|
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 22 2020 01:00 farvacola wrote:
Funnily enough, if doctors become government employees as a general matter incident to a universal system, they would almost certainly be covered by qualified immunity lol
Yes they would in any reasonable system. Suit would go towards the government, level would depend on the level organisation is run at. Employee would face marks in their record or similar mechanics to phase out people that aren't suited to the job. At a final point losing their license to practice anywhere in the country.
|
On November 21 2020 19:22 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2020 12:31 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I think depending on how Biden does in the first year and a half, that might be going back to the Dems favor. Getting the pandemic under control and relief sent out will help their argument that they're the only politicians that can get things done. And any Rs that decide to block relief will have a harder time than this year. I also don't think most Rs are going to get the same kind of response once trump is gone and being buried under all of his legal problems. But we'll see. I'm afraid Biden will spend his time trying to fix the massive issues Trump leaves him with while the Republicans block anything and everything they can and then run in 2 years on "Biden did nothing for you" and people will actually believe them because their life won't feel better and the President always gets the blame.
That's assuming that they don't get the GA runoff. I think it'll be tight there. Either the Rs pass something that can be signified as helping normal people and it's substantial, or they can be blamed for blocking everything that goes that way. I think if the Senate is closely split, then it'll come down to flipping a few votes and Harris using her powers. There's a lot of variables here and I suppose we'll have to wait until January to get a more firm grasp on where things will lie in Congress. The House being tanked like it was is disappointing, but whatever.
There's so much news going off right now, that I can't even wrap my head around how to process most of it. A lot of it is just negligence by elected officials, and a lot of it is just...disgusting behavior by humans.
|
On November 21 2020 20:49 BisuDagger wrote:
Think about emergency rooms. The same mentally ill person could check themselves in every day and must not be denied.
This is already the case thanks to EMTALA. EDs are not allowed to deny these patients already and no self-respecting physician would consider it ethical to deny care in the way you're describing.
Publically-funded healthcare would be an improvement for hospitals taking care of these patients because under the current system they see zero reimbursement for them. If a patient shows up in the ED with no ability to pay, the hospital is still obligated to treat them, and is just SOL in collecting money. EDs, primary care, and general medicine are often a money sink for hospitals that are sustained by expensive surgeries and procedures.
|
The vast majority of conservatives, including the ones in this thread, are complicit in this. You can't just stay silent or actively encourage unfounded conspiracy theories that damage democratic institutions and pretend that you don't have any responsibility for the outcomes.
SUNDOWN, Texas (Reuters) - Brett Fryar is a middle-class Republican. A 50-year-old chiropractor in this west Texas town, he owns a small business. He has two undergraduate degrees and a master’s degree, in organic chemistry. He attends Southcrest Baptist Church in nearby Lubbock.
Fryar didn’t much like Donald Trump at first, during the U.S. president’s 2016 campaign. He voted for Texas Senator Ted Cruz in the Republican primaries.
Now, Fryar says he would go to war for Trump. He has joined the newly formed South Plains Patriots, a group of a few hundred members that includes a “reactionary” force of about three dozen - including Fryar and his son, Caleb - who conduct firearms training.
Nothing will convince Fryar and many others here in Sundown - including the town’s mayor, another Patriots member - that Democrat Joe Biden won the Nov. 3 presidential election fairly. They believe Trump’s stream of election-fraud allegations and say they’re preparing for the possibility of a “civil war” with the American political left.
“If President Trump comes out and says: ‘Guys, I have irrefutable proof of fraud, the courts won’t listen, and I’m now calling on Americans to take up arms,’ we would go,” said Fryar, wearing a button-down shirt, pressed slacks and a paisley tie during a recent interview at his office.
