EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 2845
| 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 | ||
BisuDagger
Bisutopia19371 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
FlaShFTW
United States10529 Posts
| ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9062 Posts
| ||
|
FlaShFTW
United States10529 Posts
On November 21 2020 11:25 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I guess the big question is how much control do the states have. Nationalizing it and forcing states to get in line is one thing. Them actually doing it is another. Yeah... it's gonna be interesting and expect a million legal challenges just like red states challenged ACA. States have been winning recently on a variety of issues though, the federalism power shift has definitely moved in favor of the states recently (probably due in part to a conservative majority). States now basically control their drug punishments, most states now regulate abortion rights on their own with the occasional red state trying their luck to unduly burden the process of getting an abortion. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9062 Posts
I have VA healthcare and while it surely has it's issues, it's probably the best for someone in my position. Having to navigate ACA is a nightmare scenario to me. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
As things look now, the Republicans are likely to hold 213 seats in the House. 218 gives the majority. Pelosi will only be able to afford something like ~4 flips from her caucus on legislation to get it passed ... less if any are tapped for positions in the Biden administration. She needs the moderates to sign on and the squad. And Republicans have cut her House advantage to about 1/4 of what it was before (ie we need to flip much fewer seats in 2022 to gain control) | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9062 Posts
| ||
|
Zambrah
United States7393 Posts
Republicans will probably see a voter dropoff from here on, but so will Democrats without a figure as universally reviled as Trump, it could be that Democrats see a semi-permanent increase in their turnout from youth voters, but I think that'll be a relatively localized phenomenon and probably won't swing too many places. If the Democrats DO win back the Senate though its going to be a serious opportunity to prove their worth and make themselves look good by actually helping people, assuming they have the balls to not compromise with Republicans for no reason. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
Every time people complain about Russia being an Oligarchy, they should follow up with 'and that's why unchecked Capitalism is bad'. It'd probably help quell this semi-religious belief in the free market, which has literally never worked ever anywhere for long, least of all in America. | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7393 Posts
| ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
Look at US medical costs before the AMA and absurd restricting of licensing and schooling, before the FDA, before healthcare was regulated into the ground, before Medicare, Medicaid and CMS. I work in the healthcare sector and CMS basically controls 90% of my field (therapy). Government involvement in healthcare has been a disaster since day 1 just like every other time the government has stepped in. The weird insurance but its really not insurance (ask any actuary or you know compare to any other type of insurance) and tying it to employment and there being no transparent pricing is not a "market system", it's a tortured labyrinth made from Government edicts, mandates, regulations, incentives, and programs. I've linked many times early 20th Century newspapers where MDs write and complain theyre paid too little - healthcare used to be cheap and of quality (look at healthcare markers compared to relative countries circa 1910). Hell MDs used to routinely come to you even! | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On November 21 2020 13:09 Zambrah wrote: Hell, we could even just look at the Gilded Age to see examples of rampant wage disparity, thats where we coined the term Robber-Barons after all. Rampant capitalism has had its part in American history to learn from, and we get to preemptively dismiss the idea that America is somehow special and will somehow do it right when its done it before and it didnt do it right. If you look at wage data, markers of wealth, and other metrics the period of 1880-1910 was the period of highest wealth accumulation for the American people. Of course you will dismiss the data and point to some stupid fucking book that was more a propaganda piece than historical fact (The Jungle). If you really want the data I'll provide, but its not going to change your opinion at all. What the hell. Read page 46 and page 53 - End of the Century about wages / 1860 - 1890. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.32106016056613&view=1up&seq=46 (from a BLS paper in 1976) Summary: US had higher wages than comparative countries, significantly improved wealth and income compared to 1800 (and since mid century) and a better growing economy (not withstanding the short lived recession during Clevelands 2nd term). For more historical data: https://libraryguides.missouri.edu/pricesandwages/1880-1889 They have all the decades for you to peruse. Its whatever though. Government schools teaching wrong ahistorical propaganda about this time period and for rubes to believe it is par for the course. One of the most popular leftist intellectuals of the 20th Century also wrote extensively about this time period and how the Progressive Era destroyed the market and "highest period of competition in US history". (Gabriel Kolko) This idea of unregulated capitalism being awful for people and being overrun with monopolies has never had one ounce to do with any facts. Its ahistorical hogwash. Dismiss the data to protect your dogma. Its expected. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On November 21 2020 13:18 Wegandi wrote: Its funny seeing all the posters here pile on the few non-leftist posters about facts. Facts dont matter to you guys. I routinely post well sourced facts from reputable sources and all you guys do is rationalize, deflect, ignore or attempt to marginalize. Talking about argument in bad faith you guys doth protest too much. Look at US medical costs before the AMA and absurd restricting of licensing and schooling, before the FDA, before healthcare was regulated into the ground, before Medicare, Medicaid and CMS. I work in the healthcare sector and CMS basically controls 90% of my field (therapy). Government involvement in healthcare has been a disaster since day 1 just like every other time the government has stepped in. The weird insurance but its really not insurance (ask any actuary or you know compare to any other type of insurance) and tying it to employment and there being no transparent pricing is not a "market system", it's a tortured labyrinth made from Government edicts, mandates, regulations, incentives, and programs. I've linked many times early 20th Century newspapers where MDs write and complain theyre paid too little - healthcare used to be cheap and of quality (look at healthcare markers compared to relative countries circa 1910). Hell MDs used to routinely come to you even! It's no surprise that US government involvement in healthcare would foster Libertarians within the industry. | ||
KwarK
United States44203 Posts
On November 21 2020 10:30 BisuDagger wrote: Just a random thought. Sueing doctors and medical practices is a huge burden for most institutions in the medical field have to deal with. What if more people seek healthcare under Universal Healthcare and then sue those institutions in a system where doctors can’t deny patients care? Would a universal healthcare program include protections or defense fees for doctors? That's a weird question. Why would doctors deny care under a private system but not a public? | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On November 21 2020 13:18 Wegandi wrote: Its funny seeing all the posters here pile on the few non-leftist posters about facts. Facts dont matter to you guys. I routinely post well sourced facts from reputable sources and all you guys do is rationalize, deflect, ignore or attempt to marginalize. Talking about argument in bad faith you guys doth protest too much. Look at US medical costs before the AMA and absurd restricting of licensing and schooling, before the FDA, before healthcare was regulated into the ground, before Medicare, Medicaid and CMS. I work in the healthcare sector and CMS basically controls 90% of my field (therapy). Government involvement in healthcare has been a disaster since day 1 just like every other time the government has stepped in. The weird insurance but its really not insurance (ask any actuary or you know compare to any other type of insurance) and tying it to employment and there being no transparent pricing is not a "market system", it's a tortured labyrinth made from Government edicts, mandates, regulations, incentives, and programs. I've linked many times early 20th Century newspapers where MDs write and complain theyre paid too little - healthcare used to be cheap and of quality (look at healthcare markers compared to relative countries circa 1910). Hell MDs used to routinely come to you even! Did you seriously just try to tout early-to-mid 20th century healthcare as an example of when the free market worked? A time when not only did the free market crush the lower classes worse than it does now, but when healthcare was a joke? In 1910, when open surgery wasn't even a thing? When antibiotics didn't even exist? Is this real life? People have already discussed why your points aren't relevant. The fundamental problem with current government regulations is that they try to regulate a system that cannot, at its core, work. The private market and insurance do not work for healthcare, period. Kwark described this at length and then others fleshed out that talking point. Also, you get consistently dunked on because the "facts" that you cite are either wildly off-topic and don't back up the claims that you are making or else they are highly distorted and cherry-picked to make a point that is soundly debunked shortly thereafter. Hell, it took you four posts to understand the difference between a poll and a prediction model in the election thread, and just a couple days ago you got called out for making a disingenuous argument and then disappearing when you were held accountable for those arguments. It's both amusing and depressing to see conservatives try to defend free market healthcare every once in a while. The American system is an abject failure. There is nothing defensible about it. It is built on the foundation of free market healthcare and literally every successful example of a healthcare system in the world shows us that universal healthcare is the way to go. This issue is the most clear-cut example of evidence resoundingly showing your position to be incorrect and yet here we are, cookie-cutter, ideologically-driven yet evidence-blind arguments still in hand. | ||
|
Salazarz
Korea (South)2591 Posts
