|
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 |
On November 21 2020 04:47 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2020 04:34 Danglars wrote:On November 21 2020 04:00 maybenexttime wrote:On November 21 2020 03:02 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2020 19:17 maybenexttime wrote:On November 20 2020 11:14 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2020 09:46 Wegandi wrote:
Do people not understand wealth/assets =/= money. What are you going to do, expropriate assets and stocks? Now tell me how thats going to end up differently than every time thats been done.
There's also not enough assets that the "rich" have to temporarily subsidize the masses. The fact is you'd have to expropriate from the middle class as well. Then there is the other moral issue that you yourself are a 1%er. Why shouldn't you be expropriated to give to the poor in Nigeria, Cambodia, or Uzbezkistan? You're on the argument behind the argument. It will have to hit the middle class to fund all the health care and subsidized college that leftists are wanting the Biden administration to get done. The problem is the historical value for money the middle class has gotten back from this arrangement. With all the waste, fraud, and incompetence of federally administered programs (the easy example here is the VA system of healthcare), the middle class has rejected increased taxes to pay for them. Ah, yes, America's so exceptional. Somehow most other developed countries made it work for far less money than the US is already spending. The trouble with all the prescriptions for increased government intervention is convincing Americans that this time, they'll really do a good job instead of mucking it up like all the past times. That's where America, being full of Americans, decides to default to the freedom to make as much money as you possibly can, and give the middle finger to the government and leechers of society that say you aren't allowed to make that much. (And there'd be a lot less strife in politics if Republicans didn't have cause to worry that their wallets aren't safe stemming from the promises of free this and that. The millionaires and billionaires rhetoric always obscures the real victims of tax and spend policy. Leave us alone. Nobody should have to pay close attention to politics except a couple months every 2-4 years) Could that have something to do with the Republicans actively sabotaging the state's institutions, I wonder? On November 20 2020 11:55 Danglars wrote:
The reason it sucks so bad is both parties have tried their hands at adopting the dumbest, market-interfering policies to make the insuring and purchase of medical care a trial in and of itself. Would that the private market could function as such, without government telling the consumer what constitutes minimum essential coverage, how policies may not be sold over state lines, hospitals lobbying their politicians for bigger Medicare disbursements, and medicine and care overregulated to hell. Can you name a single country where that actually works? You have it there yourself: when it fails, blame Republicans. When the rest of the world chooses otherwise, imply through fallacy that it invalidates the worst-of-both-system criticism of the strictures. It’s a neat ideological framework. I'm not interested in your bad faith arguments. I really don't know how people like you justify these kind of posts. I obviously have a problem with people suggesting current examples of government run health care show future plans won't automatically be nordic successes, and you have one liners suggesting it's the responsibility of Republican sabotage? Maybe you'd prefer I blamed all issues in the semi-private system on Democrats? I'd like to fix the system for costs in terms of removing what I find bad about making the current system not private and not market-oriented, and all you have is showing the lack of semi-private systems elsewhere. Since when is that an argument against? I got into this aspect riffing off a Wegandi post on why all these anti-billionaire and anti-millionaire Democratic propaganda sucks, because the (proposed) confiscated money does not generate effective systems. It doesn't redistribute into things that work. All I heard back is deflecting blame on malicious actors and the argument that nobody else has tried it. Yeah, maybe focus on fleecing a stupider class of Americans that really digs people that blame others for their own side's failings. The jaw dropping lack of self-reflection evident in this post is a perfect example of why so many people dislike engaging with self-proclaimed conservatives who interact with others like Danglars does. Rather than wrestle with the fact that one of the more conservative leaning European regulars on these boards agrees with our supposedly echo chamber choir of leftists on the notion that he argues in bad faith, Danglars doubles down, reiterates his rhetorical decision to turn his opposition into a straw filled mass of one-dimensional blamers, and then dishes out a bunch of one-dimensional blame himself. I would think you playing a character had I not been reading your posts for a couple years shy of a decade.
Hopefully people engage with me providing evidence on my points. I have no need for bare assertions that blame others and fail to address the points. And frankly, nobody here should expect their counterpart in an argument to invest extra time in refutation disproportionate to the amount they invested (two sentences in this case).
|
On November 21 2020 04:54 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2020 04:34 Danglars wrote:On November 21 2020 04:00 maybenexttime wrote:On November 21 2020 03:02 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2020 19:17 maybenexttime wrote:On November 20 2020 11:14 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2020 09:46 Wegandi wrote:
Do people not understand wealth/assets =/= money. What are you going to do, expropriate assets and stocks? Now tell me how thats going to end up differently than every time thats been done.
