EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1332
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
farvacola
United States18834 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23411 Posts
On April 17 2019 00:03 Sermokala wrote: Sanders campaign negotiated for this you have to remember. For FOX and CNN its content which gives sanders some leverage to only agree to what he wants to do. I'm not sure if I was supposed to read that sarcastically or not with CNN having lobbyists and former Hillary 2016 staff asking questions without ethical levels of disclosure being something Bernie negotiated or if we're talking about scheduling? | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On April 17 2019 00:34 farvacola wrote: Reading a prohibition against provision of duplicative private health insurance as a prohibition against all private health insurance is not sound, particularly without a granular understanding of what will be publicly provided (“the proposal is broad, therefore private insurance will be broadly prohibited” reads “duplicative” too narrowly too early). Germany and other countries with public option/private insurance schemes have similar rules in effect. There's nothing unsound about it at all. The law says what it says. No "duplication of benefits," which means no private competition with the government plan for any services that the government plan provides. This means that you cannot buy health insurance to cover services that the government plan provides. This further means that people on the government plan (everybody) who do not have large piles of cash lying around (almost everybody) will have trouble getting immediate care when they want it if the care that they desire is rationed to the point where there's a long wait for that care. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18834 Posts
The timing of care provision/approval is itself a basis for distinguishing private insurance from the public option. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On April 17 2019 00:43 farvacola wrote: Again though, “cover services” implicates a host of specific details that can/could operate as a means of distinguishing duplicative insurance service provisions from distinct service provisions, which is precisely what a pre-reg, pre-statute policy (and accompanying discussions) should allow for. There is plenty of room for a hybrid regime based on the little that has been released so far. The timing of care provision/approval is itself a basis for distinguishing private insurance from the public option. What's your authority for this proposition? I guarantee you that it is false. For one, that kind of loophole would completely undermine Bernie's bill. The purpose of the noncompetition clause is to function as a cost control. Allowing market competition for any given service would undermine that purpose. What doc is going to sign up for Bernie's Medicare for none service when they can get paid more by private insurance? More to the point, however, the plain text of the bill suggests that this proposition is false. I guarantee you that "service" will be defined specifically within the bill, and it's meaning will likely be discrete, identifiable types of medical care without regard to the timing of that service. So a covered service might be something like a "knee replacement surgery." It won't be a "knee replacement surgery that I can get after waiting 6 months" or whatever the delay is from the rationing of care. No court will read a timing provision into the statute that isn't explicitly put in there. And there is simply no way that Bernie is going to put one in there. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23411 Posts
On April 17 2019 01:10 xDaunt wrote: What's your authority for this proposition? I guarantee you that it is false. For one, that kind of loophole would completely undermine Bernie's bill. The purpose of the noncompetition clause is to function as a cost control. Allowing market competition for any given service would undermine that purpose. What doc is going to sign up for Bernie's Medicare for none service when they can get paid more by private insurance? More to the point, however, the plain text of the bill suggests that this proposition is false. I guarantee you that "service" will be defined specifically within the bill, and it's meaning will likely be discrete, identifiable types of medical care without regard to the timing of that service. So a covered service might be something like a "knee replacement surgery." It won't be a "knee replacement surgery that I can get after waiting 6 months" or whatever the delay is from the rationing of care. No court will read a timing provision into the statute that isn't explicitly put in there. And there is simply no way that Bernie is going to put one in there. I don't doubt that this will be effective messaging for many on the right to dismiss Bernie's proposal (along with a host of other more simple dismissals) what I question is whether it's effective at people Bernie is actually targeting. This is going to be one of those things where people look around the world and presume we'll figure it out imo. Independent of the validity of that assumption. There are also a lot of people in the center/right area that will just look at their current situation and decide "f it" and give Sanders a roll like many did Trump. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
On April 17 2019 01:35 Plansix wrote: The argument does seem to hinge on no one ever amending or updating the legislation for "medicare for all" when complications arise. Why fix Obamacare when you can run on repealing it for 8 years? No reason to suspect this will be any different. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 17 2019 01:38 Blitzkrieg0 wrote: Why fix Obamacare when you can run on repealing it for 8 years? No reason to suspect this will be any different. And if you can't get it done through legislation, try to get it ruled unconstitutional in the courts like 100 times. But never offer a viable replacement or solution to the problem. Only offer vouchers to give to private industry. Like charter schools, but for hospitals and doctors. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15723 Posts
On April 17 2019 01:05 JimmiC wrote: If the US decided to go actual universal health care, or end the insane practice of having for profit jails. How would they go about doing that? Would they have to buyout all the companies that are running them currently? Could they just take them over? I'm guess the courts wouldn't allow that. Like is there really any legal way to do it? Or is regulation on insurance and government funding that insurance the only way? In my ideal world: The rough gist of it: Some new tax, probably about $2000/year for me. As a result of this tax, everyone just has medicare. Insurance companies totally left alone. If someone decides they want extra lavish coverage, they can get extra coverage. But the insurance industry is basically made irrelevant and they completely collapse. As a result, I never pay a dollar when I need anything medical/dental/vision done. As for private prisons, all we need to do is stop jailing people for substance related crimes and suddenly the private prisons go belly up as well. Ending the war on drugs would shoot the prison industry in the dick like 10 times. | ||
|
Garbels
Austria653 Posts
