|
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 08 2024 15:37 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2024 15:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2024 14:04 KwarK wrote:On November 08 2024 13:04 Salazarz wrote:On November 08 2024 11:46 Razyda wrote:On November 08 2024 10:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2024 10:40 Falling wrote:On November 08 2024 08:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2024 07:19 Falling wrote:What is terrifying to me is that libs/Dems are just going to retcon the "Trump is a fascist that will destroy democracy" thing, as we see happening now. Well, while you are building up your narrative of what is going on TL, make sure to not include my posts as part of the pattern of Lib/Dems as I am neither a liberal nor a democrat, nor am I walking back from my position on Trump as I do not believe I ever called Trump a fascist or Hitlerian or anything like it, but you can fact check me on that if you want. I do still think he is demonstrably too corrupt and too unconcerned about the separation of powers in federalism/ the branches of government to ever vote for. I do think it's silly to find Trump an unacceptable person to vote for but a reasonably acceptable person to give control of the most lethal military in the world after he said he would be a day 1 dictator. It may avoid charges of hypocrisy, but strikes me as pretty irresponsible EDIT: Especially after the Supreme Court already gave him immunity to do practically anything he wants legally The dictator on day one rhetoric is yet another reason why I am a never-Trumper (from afar as I can't vote, for obvious reasons.) It's disqualifying even if it was just a metaphor or however it might sanewashed by Trump loyalists. I don't see any way to be consistent and call oneself a believer in limited government who is conserving the constitution, not as a principled conservative, not even as a pragmatic one. However, until and unless he becomes a dictator on day one, I think it is premature to treat him as a dictator though the electorate did indeed give him control to the most lethal military in the world. But it was not me who is giving him anything. I think it is premature because generally speaking I think the most effective way to remove a dictator is to shoot or otherwise kill them though I guess you could forcibly remove him instead. I'm not prepared to do any of that Minority Report style. Are you? If you actually believe he attempted an insurrection, then taking care of him might have been the first thing Biden should have done as president and let the immunity thing come to the court that way (if the CIA/FBI/NSA/ST6/whatev somehow was traced back to him). Then, once Biden knew he would be immune from prosecution for pursuing justice for treason, that was another pivotal chance passed. Now, he knows this treasonous insurrectionist (set aside the fascism for the moment if one wishes) is going to get what he was after during his treasonous insurrection attempt, and he's got a chance to stop that from happening. If I believed Trump was a treasonous insurrectionist (let alone also a fascist with the whole project 2025 crew in tow) as a never-Trump conservative (dunno if that's a close enough descriptor for you) I would support Biden enacting patriotic justice based on that alone. I just quote this post, but GH to put last few pages of your posts in context of your usual stance: Liberals will descend to fascism - now you advocating for Democrats to become a fascist to stop Trump. Lesser evilism = bad, but Democrats becoming fascist is better than Trump becoming president, therefore in this case lesser evilism good. Sort of makes sense - you can then claim "told you Democrats will become fascists". You come across much more dictatorial than Trump ever did (bolded parts). You are not afraid that Trump can become dictator, you are angry that you wont (or whatever Secretary you happened to be infatuated with). Arresting a guy for leading a coup is not fascism, it's just following the laws. Plenty of randos in the crowd that stormed the capitol got criminal charges. The way I see it, there's a huge disconnect in messaging and actions of the Dems. Either Trump is all the things they say he is, and then them not dealing with him is a massive failure to uphold the law and security of the country; or he is not, in fact, all the things they say he is and they're just trying to push people into voting for them because 'big bad orange will get ya' otherwise. It's the first. They trusted in institutions that couldn't be relied upon. Sooo the same thing they are doing by handing Trump/Project 2025 control of the most lethal military in the world? That' should work out well /s We can ignore all the warnings people got that this would happen, and just go with "fool me once, shame on you, fool me 542 times..." Also, to be fair, the institution of the Supreme Court did give Democrats the power to hold him accountable. Unfortunately, Democrats are even less reliable than Trump's Supreme Court. Dunno why you keep holding this stuff against me as if I'm running the Democrats.
Not running, just supporting them. They ostensibly derive their power from you and voters like you.