There's also not enough assets that the "rich" have to temporarily subsidize the masses. The fact is you'd have to expropriate from the middle class as well. Then there is the other moral issue that you yourself are a 1%er. Why shouldn't you be expropriated to give to the poor in Nigeria, Cambodia, or Uzbezkistan? You're on the argument behind the argument. It will have to hit the middle class to fund all the health care and subsidized college that leftists are wanting the Biden administration to get done. The problem is the historical value for money the middle class has gotten back from this arrangement. With all the waste, fraud, and incompetence of federally administered programs (the easy example here is the VA system of healthcare), the middle class has rejected increased taxes to pay for them. Ah, yes, America's so exceptional. Somehow most other developed countries made it work for far less money than the US is already spending. The trouble with all the prescriptions for increased government intervention is convincing Americans that this time, they'll really do a good job instead of mucking it up like all the past times. That's where America, being full of Americans, decides to default to the freedom to make as much money as you possibly can, and give the middle finger to the government and leechers of society that say you aren't allowed to make that much. (And there'd be a lot less strife in politics if Republicans didn't have cause to worry that their wallets aren't safe stemming from the promises of free this and that. The millionaires and billionaires rhetoric always obscures the real victims of tax and spend policy. Leave us alone. Nobody should have to pay close attention to politics except a couple months every 2-4 years) Could that have something to do with the Republicans actively sabotaging the state's institutions, I wonder? On November 20 2020 11:55 Danglars wrote:
The reason it sucks so bad is both parties have tried their hands at adopting the dumbest, market-interfering policies to make the insuring and purchase of medical care a trial in and of itself. Would that the private market could function as such, without government telling the consumer what constitutes minimum essential coverage, how policies may not be sold over state lines, hospitals lobbying their politicians for bigger Medicare disbursements, and medicine and care overregulated to hell. Can you name a single country where that actually works? You have it there yourself: when it fails, blame Republicans. When the rest of the world chooses otherwise, imply through fallacy that it invalidates the worst-of-both-system criticism of the strictures. It’s a neat ideological framework. I'm not interested in your bad faith arguments. I really don't know how people like you justify these kind of posts. I obviously have a problem with people suggesting current examples of government run health care show future plans won't automatically be nordic successes, and you have one liners suggesting it's the responsibility of Republican sabotage? Maybe you'd prefer I blamed all issues in the semi-private system on Democrats? I'd like to fix the system for costs in terms of removing what I find bad about making the current system not private and not market-oriented, and all you have is showing the lack of semi-private systems elsewhere. Since when is that an argument against? I got into this aspect riffing off a Wegandi post on why all these anti-billionaire and anti-millionaire Democratic propaganda sucks, because the (proposed) confiscated money does not generate effective systems. It doesn't redistribute into things that work. All I heard back is deflecting blame on malicious actors and the argument that nobody else has tried it. Yeah, maybe focus on fleecing a stupider class of Americans that really digs people that blame others for their own side's failings. We have the last 10 years as proof as Republicans, being the cowards they are, have tried to sabotage and hack apart the ACA. That you try and argue Republicans do not try to sabotage government programs to get them to fail is just facepalm worthy.
And that was the kind of bad change to the existing system that I was decrying. For the rest, do you intend to defend the ACA as the kind of progress towards universal health care you cheer (and thus compare it favorably to Europe’s “successes,” or also join me in attacking it, but for you because it wasn’t advantageous compared to Europe’s systems? I think it was a bad bill from the start and the opposite direction is the reform America needs. Stop making insurance some strange prepay scheme, don’t raise the costs and force people off of their doctors. Stop the encroachment on religious liberties. (It swept my party into power right afterwards, so it luckily resulted in a good political outcome)
|
This has nothing to do with evidence, there's routine off the cuff references to hard facts used all the time here, it's a component of an ongoing discussion that is engaged in with enough charity by its participants that discursive progress is made, be that agreeing to disagree, reaching a shared conclusion, or adding detail informed by personal experience, to name a few. If you don't wanna engage with people, cool, that's your prerogative, just don't be surprised when people are put off by the dude who responds to "can you give me an example?" with "I will now tacitly refuse to give you an example by changing the subject to something hard to understand and drenched in debate jargon"
|
On November 21 2020 04:59 LegalLord wrote:
I certainly hope that people aren't trying to use the ACA as some sort of proxy for "universal healthcare." The former is borne of a conservative think tank, implemented by a moderate Democrat, and includes much of the worst of what the US's insurance-based healthcare has to offer. The latter is at least in theory better for driving systematic change, but isn't really on the table per US politicians, so ACA is used as a proxy by the lazy to mean "universal healthcare."
ACA is decidedly worse on just about all fronts in implementation and effectiveness. The ACA is bad.
But its better then what the US had before and that is a victory in and of itself.
If the choice is between what the ACA or a better system (from basically any other Western nation) then the choice is obviously the better system.
But between what the US had and the ACA, yes the choice is the ACA and the hope that in the future it can be replaced with someone better.
|
On November 21 2020 05:41 farvacola wrote:
This has nothing to do with evidence, there's routine off the cuff references to hard facts used all the time here, it's a component of an ongoing discussion that is engaged in with enough charity by its participants that discursive progress is made, be that agreeing to disagree, reaching a shared conclusion, or adding detail informed by personal experience, to name a few. If you don't wanna engage with people, cool, that's your prerogative, just don't be surprised when people are put off by the dude who responds to "can you give me an example?" with "I will now tacitly refuse to give you an example by changing the subject to something hard to understand and drenched in debate jargon"
If you can’t defend the post I was responding to, but instead assert generalities you declare are true of others and not of me, then save it. It relies on your personal apprehension of the thread average. I don’t agree with you, simply because a left-leaning forum elevates the parts of the philosophy most agree with. The posters that reject almost every argument advanced (How many other regular poster around actually voted for Trump?) will naturally appear cantankerous and rejecting of “ordinary” political arguments. I think you fail to appreciate the gap between Biden and Trump, and the necessary consequences of that divide.
