|
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 September 21 2017 04:59 Danglars wrote:
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.
The big and obvious problem with this is that people will stay in Texas and pay low taxes until they get sick or need the social services in another way. And then they move to New York and rake in the higher services once they need them.
Which obviously doesn't work, as New York won't be able to pay for the healthcare of all the sick Texans while all of the healthy people are in Texas contributing to their system.
|
lol, conservatives getting huffy about FISA warrants need to take a long hard look at Clapper v. Amnesty International and then realize that they dug this hole for themselves.
|
Texas also has the highest maternal deathrate in the developed world
|
On September 21 2017 05:08 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2017 05:05 Danglars wrote: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. 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.
Yes. I'd just as soon argue you into believing that there is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet than argue you into believing that single-payer is unworkable and catastrophic in the US. I say this as a standard response to people that want to dive in and persuade me that I'm into killing people or making everyone lose their insurance or whatever we're into these days. I comment on the future of Republican efforts to change health policy somehow, people ask me my thoughts on bills on the table, and I give them.
|
On September 21 2017 04:59 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2017 04:58 GreenHorizons wrote: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. Well, that's mostly at our age. Those with UHC already (the elderly) still seem firmly stuck on the "fuck everyone else" plan.
Why do the elderly hate giving others UHC? It doesn't make sense to me why they would send others something so beneficial to them.
On a different topic:
+ Show Spoiler + I have a question about politics and how to define yourself. I am a college student now, and there are many political groups on this campus and people talking about politics. There seem to be a fair amount of what people RiK and Danglars expect from college campuses, but quite a few who agree with them on most issues.
I've read every page on this forum for a while now, going back past the ggtemplar "monkeys is not racist" debacle; I've found that my views on everything except maybe race (lean a tiny bit in gh's direction) are extremely similar to KwarK's. I have also seen him labeled as a conservative. From my experience, he seems to be socially liberal and economically conservative.
Should I consider myself a conservative, then? What people seem to call conservative on this campus is socially conservative and fiscally ignorant, as well as unwilling to listen to opposing views. I'm just confused on what to do when introducing myself when asked about my political ideology.
|
On September 21 2017 05:13 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2017 04:59 Danglars wrote:
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.
The big and obvious problem with this is that people will stay in Texas and pay low taxes until they get sick or need the social services in another way. And then they move to New York and rake in the higher services once they need them. Which obviously doesn't work, as New York won't be able to pay for the healthcare of all the sick Texans while all of the healthy people are in Texas contributing to their system.
It's heaps better than telling everybody New York's solution has to work for everybody, because we're a collection of people under a centralized national government, not the collected citizens of states. We already have such a vibrant tax policy so when California does stupid laws, businesses flee to Arizona and Texas. The solution to bad state policy is not to make it bad country policy.
|
United States42009 Posts
On September 21 2017 05:19 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2017 05:08 KwarK wrote:On September 21 2017 05:05 Danglars wrote: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. 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. Yes. I'd just as soon argue you into believing that there is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet than argue you into believing that single-payer is unworkable and catastrophic in the US. I say this as a standard response to people that want to dive in and persuade me that I'm into killing people or making everyone lose their insurance or whatever we're into these days. I comment on the future of Republican efforts to change health policy somehow, people ask me my thoughts on bills on the table, and I give them.
If you came from a land where Allah was chilling out with his followers, violating the rules of physics as we understand them and granting wishes then I could see why you'd argue that Allah was a God. Given that I come from a land where we spend half of what Americans spend per capita on healthcare and achieve better healthcare results can you see why I might believe in the effectiveness of single payer?
|
On September 21 2017 05:17 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
Texas also has the highest maternal deathrate in the developed world
Don't worry Karis. I'm against Texas forcing their delightful hospital regs or legislative culture on your state through the national government. It's just sad that failed policy at the national government has to be fixed by more policy at the national government. Or at least that's what I'm hearing.
|
United States42009 Posts
On September 21 2017 05:21 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2017 05:13 Simberto wrote:On September 21 2017 04:59 Danglars wrote:
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.
