| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 21 2017 04:18 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2017/09/20/551857172/the-department-of-education-cuts-off-a-student-loan-watchdog Heaven forbid the government has an agency overseeing government backed loans that cannot be discharged without payment in full. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On September 21 2017 03:51 Nevuk wrote: Remember fired google guy? He is coming with a very hot and fast take here : Charitable: He's been under quite a bit of stress since his firing, and this is a reflection of it. Uncharitable: He's always been this willing to go on flights of fancy. | ||
|
Wulfey_LA
932 Posts
On September 21 2017 03:59 ChristianS wrote: I was wondering if you support this bill or not (sounds like not). I know xDaunt is pro-UHC but I wasn't sure what you'd think of it. They're trying to rush it out before much polling could happen, but does anyone like this bill? Is anyone in the thread pro-Graham-Cassidy? There is a PRO argument out there and no one in here is making it. The PRO argument requires that you not care about facts, consequences, finances, or evidence. If you assume that FEDERALISM is such a good thing that facts and consequences are irrelevant, then you can reason from pure ideology into approving of Cassidycare. Read some Hugh Hewitt. He just pretends the facts are what he wishes they were and shouts FEDERALISM. That is the end of his argument. The NRO piece says FEDERALISM, acknowledges that the facts don't support passage, then just trails off. This is pure reasoning from ideology, with no concern for any of the people the policy will hurt. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/451485/graham-cassidy-health-reform-federalist-bill Now you may say, "but Wulfey, you are pissing on conservatives reasoning from pure ideology over facts, that is insulting to conservatives, thus you are a hypocrite for being mean to them in a way that they are mean and you are the real person ignoring facts and consequences". My response is that Cassidycare must stand on its own and any attempt to smear me for being mean to conservatives is no defense of Cassidycare. It really will allow states to opt out of minimum coverage standards, community ratings, and really will turn medicaid into block grants and punish states that chose to expand medicaid by cutting funding against them in a targeted way. Those are terribly policy consequences that will hurt real people and FEDERALISM is no justification for that damage. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On September 21 2017 03:51 Nevuk wrote: Remember fired google guy? He is coming with a very hot and fast take here : https://twitter.com/JamesADamore/status/910541338961108993 https://twitter.com/JamesADamore/status/910547650407055360 What's that? Some snowflake dipshit basically did it all for attention? Shocking. | ||
|
brian
United States9642 Posts
On September 21 2017 04:12 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: god bless these backwards rejects. and even more when they speak up, so as we know we needn't consider their opinions too strongly. this is why the quote 'better to remain silent and thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt' is so famous, i'm sure. big fan of small government that one, i bet. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
At this point the only job he will be able to get is being a sub-in as Kyle Ren. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
"Dumbass Company, Inc hires misogynistic KKK-loving programmer fired from Google." | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 21 2017 04:42 Mohdoo wrote: It's not like he was some savant of a programmer. He was just another Google employee. I'm sure he'll get hired at some shitty startup or something, but I think he's out of the big names. But that wasn’t how it was framed. Every article about it made it seem like he was some long term member of google who was fired for voicing some opinion. Rather than some entry level employee that was canned because he decided to go against company policy that was implemented in response to a pending investigation by the labor department. The whole “pending investigation by the US government for systematic pay discrimination against women” always seemed to be left out of the articles. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24053 Posts
On September 21 2017 02:47 KwarK wrote: yeah, I think the folks in Africa already know that white folks come to their countries with the expectation of extracting wealth for themselves But thanks anyway Donald. I'm sure you inspired them. All I could think of was this image I like how both sides of the aisle are slowly and begrudgingly coming to the conclusion that they need to pass some sort of UHC because their corporate sell-out plans simply aren't acceptable any more. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On September 21 2017 04:58 GreenHorizons wrote: All I could think of was this image https://twitter.com/CookTheGreat/status/910163635573526529 I like how both sides of the aisle are slowly and begrudgingly coming to the conclusion that they need to pass some sort of UHC because their corporate sell-out plans simply aren't acceptable any more. Well, that's mostly at our age. Those with UHC already (the elderly) still seem firmly stuck on the "fuck everyone else" plan. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On September 21 2017 03:59 ChristianS wrote: I was wondering if you support this bill or not (sounds like not). I know xDaunt is pro-UHC but I wasn't sure what you'd think of it. They're trying to rush it out before much polling could happen, but does anyone like this bill? Is anyone in the thread pro-Graham-Cassidy? There's now a billion layers to health care reform and much of it is the same demagoguery that fucked up the system in the first place. I don't like this bill. Every past bill by Republicans has also been terrible. But it's clear a majority of the Republican Congress don't care about repealing Obamacare in the first place, so you know you're already in the area of eating poo for the next few years. So I acknowledge tough arguments that say this is the best platter we can draw out of the pile of steaming turds. I don't advocate giving the Republican coalition any soft bed for their lie of wanting to repeal Obamacare if given the power to do it. They're trying to call it a repeal, and it isn't. Our president is stupid enough to want to pass anything, and they want to give him something. The Democrats are so on board with single payer that they will ride the Obamacare collapse to the ground to get the conditions for it to pass. Their base wants it so they're not even unusually perfidious on this count. So you move into the darkness where repeal was a lie, bipartisanship without a single payer plan is impossible, and lots of these bums will be voted out of office for promising a lie. There are no good plans out there. I'm still deciding on the handful of remaining good things that might be included with generous helpings of the bad (bad e.g. insurance company bailouts, more concentrated power in DC via HHS discretion, unsustainable subsidies, large tax hikes). For the good, you might get enough federalist-style state discretion to let competent states make regulatory plans that work for their citizens (though right now the state elements are being used to buy off states). You might get a mandate repeal. Block grant reform to Medicaid is a good idea, though this implementation is off. Those are the only lights at the end of the tunnel if a future bill goes this way. I'm all for more power on health policy to be directed out of Washington. This current bill doesn't do enough but it's a start. You want low social services in exchange for low taxation? Maybe Texas is your destination. Are you willing to pay a huge tax burden but want higher social services? New York. I'll repeat my last warning when the subject came up. I think single payer views and nanny state views are close to religious in how dogmatically they're held, so I'm not going to waste my time trying to argue the basics of health policy. You're probably already familiar with free-market arguments against them regardless. I'm only giving my opinion as asked. I do not support this bill. I might support a future one with less of the bad. I do support universal catastrophic if coupled with Obamacare repeal and other health policy reform. It's not looking good for a future bill, and I think the most likely scenario is the Republicans lose seats in midterms and 2020 and a single payer plan I don't support passes by whoever comes after Trump and maybe even with Democrats through Trump. Tyler Cowen has okay breakdown. National Review conservative take Two of the people you'll have to buy off with whatever version 2.0 comes out | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24053 Posts
On September 21 2017 04:59 Nevuk wrote: Well, that's mostly at our age. Those with UHC already (the elderly) still seem firmly stuck on the "fuck everyone else" plan. And at their town halls and protests telling us to keep government out of their medicare, or not to steal from medicare to pay for socialized medicine. (Also most of the Democrats in Congress fall into the "I got mine" camp too). | ||
KwarK
United States44131 Posts
If you wouldn't say that cartographers have a near religious belief in the existence of New Zealand then you shouldn't say that social democrats have a near religious belief in the viability of single payer healthcare. Faith isn't a part of either equation. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On September 21 2017 05:03 KwarK wrote: How can you describe advocacy of a single payer system as being close to a religious belief? There are plenty of countries around the world which have single payer systems which are demonstrably highly effective with an irrefutable body of evidence confirming that. If you wouldn't say that cartographers have a near religious belief in the existence of New Zealand then you shouldn't say that social democrats have a near religious belief in the viability of single payer healthcare. Faith isn't a part of either equation. You're missing a few words in the comparison I used. You're also missing my point at bringing it up. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
The start of rumblings on the FISA/wiretaps issue. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44131 Posts
On September 21 2017 05:05 Danglars wrote: You're missing a few words in the comparison I used. You're also missing my point at bringing it up. You compared supporting a well sourced, evidence based approach to healthcare to religious dogma. Do cartographers have a dogmatic belief in New Zealand? The implication of your argument was that single payer advocates were ideologues who couldn't be reasoned with. That couldn't be further from the truth. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
WardiTV Weekly
RSL Revival
RSL Revival
Bombastic Starleague
Kung Fu Cup
OSC
CrankTV Team League
Bombastic Starleague
Replay Cast
The PondCast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