And if you don’t want to engage with my posts because you think these things are true of me, I won’t stop you and criticize your choice. I practice the same behavior with posters that only insult and argue in bad faith. I think the thread is better for it. I happened to respond to a guy with two one-liners, and you don’t have to interject that he’s not representative of the thread as a whole. People can read and form their own opinions, farva.
I’ll flip it to somebody you know, Nettles. If he offers a post that blames Democrats and claims no other country has tried, feel free to slap it down, or ignore it. I won’t come on here and whine about your choice in either direction.
|
On November 21 2020 05:41 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2020 04:54 Gorsameth wrote:On November 21 2020 04:34 Danglars wrote:On November 21 2020 04:00 maybenexttime wrote:On November 21 2020 03:02 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2020 19:17 maybenexttime wrote:On November 20 2020 11:14 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2020 09:46 Wegandi wrote:
Do people not understand wealth/assets =/= money. What are you going to do, expropriate assets and stocks? Now tell me how thats going to end up differently than every time thats been done.
There's also not enough assets that the "rich" have to temporarily subsidize the masses. The fact is you'd have to expropriate from the middle class as well. Then there is the other moral issue that you yourself are a 1%er. Why shouldn't you be expropriated to give to the poor in Nigeria, Cambodia, or Uzbezkistan? You're on the argument behind the argument. It will have to hit the middle class to fund all the health care and subsidized college that leftists are wanting the Biden administration to get done. The problem is the historical value for money the middle class has gotten back from this arrangement. With all the waste, fraud, and incompetence of federally administered programs (the easy example here is the VA system of healthcare), the middle class has rejected increased taxes to pay for them. Ah, yes, America's so exceptional. Somehow most other developed countries made it work for far less money than the US is already spending. The trouble with all the prescriptions for increased government intervention is convincing Americans that this time, they'll really do a good job instead of mucking it up like all the past times. That's where America, being full of Americans, decides to default to the freedom to make as much money as you possibly can, and give the middle finger to the government and leechers of society that say you aren't allowed to make that much. (And there'd be a lot less strife in politics if Republicans didn't have cause to worry that their wallets aren't safe stemming from the promises of free this and that. The millionaires and billionaires rhetoric always obscures the real victims of tax and spend policy. Leave us alone. Nobody should have to pay close attention to politics except a couple months every 2-4 years) Could that have something to do with the Republicans actively sabotaging the state's institutions, I wonder? On November 20 2020 11:55 Danglars wrote:
The reason it sucks so bad is both parties have tried their hands at adopting the dumbest, market-interfering policies to make the insuring and purchase of medical care a trial in and of itself. Would that the private market could function as such, without government telling the consumer what constitutes minimum essential coverage, how policies may not be sold over state lines, hospitals lobbying their politicians for bigger Medicare disbursements, and medicine and care overregulated to hell. Can you name a single country where that actually works? You have it there yourself: when it fails, blame Republicans. When the rest of the world chooses otherwise, imply through fallacy that it invalidates the worst-of-both-system criticism of the strictures. It’s a neat ideological framework. I'm not interested in your bad faith arguments. I really don't know how people like you justify these kind of posts. I obviously have a problem with people suggesting current examples of government run health care show future plans won't automatically be nordic successes, and you have one liners suggesting it's the responsibility of Republican sabotage? Maybe you'd prefer I blamed all issues in the semi-private system on Democrats? I'd like to fix the system for costs in terms of removing what I find bad about making the current system not private and not market-oriented, and all you have is showing the lack of semi-private systems elsewhere. Since when is that an argument against? I got into this aspect riffing off a Wegandi post on why all these anti-billionaire and anti-millionaire Democratic propaganda sucks, because the (proposed) confiscated money does not generate effective systems. It doesn't redistribute into things that work. All I heard back is deflecting blame on malicious actors and the argument that nobody else has tried it. Yeah, maybe focus on fleecing a stupider class of Americans that really digs people that blame others for their own side's failings. We have the last 10 years as proof as Republicans, being the cowards they are, have tried to sabotage and hack apart the ACA. That you try and argue Republicans do not try to sabotage government programs to get them to fail is just facepalm worthy. And that was the kind of bad change to the existing system that I was decrying. For the rest, do you intend to defend the ACA as the kind of progress towards universal health care you cheer (and thus compare it favorably to Europe’s “successes,” or also join me in attacking it, but for you because it wasn’t advantageous compared to Europe’s systems? I think it was a bad bill from the start and the opposite direction is the reform America needs. Stop making insurance some strange prepay scheme, don’t raise the costs and force people off of their doctors. Stop the encroachment on religious liberties. (It swept my party into power right afterwards, so it luckily resulted in a good political outcome)
You are dodging the discussion.
As far as i understand, you want a completely free market healthcare system, and somehow assume that that will magically solve all the problems with the US healthcare system.
However, you fail too show even a single example of a working free market healthcare system.
You also skimp over the obvious theoretical problems with such a system. Are you willing to let people die on the streets if they cannot afford healthcare?
Because if not, someone needs to pay for their treatment. Who is that going to be in your free market healthcare system? And if you favor yes, then i would say that that is horribly unethical.