From a liberal democratic pov, you and people like you need to extract better than that from them. Alternatively, you and voters like yourself need to extract them and replace them with people that will do better than make the same mistake for the 543rd time of trusting institutions and norms to control Trump/Project 2025's openly fascist ambitions.
I'd prefer you and voters like yourself just join revolutionary socialist orgs and go from there, but if you all insist on keeping your lib-Dem politics, the WORLD needs you to demand better from your leaders RIGHT NOW, EN MASSE, in every venue possible.
|
Northern Ireland25394 Posts
As a general observation when did skepticism about Big Pharma move from being generally the purview of the left to at least being as common on the right?
Was it purely Covid?
It seems to make much less sense anyway. The left’s is, especially within the US system embedded in profit motive forming an obvious potential conflict of interest.
But the right don’t seem to have many innate problems with for-profit-healthcare, indeed many believe it improves quality through competition.
But for some reason this rationale doesn’t apply to Big PharmaTM? Someone make it make sense yo
|
The essential oils /anti vax crowd and the anti mask crowd teamed up post covid.
Seperately, The only way to explain the status of healthcare in the US is corruption. There are way too many smart people who know that single payer/medicare for all with the govt being able to negotiate prices as a single block is better. The system we have is pure shit, i dont think stupidity is the reason for the way things are. Its corruption on both sides of the aisle, republicans are just worse obviously.
|
Right: bigpharna in bed with oppressive government to inject population control
Left: bigpharma (in bed with government) to put questionable products to market to maximize profit
Both sides question quality of product, both sides are afraid of side effects being unreported and their children being affected (vaccines cause autism)
|
Northern Ireland25394 Posts
On November 08 2024 22:51 Uldridge wrote:
Just glancing over its side effects it seems like a dogshit drug to take. Let's say we disagree on how we interpret this, MP. Anything that even remotely looks closely like a ribonucleotide or ribonucleoside you should nope out of imo.
Why, for us laypeople who mightn’t be familiar?
It also has to be weighed against well, AIDS
A drug could also be pretty dogshit in the greater scheme of things, and subsequently supplanted by less brutal treatments.
I don’t know if that was the case or not here. Honestly ‘was AIDS a big deal?’ wasn’t a topic I expected to be discussing today at all haha
|
On November 08 2024 22:56 WombaT wrote:
As a general observation when did skepticism about Big Pharma move from being generally the purview of the left to at least being as common on the right?
Was it purely Covid?
It seems to make much less sense anyway. The left’s is, especially within the US system embedded in profit motive forming an obvious potential conflict of interest.
But the right don’t seem to have many innate problems with for-profit-healthcare, indeed many believe it improves quality through competition.
But for some reason this rationale doesn’t apply to Big PharmaTM? Someone make it make sense yo
Covid was used as a political tool, for both sides. It is cool for some on the right to be against vaccines, but not big-pharma in general.
For-profit healthcare is generally a terrible idea because the actual market value of necessary treatment is so high, and no amount of competition can drive it down to a reasonable level. It also gives incentives to test and give treatments to as many of the people who can pay as possible, regardless if it is necessary or not. In a well run government program, the resources are instead used where they are most needed.
I am very happy to live in a country where I can be sure to be well taken care of no matter the condition without any health insurance. My feeling is that people in the US don't understand that is possible, and I know many who have bought insurance when moving to Europe just because.
|
On November 08 2024 23:05 Uldridge wrote:
Right: bigpharna in bed with oppressive government to inject population control
Left: bigpharma (in bed with government) to put questionable products to market to maximize profit
Both sides question quality of product, both sides are afraid of side effects being unreported and their children being affected (vaccines cause autism)
There are also huge problems with how drugs are tested before being signed off. Many, many examples of tests being bypassed or 'pushed through' due to huge pressure from massive institutions.
If someone didn't want to spend their time researching which drugs are safe and which are dodgy, I can understand a whole lot of skepticism about big pharma for sure.
Vaccinations are not quite the same thing though, being antivax is just being ignorant of science for the most part.
|
On November 08 2024 22:56 WombaT wrote:
As a general observation when did skepticism about Big Pharma move from being generally the purview of the left to at least being as common on the right?
Was it purely Covid?
It seems to make much less sense anyway. The left’s is, especially within the US system embedded in profit motive forming an obvious potential conflict of interest.