The big and obvious problem with this is that people will stay in Texas and pay low taxes until they get sick or need the social services in another way. And then they move to New York and rake in the higher services once they need them. Which obviously doesn't work, as New York won't be able to pay for the healthcare of all the sick Texans while all of the healthy people are in Texas contributing to their system. It's heaps better than telling everybody New York's solution has to work for everybody, because we're a collection of people under a centralized national government, not the collected citizens of states. We already have such a vibrant tax policy so when California does stupid laws, businesses flee to Arizona and Texas. The solution to bad state policy is not to make it bad country policy.
Vibrant tax policy? I mean that's certainly one way to describe it. Delaware gets to make itself a tax haven and businesses can register there and get tax benefits nationwide without ever setting foot in Delaware. It's certainly very vibrant. Clusterfuck would be another word that could be used to describe it.
|
On September 21 2017 05:21 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2017 05:13 Simberto wrote:On September 21 2017 04:59 Danglars wrote:
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.
The big and obvious problem with this is that people will stay in Texas and pay low taxes until they get sick or need the social services in another way. And then they move to New York and rake in the higher services once they need them. Which obviously doesn't work, as New York won't be able to pay for the healthcare of all the sick Texans while all of the healthy people are in Texas contributing to their system. It's heaps better than telling everybody New York's solution has to work for everybody, because we're a collection of people under a centralized national government, not the collected citizens of states. We already have such a vibrant tax policy so when California does stupid laws, businesses flee to Arizona and Texas. The solution to bad state policy is not to make it bad country policy.
But that just leads to a race to the bottom. Universal healthcare only works when healthy people also have to pay into it. If you can have shitty healthcare and not pay a lot while healthy, and have universal healthcare and pay the according rates while sick, the system doesn't work.
Thus, by allowing that situation, you force everyone into shitty healthcare just in the same way that a law would force everyone into universal healthcare. And to be honest, of the two things to be forced into, universal healthcare is by far the better.
The other way to make this work is to only treat people in the state who have been living there (and paying into the system) for x years, while shipping all of the sick texans who want your universal healthcare back to texas to die, but that leads to a whole host of other problems.
|
On September 21 2017 05:21 Howie_Dewitt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2017 04:59 Nevuk wrote:On September 21 2017 04:58 GreenHorizons wrote: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 https://twitter.com/CookTheGreat/status/910163635573526529I 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. Why do the elderly hate giving others UHC? It doesn't make sense to me why they would send others something so beneficial to them. On a different topic: + Show Spoiler + I have a question about politics and how to define yourself. I am a college student now, and there are many political groups on this campus and people talking about politics. There seem to be a fair amount of what people RiK and Danglars expect from college campuses, but quite a few who agree with them on most issues.
I've read every page on this forum for a while now, going back past the ggtemplar "monkeys is not racist" debacle; I've found that my views on everything except maybe race (lean a tiny bit in gh's direction) are extremely similar to KwarK's. I have also seen him labeled as a conservative. From my experience, he seems to be socially liberal and economically conservative.
Should I consider myself a conservative, then? What people seem to call conservative on this campus is socially conservative and fiscally ignorant, as well as unwilling to listen to opposing views. I'm just confused on what to do when introducing myself when asked about my political ideology.
KwarK is fiscally conservative only with reference to the UK for the most part; if you find yourself matching up with him, it'd be far more accurate to call yourself a liberal here in the States imo.
Better yet, challenge people who push you towards labels and define yourself otherwise.
|
On September 21 2017 05:24 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2017 05:19 Danglars wrote:On September 21 2017 05:08 KwarK wrote:On September 21 2017 05:05 Danglars wrote: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. 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. Yes. I'd just as soon argue you into believing that there is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet than argue you into believing that single-payer is unworkable and catastrophic in the US. I say this as a standard response to people that want to dive in and persuade me that I'm into killing people or making everyone lose their insurance or whatever we're into these days. I comment on the future of Republican efforts to change health policy somehow, people ask me my thoughts on bills on the table, and I give them. If you came from a land where Allah was chilling out with his followers, violating the rules of physics as we understand them and granting wishes then I could see why you'd argue that Allah was a God. Given that I come from a land where we spend half of what Americans spend per capita on healthcare and achieve better healthcare results can you see why I might believe in the effectiveness of single payer?