Also, I do love the deflection towards the "religious liberties" discussion. Religious liberties have nothing to do with healthcare whatsoever. But you do love to make literally everything about "religious liberties", because that seems to be the single point where you get even close to having a remotely working argument.
|
Word is that Biden is considering Merrick Garland for Attorney General, which would be both incredibly surprising and awesome.
|
Religion doesn't grant you new freedoms you don't already have. You can't wave around vague "religious liberties" like a magic wand and get out of justifying an argument.
On November 21 2020 06:16 farvacola wrote:
Word is that Biden is considering Merrick Garland for Attorney General, which would be both incredibly surprising and awesome.
Quite. I'm sure Barr would have no problems with this under his Unitary Executive theory.
|
On November 21 2020 06:16 farvacola wrote:
Word is that Biden is considering Merrick Garland for Attorney General, which would be both incredibly surprising and awesome.
That would be an ultimate slap. And they can't deny him again. So I'm all for it. I'd just wish he had gotten the SC seat when it was his turn.
Also looking forward to the treasury pick Biden is set to announce soon.
|
Northern Ireland27460 Posts
On November 21 2020 05:52 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2020 05:41 Danglars wrote:On November 21 2020 04:54 Gorsameth wrote:On November 21 2020 04:34 Danglars wrote:On November 21 2020 04:00 maybenexttime wrote:On November 21 2020 03:02 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2020 19:17 maybenexttime wrote:On November 20 2020 11:14 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2020 09:46 Wegandi wrote:
Do people not understand wealth/assets =/= money. What are you going to do, expropriate assets and stocks? Now tell me how thats going to end up differently than every time thats been done.
There's also not enough assets that the "rich" have to temporarily subsidize the masses. The fact is you'd have to expropriate from the middle class as well. Then there is the other moral issue that you yourself are a 1%er. Why shouldn't you be expropriated to give to the poor in Nigeria, Cambodia, or Uzbezkistan? You're on the argument behind the argument. It will have to hit the middle class to fund all the health care and subsidized college that leftists are wanting the Biden administration to get done. The problem is the historical value for money the middle class has gotten back from this arrangement. With all the waste, fraud, and incompetence of federally administered programs (the easy example here is the VA system of healthcare), the middle class has rejected increased taxes to pay for them. Ah, yes, America's so exceptional. Somehow most other developed countries made it work for far less money than the US is already spending. The trouble with all the prescriptions for increased government intervention is convincing Americans that this time, they'll really do a good job instead of mucking it up like all the past times. That's where America, being full of Americans, decides to default to the freedom to make as much money as you possibly can, and give the middle finger to the government and leechers of society that say you aren't allowed to make that much. (And there'd be a lot less strife in politics if Republicans didn't have cause to worry that their wallets aren't safe stemming from the promises of free this and that. The millionaires and billionaires rhetoric always obscures the real victims of tax and spend policy. Leave us alone. Nobody should have to pay close attention to politics except a couple months every 2-4 years) Could that have something to do with the Republicans actively sabotaging the state's institutions, I wonder? On November 20 2020 11:55 Danglars wrote:
The reason it sucks so bad is both parties have tried their hands at adopting the dumbest, market-interfering policies to make the insuring and purchase of medical care a trial in and of itself. Would that the private market could function as such, without government telling the consumer what constitutes minimum essential coverage, how policies may not be sold over state lines, hospitals lobbying their politicians for bigger Medicare disbursements, and medicine and care overregulated to hell. Can you name a single country where that actually works? You have it there yourself: when it fails, blame Republicans. When the rest of the world chooses otherwise, imply through fallacy that it invalidates the worst-of-both-system criticism of the strictures. It’s a neat ideological framework. I'm not interested in your bad faith arguments. I really don't know how people like you justify these kind of posts. I obviously have a problem with people suggesting current examples of government run health care show future plans won't automatically be nordic successes, and you have one liners suggesting it's the responsibility of Republican sabotage? Maybe you'd prefer I blamed all issues in the semi-private system on Democrats? I'd like to fix the system for costs in terms of removing what I find bad about making the current system not private and not market-oriented, and all you have is showing the lack of semi-private systems elsewhere. Since when is that an argument against? I got into this aspect riffing off a Wegandi post on why all these anti-billionaire and anti-millionaire Democratic propaganda sucks, because the (proposed) confiscated money does not generate effective systems. It doesn't redistribute into things that work. All I heard back is deflecting blame on malicious actors and the argument that nobody else has tried it. Yeah, maybe focus on fleecing a stupider class of Americans that really digs people that blame others for their own side's failings. We have the last 10 years as proof as Republicans, being the cowards they are, have tried to sabotage and hack apart the ACA. That you try and argue Republicans do not try to sabotage government programs to get them to fail is just facepalm worthy. And that was the kind of bad change to the existing system that I was decrying. For the rest, do you intend to defend the ACA as the kind of progress towards universal health care you cheer (and thus compare it favorably to Europe’s “successes,” or also join me in attacking it, but for you because it wasn’t advantageous compared to Europe’s systems? I think it was a bad bill from the start and the opposite direction is the reform America needs. Stop making insurance some strange prepay scheme, don’t raise the costs and force people off of their doctors. Stop the encroachment on religious liberties. (It swept my party into power right afterwards, so it luckily resulted in a good political outcome) You are dodging the discussion. As far as i understand, you want a completely free market healthcare system, and somehow assume that that will magically solve all the problems with the US healthcare system. However, you fail too show even a single example of a working free market healthcare system. You also skimp over the obvious theoretical problems with such a system. Are you willing to let people die on the streets if they cannot afford healthcare? Because if not, someone needs to pay for their treatment. Who is that going to be in your free market healthcare system? And if you favor yes, then i would say that that is horribly unethical. Also, I do love the deflection towards the "religious liberties" discussion. Religious liberties have nothing to do with healthcare whatsoever. But you do love to make literally everything about "religious liberties", because that seems to be the single point where you get even close to having a remotely working argument.