Because aparently saying "I'm gona lower your taxes (wait for applause)" at the end of every(hyperbole) rally is somehow not campaigning to everybody. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 17 2019 01:55 Garbels wrote: 100 new posts and half of them arguing if Trump ran on taxcuts. Because aparently saying "I'm gona lower your taxes (wait for applause)" at the end of every(hyperbole) rally is somehow not campaigning to everybody. The foundation of that augment was poorly articulated by the one that started it. Or so we discovered through a lot of questioning. He meant to say that it didn’t “feel” like Trump was running on tax cuts because immigration was such a focus of his campaign. The rest of the stuff saying Trump was a moderate and so on was a bit of a stretch, IMO. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dems-vote-ocasio-cortez-pelosi I've been happy to see how AOC has navigated this and managed to not feed into the narrative that she can't handle the Speaker of the House, or that there is even a feud. Pelosi gave some choice quotes during a few interviews, but AOC is smart enough not to feed into the division machine by jumping on that fight. At least in public. Of course centrist democrats in the house will bitch and moan, but that is sort of what they do all the time anyways. The disturbing part is how quickly Fox New and the social media grifters latched onto these women in congress and how obsessed they seem with them. Just yesterday there were the typical characters on twitter talking about Ilhan Omar and Notre-Dame like the two are somehow connected. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23411 Posts
On April 17 2019 02:17 Plansix wrote: I have to give it to Fox news, they have turned AOC, Pelosi and Ilhan Omar into a full blown liberal/left lady pro-wrestling. There isn't a single day they don't run a story like the one below, trying to throw more read meat into the ring. This article has had three headlines as far as I can tell, so they really want ti to get that traction. This recent headline is real smart if the people reading it don't understand how congress works or how voting in the House functions(there are a lot of votes that just work on party lines) https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dems-vote-ocasio-cortez-pelosi I've been happy to see how AOC has navigated this and managed to not feed into the narrative that she can't handle the Speaker of the House, or that there is even a feud. Pelosi gave some choice quotes during a few interviews, but AOC is smart enough not to feed into the division machine by jumping on that fight. At least in public. Of course centrist democrats in the house will bitch and moan, but that is sort of what they do all the time anyways. The disturbing part is how quickly Fox New and the social media grifters latched onto these women in congress and how obsessed they seem with them. Just yesterday there were the typical characters on twitter talking about Ilhan Omar and Notre-Dame like the two are somehow connected. AOC, Omar, Katie Porter, and handful of others are exposing both parties for the shells they are imo. Observing their environment and very rudimentary questions are being hailed as visionary and unprecedented because both parties have just been pretending for so long that someone actually doing their job looks out of place. As to the conflict it's real between Omar and Pelosi but because of their rush to condemn her and silence to stand up for her when her life was threatened. AOC is already showing signs of being groomed imo, just hoping she doesn't get too coopted. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15723 Posts
AOC compared to Omar is a great way to show effective and ineffective activism | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On April 17 2019 01:30 GreenHorizons wrote: I don't doubt that this will be effective messaging for many on the right to dismiss Bernie's proposal (along with a host of other more simple dismissals) what I question is whether it's effective at people Bernie is actually targeting. This is going to be one of those things where people look around the world and presume we'll figure it out imo. Independent of the validity of that assumption. There are also a lot of people in the center/right area that will just look at their current situation and decide "f it" and give Sanders a roll like many did Trump. My critiques aren't "messaging" or "marketing." They are substantive policy criticisms. Bernie's referral to his plan as "Medicare for all" is marketing (and, frankly, it is quite effective marketing given how popular Medicare is), and it is fraudulent marketing at that. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23411 Posts
On April 17 2019 02:36 xDaunt wrote: My critiques aren't "messaging" or "marketing." They are substantive policy criticisms. Bernie's referral to his plan as "Medicare for all" is marketing (and, frankly, it is quite effective marketing given how popular Medicare is), and it is fraudulent marketing at that. I personally object to manipulative policy marketing (and marketing in general really), but I don't think that's an objection Trump supporters get to have taken seriously imo. Or one they can argue against the effectiveness of either. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 17 2019 02:30 GreenHorizons wrote: AOC, Omar, Katie Porter, and handful of others are exposing both parties for the shells they are imo. Observing their environment and very rudimentary questions are being hailed as visionary and unprecedented because both parties have just been pretending for so long that someone actually doing their job looks out of place. As to the conflict it's real between Omar and Pelosi but because of their rush to condemn her and silence to stand up for her when her life was threatened. AOC is already showing signs of being groomed imo, just hoping she doesn't get too coopted. Pelosi has never been the left’s problem, IMO. She is the leader of a group of centrist, but no one that wouldn’t push the party left if she thought it would stand a chance of being law. Without her, I don’t believe the ACA or any healthcare law would have passed back in 2008 because of assholes like Joe Liberman and others trying to kill it. Of course, she is in a position of power and that makes her part of the problem as well, even if she is the most malleable part of the problem. The bitching about her has always come from the centrists, moderate democrats as long as I have been alive. If AOC learns one thing from her, it should be how to slap around shitty centrist democrats. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23411 Posts
On April 17 2019 02:40 Plansix wrote: Pelosi has never been the left’s problem, IMO. She is the leader of a group of centrist, but no one that wouldn’t push the party left if she thought it would stand a chance of being law. Without her, I don’t believe the ACA or any healthcare law would have passed back in 2008 because of assholes like Joe Liberman and others trying to kill it. Of course, she is in a position of power and that makes her part of the problem as well, even if she is the most malleable part of the problem. The bitching about her has always come from the centrists, moderate democrats as long as I have been alive. If AOC learns one thing from her, it should be how to slap around shitty centrist democrats. From her position (leader) it's hard to tell sometimes whether she's speaking for herself, her district, or the party. That makes it a bit difficult to know definitively whether she supported more centrist aspects or she backed them because it was the only way to get something further left passed (and to what degree that is an excuse for the former). I don't see her opposing capitalism strong enough to seriously slow down/reduce global climate catastrophe (regarding the steps we need to take immediately), so the sooner she's gone the better in my view but pretty much everyone else has got to be replaced too so she's a small part of the political calculation overall as I see it. | ||
| ||