Either accept my position or don't. I've had enough experience in this forum that all your overtures of magnanimity fall on deaf ears. If you're truly interested in a new health care or supernatural religion, I'll contact some people to send to your door. I believe I'm on the only person on this forum that believes in free market health insurance, tax reforms, and regulatory reforms to lower cost and improve outcomes, and you're just not worth it. You have a history of dishing out one-liners when you get tired of alleging people are ignoring all your points. So if you're done, this is becoming a distraction, and you can take it to PMs or the website feedback thread.
|
On September 21 2017 05:21 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2017 05:13 Simberto wrote:On September 21 2017 04:59 Danglars wrote:
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.
The big and obvious problem with this is that people will stay in Texas and pay low taxes until they get sick or need the social services in another way. And then they move to New York and rake in the higher services once they need them. Which obviously doesn't work, as New York won't be able to pay for the healthcare of all the sick Texans while all of the healthy people are in Texas contributing to their system. It's heaps better than telling everybody New York's solution has to work for everybody, because we're a collection of people under a centralized national government, not the collected citizens of states. We already have such a vibrant tax policy so when California does stupid laws, businesses flee to Arizona and Texas. The solution to bad state policy is not to make it bad country policy.
That would be all well and good if each state could support their own health care services on their own, with their own separate health insurance providers. But that is not the case. As stated above, states like Texas provide such poor health services that they have the highest maternal deathrate in the developed world.
But I am in full support of your state driven plan with one stipulation: Total transparency of quality of care per state, complied and put out of the federal government. States can have their rights, so long as they can’t lie about the quality of their health care.
|
This idea that contemporary policy necessarily bends to the arbitrary contours of state boundaries must die an important death if the US is to actually make progress on its pressing problems.
|
On September 21 2017 05:28 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2017 05:21 Danglars wrote:On September 21 2017 05:13 Simberto wrote:On September 21 2017 04:59 Danglars wrote:
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.
The big and obvious problem with this is that people will stay in Texas and pay low taxes until they get sick or need the social services in another way. And then they move to New York and rake in the higher services once they need them. Which obviously doesn't work, as New York won't be able to pay for the healthcare of all the sick Texans while all of the healthy people are in Texas contributing to their system. It's heaps better than telling everybody New York's solution has to work for everybody, because we're a collection of people under a centralized national government, not the collected citizens of states. We already have such a vibrant tax policy so when California does stupid laws, businesses flee to Arizona and Texas. The solution to bad state policy is not to make it bad country policy. But that just leads to a race to the bottom. Universal healthcare only works when healthy people also have to pay into it. If you can have shitty healthcare and not pay a lot while healthy, and have universal healthcare and pay the according rates while sick, the system doesn't work. Thus, by allowing that situation, you force everyone into shitty healthcare just in the same way that a law would force everyone into universal healthcare. And to be honest, of the two things to be forced into, universal healthcare is by far the better. The other way to make this work is to only treat people in the state who have been living there (and paying into the system) for x years, while shipping all of the sick texans who want your universal healthcare back to texas to die, but that leads to a whole host of other problems.
I'm into reforming the health care/health insurance system through free market ideas. If you say "we have to do x, y, and z" things to fuck state sovereignty to make universal healthcare work, I'd say that's a great argument against doing UHC. If you want to implement guaranteed issue state insurance for residents of two or five years, have at it New York! Show us all that we were wrong that UHC is a terrible idea if practiced in the US! Just don't bankrupt the rest of the nation and screw over our health care as your experiment is proved wrong.
|
Estonia4504 Posts
On September 21 2017 05:30 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2017 05:24 KwarK wrote:On September 21 2017 05:19 Danglars wrote:On September 21 2017 05:08 KwarK wrote:On September 21 2017 05:05 Danglars wrote: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. 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. Yes. I'd just as soon argue you into believing that there is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet than argue you into believing that single-payer is unworkable and catastrophic in the US. I say this as a standard response to people that want to dive in and persuade me that I'm into killing people or making everyone lose their insurance or whatever we're into these days. I comment on the future of Republican efforts to change health policy somehow, people ask me my thoughts on bills on the table, and I give them. If you came from a land where Allah was chilling out with his followers, violating the rules of physics as we understand them and granting wishes then I could see why you'd argue that Allah was a God. Given that I come from a land where we spend half of what Americans spend per capita on healthcare and achieve better healthcare results can you see why I might believe in the effectiveness of single payer? Either accept my position or don't. I've had enough experience in this forum that all your overtures of magnanimity fall on deaf ears. If you're truly interested in a new health care or supernatural religion, I'll contact some people to send to your door. I believe I'm on the only person on this forum that believes in free market health insurance, tax reforms, and regulatory reforms to lower cost and improve outcomes, and you're just not worth it. You have a history of dishing out one-liners when you get tired of alleging people are ignoring all your points. So if you're done, this is becoming a distraction, and you can take it to PMs or the website feedback thread.