I’d like to hear the argument to be fair, if nothing else so I’m not mischaracterising it in my head.
One talking point I do hear is doctor choice, which for me has really never been an issue whatsoever. I guess it’s just an alien concept to us Euros, but maybe the removal of it does feel a net negative across the pond.
|
On November 21 2020 08:12 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2020 05:52 Simberto wrote:On November 21 2020 05:41 Danglars wrote:On November 21 2020 04:54 Gorsameth wrote:On November 21 2020 04:34 Danglars wrote:On November 21 2020 04:00 maybenexttime wrote:On November 21 2020 03:02 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2020 19:17 maybenexttime wrote:On November 20 2020 11:14 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2020 09:46 Wegandi wrote:
Do people not understand wealth/assets =/= money. What are you going to do, expropriate assets and stocks? Now tell me how thats going to end up differently than every time thats been done.
There's also not enough assets that the "rich" have to temporarily subsidize the masses. The fact is you'd have to expropriate from the middle class as well. Then there is the other moral issue that you yourself are a 1%er. Why shouldn't you be expropriated to give to the poor in Nigeria, Cambodia, or Uzbezkistan? You're on the argument behind the argument. It will have to hit the middle class to fund all the health care and subsidized college that leftists are wanting the Biden administration to get done. The problem is the historical value for money the middle class has gotten back from this arrangement. With all the waste, fraud, and incompetence of federally administered programs (the easy example here is the VA system of healthcare), the middle class has rejected increased taxes to pay for them. Ah, yes, America's so exceptional. Somehow most other developed countries made it work for far less money than the US is already spending. The trouble with all the prescriptions for increased government intervention is convincing Americans that this time, they'll really do a good job instead of mucking it up like all the past times. That's where America, being full of Americans, decides to default to the freedom to make as much money as you possibly can, and give the middle finger to the government and leechers of society that say you aren't allowed to make that much. (And there'd be a lot less strife in politics if Republicans didn't have cause to worry that their wallets aren't safe stemming from the promises of free this and that. The millionaires and billionaires rhetoric always obscures the real victims of tax and spend policy. Leave us alone. Nobody should have to pay close attention to politics except a couple months every 2-4 years) Could that have something to do with the Republicans actively sabotaging the state's institutions, I wonder? On November 20 2020 11:55 Danglars wrote:
The reason it sucks so bad is both parties have tried their hands at adopting the dumbest, market-interfering policies to make the insuring and purchase of medical care a trial in and of itself. Would that the private market could function as such, without government telling the consumer what constitutes minimum essential coverage, how policies may not be sold over state lines, hospitals lobbying their politicians for bigger Medicare disbursements, and medicine and care overregulated to hell. Can you name a single country where that actually works? You have it there yourself: when it fails, blame Republicans. When the rest of the world chooses otherwise, imply through fallacy that it invalidates the worst-of-both-system criticism of the strictures. It’s a neat ideological framework. I'm not interested in your bad faith arguments. I really don't know how people like you justify these kind of posts. I obviously have a problem with people suggesting current examples of government run health care show future plans won't automatically be nordic successes, and you have one liners suggesting it's the responsibility of Republican sabotage? Maybe you'd prefer I blamed all issues in the semi-private system on Democrats? I'd like to fix the system for costs in terms of removing what I find bad about making the current system not private and not market-oriented, and all you have is showing the lack of semi-private systems elsewhere. Since when is that an argument against? I got into this aspect riffing off a Wegandi post on why all these anti-billionaire and anti-millionaire Democratic propaganda sucks, because the (proposed) confiscated money does not generate effective systems. It doesn't redistribute into things that work. All I heard back is deflecting blame on malicious actors and the argument that nobody else has tried it. Yeah, maybe focus on fleecing a stupider class of Americans that really digs people that blame others for their own side's failings. We have the last 10 years as proof as Republicans, being the cowards they are, have tried to sabotage and hack apart the ACA. That you try and argue Republicans do not try to sabotage government programs to get them to fail is just facepalm worthy. And that was the kind of bad change to the existing system that I was decrying. For the rest, do you intend to defend the ACA as the kind of progress towards universal health care you cheer (and thus compare it favorably to Europe’s “successes,” or also join me in attacking it, but for you because it wasn’t advantageous compared to Europe’s systems? I think it was a bad bill from the start and the opposite direction is the reform America needs. Stop making insurance some strange prepay scheme, don’t raise the costs and force people off of their doctors. Stop the encroachment on religious liberties. (It swept my party into power right afterwards, so it luckily resulted in a good political outcome) You are dodging the discussion. As far as i understand, you want a completely free market healthcare system, and somehow assume that that will magically solve all the problems with the US healthcare system. However, you fail too show even a single example of a working free market healthcare system. You also skimp over the obvious theoretical problems with such a system. Are you willing to let people die on the streets if they cannot afford healthcare? Because if not, someone needs to pay for their treatment. Who is that going to be in your free market healthcare system? And if you favor yes, then i would say that that is horribly unethical. Also, I do love the deflection towards the "religious liberties" discussion. Religious liberties have nothing to do with healthcare whatsoever. But you do love to make literally everything about "religious liberties", because that seems to be the single point where you get even close to having a remotely working argument. I’d like to hear the argument to be fair, if nothing else so I’m not mischaracterising it in my head. One talking point I do hear is doctor choice, which for me has really never been an issue whatsoever. I guess it’s just an alien concept to us Euros, but maybe the removal of it does feel a net negative across the pond.