On November 21 2020 13:18 Wegandi wrote: Its funny seeing all the posters here pile on the few non-leftist posters about facts. Facts dont matter to you guys. I routinely post well sourced facts from reputable sources and all you guys do is rationalize, deflect, ignore or attempt to marginalize. Talking about argument in bad faith you guys doth protest too much. Look at US medical costs before the AMA and absurd restricting of licensing and schooling, before the FDA, before healthcare was regulated into the ground, before Medicare, Medicaid and CMS. I work in the healthcare sector and CMS basically controls 90% of my field (therapy). Government involvement in healthcare has been a disaster since day 1 just like every other time the government has stepped in. The weird insurance but its really not insurance (ask any actuary or you know compare to any other type of insurance) and tying it to employment and there being no transparent pricing is not a "market system", it's a tortured labyrinth made from Government edicts, mandates, regulations, incentives, and programs. I've linked many times early 20th Century newspapers where MDs write and complain theyre paid too little - healthcare used to be cheap and of quality (look at healthcare markers compared to relative countries circa 1910). Hell MDs used to routinely come to you even! Facts, you say? The facts are that the US spends significantly more than any other country in the world on healthcare, while having below average outcomes across nearly every metric compared against other developed countries. The fact is that your healthcare system is both wasteful and inefficient. Now, you can try and argue that the inefficiencies and waste come from government intervention rather than profiteering of the private sector, this is something that can be debated at length and is difficult to provably confirm either way. But the fact is that the United State is quite literally the only rich developed country in the world that does not have a full universal healthcare system of some sort. Whether single-payer, public insurance, or a hybrid public/private system -- every single developed country in the world has universal healthcare that achieves better healthcare outcomes than the US at a fraction of the cost. Now, you could try to argue that you could come up with a plan that would provide better coverage at a lower price by doing away with the government involvement and that a truly free market would take better care of your citizen's health than it does everywhere else in the world -- but you better be thorough and have some very convincing arguments as to how such a system would work and why would it be effective, as such a claim would run against pretty much every public health policymaker in the world, given that we've already established that every other somewhat successful country on our planet has a government-ran universal healthcare system. If your argument is simply that the US government is too damn inept to copy what other countries are doing, well, that's not something I personally would argue against, given how your country is governed. But don't pretend that universal healthcare is too expensive (you're spending more than any other country is on health as is) or that universal healthcare is less effective (your nation's health is worse than that of just about every other developed country on planet). https://data.oecd.org/healthres/health-spending.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/quality-u-s-healthcare-system-compare-countries/#item-percent-of-adults-who-have-experienced-medical-medication-or-lab-errors-or-delays-in-past-two-years-2016-chart-collection | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On November 21 2020 13:18 Wegandi wrote: I've linked many times early 20th Century newspapers where MDs write and complain theyre paid too little - healthcare used to be cheap and of quality (look at healthcare markers compared to relative countries circa 1910). Hell MDs used to routinely come to you even! MDs still are paid too little, and inflation-adjusted salaries for physicians have not really changed all that much. The insane costs of healthcare never come out in the form of compensation for services for individiual healthcare providers. It's almost entirely in the massively inflated costs of technologies that literally didn't exist in 1910. If you walked into an emergency room in 1900 with chest pain, the doctor took a look at you, sent you home with an aspirin, and hoped you wouldn't be dead the next morning. If you walk into an emergency room in 2020 with chest pain, at minimum you're getting a chest X-ray, EKG, 3 tubes of blood fed through machines that assess levels of various blood components, and single doses of 3-5 different medications--and that's just to start assuming none of the diagnostic tests show anything abnormal that buys you a hospital admission. All of these cost money, none of that money comes out on the physician's paycheck (hospital billing separates the costs of these things very explicitly from the get-go), and I don't see how regulation contributes to the costs of any of these things. Most of these things are cheaper in countries that have public healthcare systems. | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
Daft folks don't understand comparative analysis and act like I'm saying healthcare practices should revert to 1900. Good lord. Just ban me so I don't have any temptation to come here anymore. Yango you ever wonder why technology drives prices lower in industries with low Government involvement and prices rise astronomically high in any industry with high degree of Government involvement? (Which is why I get a chuckle out of Government nationalizing healthcare will reduce costs - look at DoD spending, VA, CMS/Medicaid, etc. Laughable just laughable. I used to always laugh at how much the DoD paid for simple things like small computer screens circa 2009 (325$ for shitty screens when I could have went to best buy and bought for 150$)) Ok now ban me. User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3304 Posts
In my experience there are actually pretty few libertarians in the pharmaceutical industry, because despite all the extremely tedious regulations and auditors breathing down our necks, we still fuck up often enough that those “If you or a loved one took Xymbadrex...” commercials are a well-known trope. Healthcare pre-FDA was a fucking nightmare, we were dosing Abraham Lincoln with mercury and people were putting formaldehyde in food. Edit: oh, martyring, well then. See ya Wegandi, I guess. | ||
| ||