The unshakable trust in Trump in this town of about 1,400 residents reflects a national phenomenon among many Republicans, despite the absence of evidence in a barrage of post-election lawsuits by the president and his allies. About half of Republicans polled by Reuters/Ipsos said Trump “rightfully won” the election but had it stolen from him in systemic fraud favoring Biden, according to a survey conducted between Nov. 13 and 17. Just 29% of Republicans said Biden rightfully won. Other polls since the election have reported that an even higher proportion - up to 80% - of Republicans trust Trump’s baseless fraud narrative.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-fraud-insight-idUSKBN2801D4?fbclid=IwAR0vw2E9pemKOEspTNjCeaOepVqWBv5mqGWJQmQF0-7WjMEdB1S8M4mbJ0Y
Around half of Republicans think that Trump won the election.
This shit is dangerous and unacceptable.
|
Hard to see how we avoid bloodshed when people combine threats of violence with trust in one of the most obviously untrustworthy people in public view.
|
On November 22 2020 01:40 Stratos_speAr wrote:The vast majority of conservatives, including the ones in this thread, are complicit in this shit: Show nested quote +SUNDOWN, Texas (Reuters) - Brett Fryar is a middle-class Republican. A 50-year-old chiropractor in this west Texas town, he owns a small business. He has two undergraduate degrees and a master’s degree, in organic chemistry. He attends Southcrest Baptist Church in nearby Lubbock.
Fryar didn’t much like Donald Trump at first, during the U.S. president’s 2016 campaign. He voted for Texas Senator Ted Cruz in the Republican primaries.
Now, Fryar says he would go to war for Trump. He has joined the newly formed South Plains Patriots, a group of a few hundred members that includes a “reactionary” force of about three dozen - including Fryar and his son, Caleb - who conduct firearms training.
Nothing will convince Fryar and many others here in Sundown - including the town’s mayor, another Patriots member - that Democrat Joe Biden won the Nov. 3 presidential election fairly. They believe Trump’s stream of election-fraud allegations and say they’re preparing for the possibility of a “civil war” with the American political left.
“If President Trump comes out and says: ‘Guys, I have irrefutable proof of fraud, the courts won’t listen, and I’m now calling on Americans to take up arms,’ we would go,” said Fryar, wearing a button-down shirt, pressed slacks and a paisley tie during a recent interview at his office.
The unshakable trust in Trump in this town of about 1,400 residents reflects a national phenomenon among many Republicans, despite the absence of evidence in a barrage of post-election lawsuits by the president and his allies. About half of Republicans polled by Reuters/Ipsos said Trump “rightfully won” the election but had it stolen from him in systemic fraud favoring Biden, according to a survey conducted between Nov. 13 and 17. Just 29% of Republicans said Biden rightfully won. Other polls since the election have reported that an even higher proportion - up to 80% - of Republicans trust Trump’s baseless fraud narrative. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-fraud-insight-idUSKBN2801D4?fbclid=IwAR0vw2E9pemKOEspTNjCeaOepVqWBv5mqGWJQmQF0-7WjMEdB1S8M4mbJ0YAround half of Republicans think that Trump won the election. This shit is dangerous and unacceptable.
They either outright express that they think he won, or they're lecturing us not to be worried about the fact that a failed autocrat is trying yet again to upturn the Democratic process. "He doesn't really mean it" or "of course he won't get anywhere with it, our institutional safeguards will definitely hold and you're a fool for being concerned". Yes, tell me exactly how to care about the future of my country please, I was so lost before.
Supporters come in many forms, including apologists and people who will endlessly cape for the fascist autocrat. And we are on one fucking dangerous slippery slope.
|
At least this has been a great case study in why the only thing you should ever be 100% certain of is that you should never be 100% certain of anything. Because people like Brett Fryar start from the position that Trump won, there is literally no evidence that will get them to change their minds, and they feel justified in firing on other American citizens at the command of a big orange baby who would probably sell their organs to pay off his debts. Anything that would make them reconsider must be false, because it contradicts what they know to be true. This kind of absolute certainty is a poison to both discourse and functional society.