Keeping your doctor is about a failed promise that Obama made when he was trying to sell the ACA to the public.
|
Wait times is another common one, but I'd rather be able to go to the doctor whenever and wait an hour or 2 than only be able to afford going once every 6 months and be seen immediately, if I even have insurance at all.
|
On November 21 2020 05:48 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2020 04:59 LegalLord wrote:
I certainly hope that people aren't trying to use the ACA as some sort of proxy for "universal healthcare." The former is borne of a conservative think tank, implemented by a moderate Democrat, and includes much of the worst of what the US's insurance-based healthcare has to offer. The latter is at least in theory better for driving systematic change, but isn't really on the table per US politicians, so ACA is used as a proxy by the lazy to mean "universal healthcare."
ACA is decidedly worse on just about all fronts in implementation and effectiveness. The ACA is bad. But its better then what the US had before and that is a victory in and of itself. If the choice is between what the ACA or a better system (from basically any other Western nation) then the choice is obviously the better system. But between what the US had and the ACA, yes the choice is the ACA and the hope that in the future it can be replaced with someone better.
Meh, even that much is dubious. It is sufficiently worse for those with coverage that, in recent years, it has led to alarming reductions in what is actually covered. Given how much political capital it took to make it happen, it's worth acknowledging as only slightly better than an outright failure.
Worth repealing? Evidently not, since a full Republican presidency and Congress couldn't find a way to do it. Worth defending with language that seems like a find-and-replace of words that normally would be used as advocacy for universal healthcare? Not even remotely.
It's probably worth incrementally improving the accuracy of the rhetoric used to defend a trash-tier overhaul of the healthcare system that deserves no such defense.
|
On November 21 2020 08:26 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2020 05:48 Gorsameth wrote:On November 21 2020 04:59 LegalLord wrote:
I certainly hope that people aren't trying to use the ACA as some sort of proxy for "universal healthcare." The former is borne of a conservative think tank, implemented by a moderate Democrat, and includes much of the worst of what the US's insurance-based healthcare has to offer. The latter is at least in theory better for driving systematic change, but isn't really on the table per US politicians, so ACA is used as a proxy by the lazy to mean "universal healthcare."
ACA is decidedly worse on just about all fronts in implementation and effectiveness. The ACA is bad. But its better then what the US had before and that is a victory in and of itself. If the choice is between what the ACA or a better system (from basically any other Western nation) then the choice is obviously the better system. But between what the US had and the ACA, yes the choice is the ACA and the hope that in the future it can be replaced with someone better. Meh, even that much is dubious. It is sufficiently worse for those with coverage that, in recent years, it has led to alarming reductions in what is actually covered. Given how much political capital it took to make it happen, it's worth acknowledging as only slightly better than an outright failure. Worth repealing? Evidently not, since a full Republican presidency and Congress couldn't find a way to do it. Worth defending with language that seems like a find-and-replace of words that normally would be used as advocacy for universal healthcare? Not even remotely. It's probably worth incrementally improving the accuracy of the rhetoric used to defend a trash-tier overhaul of the healthcare system that deserves no such defense.
Yet we have people partying in the streets about an "electable" candidate who probably wouldn't pass any better legislation if he had a gun to his head. Great time to be an American!