But the right don’t seem to have many innate problems with for-profit-healthcare, indeed many believe it improves quality through competition.
But for some reason this rationale doesn’t apply to Big PharmaTM? Someone make it make sense yo
It's 1) a science pivot around global warming that's been going on for close to 30 years and 2) reflexive anti-Republicanism and 3) costs of Obamacare. In other words, when the left took the mantle of global warming as one of the main pillars of their platform, it generalizes (wrongly, but nevertheless) to a deference to anything vaguely scientific, which includes medicine, which huge pharmaceutical companies are a proxy for. Also, because Obamacare and other causes have increased the cost of healthcare in general in the US, any questioning of the costs suffered by the people and taxpayer, or questioning of the motives and profits of the enormous companies, would be an indirect attack on Obamacare, which would be sacrilege. Last, if Republicans oppose something they must just be wrong so the opposite is good.
|
On November 08 2024 23:15 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2024 22:56 WombaT wrote:
As a general observation when did skepticism about Big Pharma move from being generally the purview of the left to at least being as common on the right?
Was it purely Covid?
It seems to make much less sense anyway. The left’s is, especially within the US system embedded in profit motive forming an obvious potential conflict of interest.
But the right don’t seem to have many innate problems with for-profit-healthcare, indeed many believe it improves quality through competition.
But for some reason this rationale doesn’t apply to Big PharmaTM? Someone make it make sense yo It's 1) a science pivot around global warming that's been going on for close to 30 years and 2) reflexive anti-Republicanism and 3) costs of Obamacare. In other words, when the left took the mantle of global warming as one of the main pillars of their platform, it generalizes (wrongly, but nevertheless) to a deference to anything vaguely scientific, which includes medicine, which huge pharmaceutical companies are a proxy for. Also, because Obamacare and other causes have increased the cost of healthcare in general in the US, any questioning of the costs suffered by the people and taxpayer, or questioning of the motives and profits of the enormous companies, would be an indirect attack on Obamacare, which would be sacrilege. Last, if Republicans oppose something they must just be wrong so the opposite is good.
You could just say 'because of the left' and save yourself some time, its what Ben Shapiro does.
|
Oblade
Obamacare didnt increase costs. It got rid of shit insurance plans. The prior system was even worse.
We only have Obamacare because corruption wouldnt allow a public option. We need to ditch the insurance system entirely.
|
On November 08 2024 21:04 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2024 20:57 Sadist wrote:
Jimmy i dont think you understand the scale of destruction of nuclear wespons at all. Same for global warming.
Its cool that you are happy about a Trump victory but this is head in the sand stuff you are talking about. With global warming its not as if we can just open a window and let heat out.....not to mention the oceans warming being even scarier. Do you have any appreciation for how much energy it takes to raise the temperature of water? Then multiply that on a global scale for the oceans. I do not think the data is correct though. Nukes: its been 70+ years now. When someone drops a nuclear bomb let me know. Check out the Manson video I posted previously. The crumbling family unit is a bigger issue than nuclear bombs. So I work hard to build my family. Also, its fun and rewarding.
Fair enough that you feel that way.
I'm guessing your also fine with say, idk Houston, getting nuked in the future because some tiny country like Armenia lost one of their nukes.
Because even if the chance of nukes getting into the wrong hands is tiny it's going to be hundreds of times higher when instead of 10ish countries there are hundreds with nuclear weapons.
|
Northern Ireland25394 Posts
On November 08 2024 23:11 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2024 22:56 WombaT wrote:
As a general observation when did skepticism about Big Pharma move from being generally the purview of the left to at least being as common on the right?
Was it purely Covid?
It seems to make much less sense anyway. The left’s is, especially within the US system embedded in profit motive forming an obvious potential conflict of interest.
But the right don’t seem to have many innate problems with for-profit-healthcare, indeed many believe it improves quality through competition.
But for some reason this rationale doesn’t apply to Big PharmaTM? Someone make it make sense yo Covid was used as a political tool, for both sides. It is cool for some on the right to be against vaccines, but not big-pharma in general. For-profit healthcare is generally a terrible idea because the actual market value of necessary treatment is so high, and no amount of competition can drive it down to a reasonable level. It also gives incentives to test and give treatments to as many of the people who can pay as possible, regardless if it is necessary or not. In a well run government program, the resources are instead used where they are most needed. I am very happy to live in a country where I can be sure to be well taken care of no matter the condition without any health insurance. My feeling is that people in the US don't understand that is possible, and I know many who have bought insurance when moving to Europe just because.
