clovis Police Chief Douglas Ford said at a news conference.
Police confronted the gunman inside the library, but he was arrested without firing any more shots, he said.
"He gave up. He didn't resist," Ford said. Source
Teenager. Curious as to what the reason will be, the "target" is weird in the first place for anyone, but a "hip" teen?
|
As healthcare pops up again in the thread, quick question for you guys. What do you think you or the broad population of the US would agree to pay for in health insurance. I have had a few conversations with Europeans about why the US won't get what we are having and some people said, you are simply not ready to pay the monthly rates we do.
As a point of reference, i am paying in the ballpark of 10% of my gross income each month into health insurance having not taken out more then 3k in my 34 years on this planet. Is this something the American population would agree to do?
|
Is there some sort of actual data on how much "people who don't like to be called racists" impacted the election? My guess would be that's a fairly low count, it's really just a bunch of spin because his reader base really likes to hear that the fact that they are being called racists is one of the major problems in the US.
|
i pay 2%, though of course i picked the cheapest plan. additionally, my employer is recognized as one of the best when it comes to health insurance in that they subsidize it for us fairly heavily.
i'd wager we'll hear many people say 10% is not far from their current reality. and no doubt a few who would consider it preferable.
oh i forgot about medicare~ so say 4.5%(because i had already rounded up for the 2%)
of course, as mentioned, a lot of the healthcare burden is subsidized by my company. since i'm not getting paid that money some would consider that an additional cost. and i'm not certain on how much they pay relatively, i think it's something to the tune of 75% of the cost. this would imply there's another 6% of my salary on top of the 4.5% i'm paying directly that my company pays on my behalf.
|
On August 30 2017 00:21 Broetchenholer wrote:
As healthcare pops up again in the thread, quick question for you guys. What do you think you or the broad population of the US would agree to pay for in health insurance. I have had a few conversations with Europeans about why the US won't get what we are having and some people said, you are simply not ready to pay the monthly rates we do.
As a point of reference, i am paying in the ballpark of 10% of my gross income each month into health insurance having not taken out more then 3k in my 34 years on this planet. Is this something the American population would agree to do?
If you scale it with income levels, then I'm sure they wouldn't be opposed. That's the same as a flat tax pretty much, and conservatives are against the flat tax. If I make $50k a year, $5k a year on healthcare wouldn't be that much of a burden I don't think. But this is from a single male with no big responsibilities (house, car, kids, etc). So my style of living wouldn't change too much.
|
United States42605 Posts
On August 30 2017 00:21 Broetchenholer wrote:
As healthcare pops up again in the thread, quick question for you guys. What do you think you or the broad population of the US would agree to pay for in health insurance. I have had a few conversations with Europeans about why the US won't get what we are having and some people said, you are simply not ready to pay the monthly rates we do.
As a point of reference, i am paying in the ballpark of 10% of my gross income each month into health insurance having not taken out more then 3k in my 34 years on this planet. Is this something the American population would agree to do?
So we already pay a flat 2.9/107.65ths of our gross income towards Medicare or 2.7%. But employer paid health insurance is somewhat of a stealth tax. It's part of our overall compensation but we don't see our overall compensation, we just see what is left over after everything has been taken out. I'm paying around 30% of my overall compensation on healthcare this year.
|
On August 30 2017 00:21 Broetchenholer wrote:
As healthcare pops up again in the thread, quick question for you guys. What do you think you or the broad population of the US would agree to pay for in health insurance. I have had a few conversations with Europeans about why the US won't get what we are having and some people said, you are simply not ready to pay the monthly rates we do.
As a point of reference, i am paying in the ballpark of 10% of my gross income each month into health insurance having not taken out more then 3k in my 34 years on this planet. Is this something the American population would agree to do?
Isn't one supposed upshot that if your employer isn't paying your healthcare anymore they can give you that money as pay instead? Not that I actually believe that's how it will work in practice. But if they don't have to pay insurance for you that money should become pay compensation or something...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