|
Northern Ireland27460 Posts
On November 21 2020 08:22 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2020 08:12 WombaT wrote:On November 21 2020 05:52 Simberto wrote:On November 21 2020 05:41 Danglars wrote:On November 21 2020 04:54 Gorsameth wrote:On November 21 2020 04:34 Danglars wrote:On November 21 2020 04:00 maybenexttime wrote:On November 21 2020 03:02 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2020 19:17 maybenexttime wrote:On November 20 2020 11:14 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
You're on the argument behind the argument. It will have to hit the middle class to fund all the health care and subsidized college that leftists are wanting the Biden administration to get done. The problem is the historical value for money the middle class has gotten back from this arrangement. With all the waste, fraud, and incompetence of federally administered programs (the easy example here is the VA system of healthcare), the middle class has rejected increased taxes to pay for them. Ah, yes, America's so exceptional. Somehow most other developed countries made it work for far less money than the US is already spending. The trouble with all the prescriptions for increased government intervention is convincing Americans that this time, they'll really do a good job instead of mucking it up like all the past times. That's where America, being full of Americans, decides to default to the freedom to make as much money as you possibly can, and give the middle finger to the government and leechers of society that say you aren't allowed to make that much. (And there'd be a lot less strife in politics if Republicans didn't have cause to worry that their wallets aren't safe stemming from the promises of free this and that. The millionaires and billionaires rhetoric always obscures the real victims of tax and spend policy. Leave us alone. Nobody should have to pay close attention to politics except a couple months every 2-4 years) Could that have something to do with the Republicans actively sabotaging the state's institutions, I wonder? On November 20 2020 11:55 Danglars wrote:
The reason it sucks so bad is both parties have tried their hands at adopting the dumbest, market-interfering policies to make the insuring and purchase of medical care a trial in and of itself. Would that the private market could function as such, without government telling the consumer what constitutes minimum essential coverage, how policies may not be sold over state lines, hospitals lobbying their politicians for bigger Medicare disbursements, and medicine and care overregulated to hell. Can you name a single country where that actually works? You have it there yourself: when it fails, blame Republicans. When the rest of the world chooses otherwise, imply through fallacy that it invalidates the worst-of-both-system criticism of the strictures. It’s a neat ideological framework. I'm not interested in your bad faith arguments. I really don't know how people like you justify these kind of posts. I obviously have a problem with people suggesting current examples of government run health care show future plans won't automatically be nordic successes, and you have one liners suggesting it's the responsibility of Republican sabotage? Maybe you'd prefer I blamed all issues in the semi-private system on Democrats? I'd like to fix the system for costs in terms of removing what I find bad about making the current system not private and not market-oriented, and all you have is showing the lack of semi-private systems elsewhere. Since when is that an argument against? I got into this aspect riffing off a Wegandi post on why all these anti-billionaire and anti-millionaire Democratic propaganda sucks, because the (proposed) confiscated money does not generate effective systems. It doesn't redistribute into things that work. All I heard back is deflecting blame on malicious actors and the argument that nobody else has tried it. Yeah, maybe focus on fleecing a stupider class of Americans that really digs people that blame others for their own side's failings. We have the last 10 years as proof as Republicans, being the cowards they are, have tried to sabotage and hack apart the ACA. That you try and argue Republicans do not try to sabotage government programs to get them to fail is just facepalm worthy. And that was the kind of bad change to the existing system that I was decrying. For the rest, do you intend to defend the ACA as the kind of progress towards universal health care you cheer (and thus compare it favorably to Europe’s “successes,” or also join me in attacking it, but for you because it wasn’t advantageous compared to Europe’s systems? I think it was a bad bill from the start and the opposite direction is the reform America needs. Stop making insurance some strange prepay scheme, don’t raise the costs and force people off of their doctors. Stop the encroachment on religious liberties. (It swept my party into power right afterwards, so it luckily resulted in a good political outcome) You are dodging the discussion. As far as i understand, you want a completely free market healthcare system, and somehow assume that that will magically solve all the problems with the US healthcare system. However, you fail too show even a single example of a working free market healthcare system. You also skimp over the obvious theoretical problems with such a system. Are you willing to let people die on the streets if they cannot afford healthcare? Because if not, someone needs to pay for their treatment. Who is that going to be in your free market healthcare system? And if you favor yes, then i would say that that is horribly unethical. Also, I do love the deflection towards the "religious liberties" discussion. Religious liberties have nothing to do with healthcare whatsoever. But you do love to make literally everything about "religious liberties", because that seems to be the single point where you get even close to having a remotely working argument. I’d like to hear the argument to be fair, if nothing else so I’m not mischaracterising it in my head. One talking point I do hear is doctor choice, which for me has really never been an issue whatsoever. I guess it’s just an alien concept to us Euros, but maybe the removal of it does feel a net negative across the pond. Keeping your doctor is about a failed promise that Obama made when he was trying to sell the ACA to the public.
I vaguely recall, it just seems rather alien to me, was curious as to how resonant such an idea was, because I have heard it promised, feature in debates etc.
Continuity of doctor can help, say in psychiatric-related stuff where building a personal rapport actually matters in terms of clinical effectiveness, but even then I’ve had that continuity over here with our system.
|
On November 21 2020 08:24 NewSunshine wrote:
Wait times is another common one, but I'd rather be able to go to the doctor whenever and wait an hour or 2 than only be able to afford going once every 6 months and be seen immediately, if I even have insurance at all.
The question I ask to this is why is there a wait time? Is there too few doctors? What is the reason?
If the only reason theres no wait time is because we essentially allow those who can afford to pay to skip the line thats incredibly immoral. Its complaining about a symptom rather than root cause. Its like complaining about increased testing for Covid leading to more case numbers.
|
On November 21 2020 08:49 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2020 08:22 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On November 21 2020 08:12 WombaT wrote:On November 21 2020 05:52 Simberto wrote:On November 21 2020 05:41 Danglars wrote:On November 21 2020 04:54 Gorsameth wrote:On November 21 2020 04:34 Danglars wrote:On November 21 2020 04:00 maybenexttime wrote:On November 21 2020 03:02 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2020 19:17 maybenexttime wrote:
[quote]
Ah, yes, America's so exceptional. Somehow most other developed countries made it work for far less money than the US is already spending.
[quote]
Could that have something to do with the Republicans actively sabotaging the state's institutions, I wonder?