Bayes is both spinning in his grave and doing victory laps right now.
|
Why does Biden ask for donations to fund the transition to him as president? It would be comical if the alternative wasn‘t Trump. And does he really have only a 7 million vote lead? Scary.
Do you really think that if Trump gets another Term he will go quietly after another 4 years? I‘d trust him to start a war just to stay in power by then.
|
On November 22 2020 03:55 Vivax wrote:
Why does Biden ask for donations to fund the transition to him as president? It would be comical if the alternative wasn‘t Trump.
Because the Trump admin won't give him the money usually given to the president-elect to begin working on the transition. Right now Biden's supposed to be hiring people and choosing his cabinet. It's hard to do a lot of that with literally no money. The person who would be releasing the funds necessary for this is a Trump loyalist who is continuing to refuse to acknowledge that Biden won the election. It's a really fucked up situation.
Meanwhile the US is now 2/3rds of the way to having a 9/11 a day worth of coronavirus deaths. Trump will take the time to attempt to bully Michigan lawmakers but still refuses to show any leadership on the coronavirus.
Trump won't get another term, at least not from this election. State Republicans have basically told him to fuck off at this point. The Michigan state Republicans who met with Trump yesterday said that Trump provided them no evidence or reason to doubt the election result so they're following procedures as normal. The same has been said in Georgia by the Secretary of State there. Trump's also almost out of lawsuits after over 30 losses in court. It's over for Trump. He just has to accept it. Whether he has the mental capacity to accept defeat, we'll find out soon.
|
Having power is more important to Trump and the GOP than actually effecting anything positive with that power. They're throwing the White House equivalent of a temper tantrum, breaking dishes and throwing trash everywhere for the next guy to clean up, all while refusing to acknowledge the reality that he's lost. I honestly don't care if Republicans outwardly say they think he's a buffoon or a blowhard, at the end of the day they say and do nothing to condemn someone actively attacking our institutions, and are OK with whatever he succeeds in destroying. It's all about power.
|
On November 22 2020 03:55 Vivax wrote:
Why does Biden ask for donations to fund the transition to him as president? It would be comical if the alternative wasn‘t Trump. And does he really have only a 7 million vote lead? Scary.
Do you really think that if Trump gets another Term he will go quietly after another 4 years? I‘d trust him to start a war just to stay in power by then. A simple example is the salary of upcoming cabinet officials. The government starts paying those during the transition but Trump is refusing to do it.
|
Could Biden not use his campaign fund bank for this? He should have a metric shit ton of money left right now from his campaign fund
|
On November 22 2020 04:35 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2020 03:55 Vivax wrote:
Why does Biden ask for donations to fund the transition to him as president? It would be comical if the alternative wasn‘t Trump. And does he really have only a 7 million vote lead? Scary.
Do you really think that if Trump gets another Term he will go quietly after another 4 years? I‘d trust him to start a war just to stay in power by then. A simple example is the salary of upcoming cabinet officials. The government starts paying those during the transition but Trump is refusing to do it.
He’s also funding lawsuits against Trump in several states from what I read.
|
On November 22 2020 05:08 Zambrah wrote:
Could Biden not use his campaign fund bank for this? He should have a metric shit ton of money left right now from his campaign fund
That would probably constitute fraud
|
Georgia republicans are threatening to boycott the runoff elections because they think Trump won. Biden 4D chess.
|
On November 22 2020 06:09 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2020 05:08 Zambrah wrote:
Could Biden not use his campaign fund bank for this? He should have a metric shit ton of money left right now from his campaign fund That would probably constitute fraud
Would they have been able to if they had pulled a Trump and had a little section indicating funds could be used for potential transitional problems?
Maybe we see more of that going forward
|
|
|
On November 22 2020 06:30 CorsairHero wrote:
Georgia republicans are threatening to boycott the runoff elections because they think Trump won. Biden 4D chess.