So instead of answering his question, that I think a lot of us have, you choose to attack the person? It's a fairly common argument that UHC has justified itself worldwide. "I choose to believe differently" is not exactly a compelling argument.
|
On September 21 2017 05:33 farvacola wrote:
This idea that contemporary policy necessarily bends to the arbitrary contours of state boundaries must die an important death if the US is to actually make progress on its pressing problems.
especially on an issue like healthcare
Have Texans a different physiology than people everywhere else? This is about treating diseases, not a regional art exhibition. How you conceive of yourself generally doesn't change whether medical outcomes are effective or not
|
On September 21 2017 05:34 mustaju wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2017 05:30 Danglars wrote:On September 21 2017 05:24 KwarK wrote:On September 21 2017 05:19 Danglars wrote:On September 21 2017 05:08 KwarK wrote:On September 21 2017 05:05 Danglars wrote: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. 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. Yes. I'd just as soon argue you into believing that there is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet than argue you into believing that single-payer is unworkable and catastrophic in the US. I say this as a standard response to people that want to dive in and persuade me that I'm into killing people or making everyone lose their insurance or whatever we're into these days. I comment on the future of Republican efforts to change health policy somehow, people ask me my thoughts on bills on the table, and I give them. If you came from a land where Allah was chilling out with his followers, violating the rules of physics as we understand them and granting wishes then I could see why you'd argue that Allah was a God. Given that I come from a land where we spend half of what Americans spend per capita on healthcare and achieve better healthcare results can you see why I might believe in the effectiveness of single payer? Either accept my position or don't. I've had enough experience in this forum that all your overtures of magnanimity fall on deaf ears. If you're truly interested in a new health care or supernatural religion, I'll contact some people to send to your door. I believe I'm on the only person on this forum that believes in free market health insurance, tax reforms, and regulatory reforms to lower cost and improve outcomes, and you're just not worth it. You have a history of dishing out one-liners when you get tired of alleging people are ignoring all your points. So if you're done, this is becoming a distraction, and you can take it to PMs or the website feedback thread. So instead of answering his question, that I think a lot of us have, you choose to attack the person? It's a fairly common argument that UHC has justified itself worldwide. "I choose to believe differently" is not exactly a compelling argument.
You should really read my original post. You show an absolute lack of understanding to what launched Kwark to respond.
I have limited time here and don't want to waste anybody's time when people go on the ever-popular "What does Danglars think about X bill." I've spent maybe two or three days of accumulated time in past pages of this thread to why I think what I think. Maybe if the trolling and shitposting calms down, we can return to long posts that contain statistics and understanding of the other's arguments. Kwark personally has a bit of history on this forum, you can look that up too.
|
On September 21 2017 05:35 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2017 05:33 farvacola wrote:
This idea that contemporary policy necessarily bends to the arbitrary contours of state boundaries must die an important death if the US is to actually make progress on its pressing problems. especially on an issue like healthcare Have Texans a different physiology than people everywhere else? This is about treating diseases, not a regional art exhibition. How you conceive of yourself generally doesn't change whether medical outcomes are effective or not
But states hate give up the ability to regulate themselves. Its why we don’t have national rules for things like police or gun control.
It is the same conflict that states have with town governments. Town governments don’t want to give up their right to not build a new school, the state tells them they really need to update their school. And this goes on until the state drops the hammer and says “do it or we will do it for you and send you the bill.”
|
States also have additional leverage given that the vast majority of municipal and county entities are created via state statute and thus practically beholden to the mercy of state government.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