[quote]
Can you name a single country where that actually works? You have it there yourself: when it fails, blame Republicans. When the rest of the world chooses otherwise, imply through fallacy that it invalidates the worst-of-both-system criticism of the strictures. It’s a neat ideological framework. I'm not interested in your bad faith arguments. I really don't know how people like you justify these kind of posts. I obviously have a problem with people suggesting current examples of government run health care show future plans won't automatically be nordic successes, and you have one liners suggesting it's the responsibility of Republican sabotage? Maybe you'd prefer I blamed all issues in the semi-private system on Democrats? I'd like to fix the system for costs in terms of removing what I find bad about making the current system not private and not market-oriented, and all you have is showing the lack of semi-private systems elsewhere. Since when is that an argument against? I got into this aspect riffing off a Wegandi post on why all these anti-billionaire and anti-millionaire Democratic propaganda sucks, because the (proposed) confiscated money does not generate effective systems. It doesn't redistribute into things that work. All I heard back is deflecting blame on malicious actors and the argument that nobody else has tried it. Yeah, maybe focus on fleecing a stupider class of Americans that really digs people that blame others for their own side's failings. We have the last 10 years as proof as Republicans, being the cowards they are, have tried to sabotage and hack apart the ACA. That you try and argue Republicans do not try to sabotage government programs to get them to fail is just facepalm worthy. And that was the kind of bad change to the existing system that I was decrying. For the rest, do you intend to defend the ACA as the kind of progress towards universal health care you cheer (and thus compare it favorably to Europe’s “successes,” or also join me in attacking it, but for you because it wasn’t advantageous compared to Europe’s systems? I think it was a bad bill from the start and the opposite direction is the reform America needs. Stop making insurance some strange prepay scheme, don’t raise the costs and force people off of their doctors. Stop the encroachment on religious liberties. (It swept my party into power right afterwards, so it luckily resulted in a good political outcome) You are dodging the discussion. As far as i understand, you want a completely free market healthcare system, and somehow assume that that will magically solve all the problems with the US healthcare system. However, you fail too show even a single example of a working free market healthcare system. You also skimp over the obvious theoretical problems with such a system. Are you willing to let people die on the streets if they cannot afford healthcare? Because if not, someone needs to pay for their treatment. Who is that going to be in your free market healthcare system? And if you favor yes, then i would say that that is horribly unethical. Also, I do love the deflection towards the "religious liberties" discussion. Religious liberties have nothing to do with healthcare whatsoever. But you do love to make literally everything about "religious liberties", because that seems to be the single point where you get even close to having a remotely working argument. I’d like to hear the argument to be fair, if nothing else so I’m not mischaracterising it in my head. One talking point I do hear is doctor choice, which for me has really never been an issue whatsoever. I guess it’s just an alien concept to us Euros, but maybe the removal of it does feel a net negative across the pond. Keeping your doctor is about a failed promise that Obama made when he was trying to sell the ACA to the public. I vaguely recall, it just seems rather alien to me, was curious as to how resonant such an idea was, because I have heard it promised, feature in debates etc. Continuity of doctor can help, say in psychiatric-related stuff where building a personal rapport actually matters in terms of clinical effectiveness, but even then I’ve had that continuity over here with our system.
Keeping your doctor had nothing to do with the ACA. Your doctor could be out of network next year if your employer based insurance changed. It was a dumb statement but an even dumber criticism.
|
On November 21 2020 09:03 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2020 08:24 NewSunshine wrote:
Wait times is another common one, but I'd rather be able to go to the doctor whenever and wait an hour or 2 than only be able to afford going once every 6 months and be seen immediately, if I even have insurance at all. The question I ask to this is why is there a wait time? Is there too few doctors? What is the reason? If the only reason theres no wait time is because we essentially allow those who can afford to pay to skip the line thats incredibly immoral. Its complaining about a symptom rather than root cause. Its like complaining about increased testing for Covid leading to more case numbers.
Why the wait time?
One reason should be that doctors are highly educated workforce and having them dwindle thumbs is expensive.
And at some point there are simply not enough - sparsley populated rural areas or dense cities, funny how that works.
Sometimes there is an artificial shortage due to licenses being limited (like therapists), but that of course tends to vary between countries.
|
United States10568 Posts
On November 21 2020 06:16 farvacola wrote:
Word is that Biden is considering Merrick Garland for Attorney General, which would be both incredibly surprising and awesome.
Breaking news: Mitch McConnell intends to stall out Garland's AG nomination until the 2024 election, stating that it is too close to an election and the people should have a say in who becomes the next AG.
Also my personal view is that I'm skeptical that universal healthcare will actually work in America but I'm willing to give it a try for the sake of just trying it. I see anecdotal experiences of people in Korea and Japan when they had to pay out of pocket without insurance and all they had to pay was 30 dollars for specialist appointments. Which is insane to me, blew my mind that the healthcare in those countries operated like that.
Not quite sure how to pay for it though, America's budget is super fucked compared to most other countries that have proper functioning budgets where military doesn't take up over 1 trillion dollars per year. And also the fact that our bureaucratic system is so inefficient that we would always need to pay double of what a proper system would cost.
|
You could un-spend 1/10th of the waste that goes toward equipment that our military contractors and suppliers literally just throw away, and the money would suddenly appear. Or we could just rewrite the damn laws and stop being so stupid with the money we already put into the system. Either works.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