A republican would vote for a rotten tomato if it was running against a democrat.
|
On November 22 2020 06:36 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2020 06:09 Nevuk wrote:On November 22 2020 05:08 Zambrah wrote:
Could Biden not use his campaign fund bank for this? He should have a metric shit ton of money left right now from his campaign fund That would probably constitute fraud Would they have been able to if they had pulled a Trump and had a little section indicating funds could be used for potential transitional problems? Maybe we see more of that going forward
Possibly. It probably wouldn't have been worth the controversy it would generate though, as allegations of corruption actually matter to democratic voters.
This sort of behavior they're facing is also almost unprecedented (something similar happened in 2000, but there was much more of a real argument about who won in that scenario), and flatly against the law (if you read it, it specifically states that the funds should be released to the apparent winner, not to the eventually declared winner, and that it must be done in a timely manner. The idea is that it's better to award funds to the wrong winner than to delay the transition. The only person who can't get funds is the incumbent president - as there is no transition).
If they wanted to delay releasing funds until tomorrow then Emily Murphy has a case, but past that there's no real defensible position.
If they drag Emily Murphy to court she'll lose. They pretty much haven't done it yet because a lot of the logic cited in previous cases is around "certified majority" of electoral votes, I guess, which should happen throughout this week. GA has finished their by hand recount already (incidentally taking over the new "most votes changed by recount" position, but still <2k votes added to Trump).
The certain to lose in court is based on OA's analysis from their latest podcast. They used a BYU law review from 2001 from Zjwicki. Basically, the funds should have been released to Bush FAR earlier than they were, and the same logic holds to an even truer extent here. They were allowed to delay release of the funds until Florida had certified the electoral votes (11/26/2000 - instead they delayed to 12/15/2000 when Gore conceded), but even if Gore had SOME chance of winning them in court, it didn't make Bush not the apparent winner, which is the precise language of the act ('apparent winner').
I'd post their transcript but they usually take a couple of days to make it. Here's the relevant law review they used, if you want some long and boring analysis.
https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2031&context=lawreview
Here's part of why Biden is asking for donations, btw. He's trying to avoid this scenario:
The effect of this delay placed a heavy burden on the Bush
Cheney transition team. On one hand, they could have deferred their
transition efforts indefinitely, until the Administrator decided to re
lease the funds. On the other hand, they could rely solely on private
funding for their transition, a result that the framers of the Act spe
cifically sought to avoid. In the end, they chose the latter option,
although they erected substantial safeguards to prevent conflicts of
interest and the appearance of impropriety.Either way, the Admin
istrator’s denial of the transition resources heavily prejudiced the
Bush transition efforts, cutting the official transition period in half
and forcing Bush to rely for several weeks on purely private funds to
effect his transition
|
On November 21 2020 16:00 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2020 14:53 Wegandi wrote:
Points to period in healthcare when Government involvement was negligible with accordingly low prices - posters distort and rationalize to ignore said data. Provide data on wages and economic growth - posters ignore.
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. You can't pretend to be frustrated with people while also accusing people of wanting to throw you in a gulag labor camp.
You underestimate Wegandi.
On November 21 2020 15:12 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2020 15:08 StasisField wrote:On November 21 2020 14:10 KwarK wrote: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? I think it's less "doctors deny care now but can't with UHC" and more "people who can't afford care now won't have that obstacle with UHC". I'm one of those people right now, actually. I have a micro tear in one my meniscus in my knee right now that I can't deal with due to finances. With UHC, that's no longer an obstacle to me getting proper treatment for this pain in my knee. His fear was specifically that a wave of litigious poor people would swarm the doctors who would be forced by the government, possibly at gunpoint, to treat them only to be subsequently sued by them. But I don’t understand why he’s afraid that would happen. That’s not my understanding of what happens in the UK with the NHS.
You are correct, sir, that is not what happens in the UK. Probably our biggest problem coming out of NHS is waiting lists, especially for important operations, which do suck. But as far as I can tell that's not a problem that's rectified in the US unless you're pretty rich... and private care is still an option in the UK. My dentist is privately run, for example.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