I don’t know if a sustainable, net-positive nuclear fusion reactor is something we have the capacity to build anytime. But if someone next door started hooking up their house to their new fusion reactor, that question is somewhat answered.
That specific part of this political topic is both parts baffling and frustrating.
On the flipside, I’ll heavily disagree with other positions, like ‘fuck paying for other people’s healthcare, but they’re pretty understandable at least.
|
On November 08 2024 22:56 WombaT wrote:
As a general observation when did skepticism about Big Pharma move from being generally the purview of the left to at least being as common on the right?
Was it purely Covid?
It seems to make much less sense anyway. The left’s is, especially within the US system embedded in profit motive forming an obvious potential conflict of interest.
But the right don’t seem to have many innate problems with for-profit-healthcare, indeed many believe it improves quality through competition.
But for some reason this rationale doesn’t apply to Big PharmaTM? Someone make it make sense yo
It was 2 step process I think.
Mandates was one - people dont really care as long as they have a choice whether to use Pharma products, or not. Taking this choice away made them care.
Second is Left itself - they pretty much pushed away anyone who questioned anything related to covid. I mean BlackJack was called antivaxxer here... It makes me wonder, how many out of people who were criticizing BlackJack, is up to date on their boosters? Because experts from CDC still recommend them for everyone over 6 months old...
https://www.cdc.gov/covid/vaccines/stay-up-to-date.html
|
On November 08 2024 23:18 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2024 23:15 oBlade wrote:On November 08 2024 22:56 WombaT wrote:
As a general observation when did skepticism about Big Pharma move from being generally the purview of the left to at least being as common on the right?
Was it purely Covid?
It seems to make much less sense anyway. The left’s is, especially within the US system embedded in profit motive forming an obvious potential conflict of interest.
But the right don’t seem to have many innate problems with for-profit-healthcare, indeed many believe it improves quality through competition.
But for some reason this rationale doesn’t apply to Big PharmaTM? Someone make it make sense yo It's 1) a science pivot around global warming that's been going on for close to 30 years and 2) reflexive anti-Republicanism and 3) costs of Obamacare. In other words, when the left took the mantle of global warming as one of the main pillars of their platform, it generalizes (wrongly, but nevertheless) to a deference to anything vaguely scientific, which includes medicine, which huge pharmaceutical companies are a proxy for. Also, because Obamacare and other causes have increased the cost of healthcare in general in the US, any questioning of the costs suffered by the people and taxpayer, or questioning of the motives and profits of the enormous companies, would be an indirect attack on Obamacare, which would be sacrilege. Last, if Republicans oppose something they must just be wrong so the opposite is good. You could just say 'because of the left' and save yourself some time, its what Ben Shapiro does.
If you watch Ben Shapiro it's your own business but I have no idea what the fuck you're talking about so either expose a flaw in what I actually said or I'll assume by posting with no comment that you're tacitly agreeing with it.
On November 08 2024 23:18 Sadist wrote:
Oblade
Obamacare didnt increase costs. It got rid of shit insurance plans. The prior system was even worse.
We only have Obamacare because corruption wouldnt allow a public option. We need to ditch the insurance system entirely.
Did it decrease costs/spending? Increase or decrease insurance or corporate profits?
|
Oblade if I sell you insurance for 1k a year and it covers nothing, do you really have insurance?
If you are worried about cost do you support single payer where the entire US population can negotiate as a single block to drive down cost?
|
On November 08 2024 23:27 Sadist wrote:
Oblade if I sell you insurance for 1k a year and it covers nothing, do you really have insurance?
If I force you to buy a new luxury sedan when you have a bikeable life and no income, are you better off?
On November 08 2024 23:27 Sadist wrote:
If you are worried about cost do you support single payer where the entire US population can negotiate as a single block to drive down cost?
No, because the costs of running a hospital in Oklahoma are different than those of running one in Manhattan, and Medicare, the largest government customer of healthcare, is a waste funnel of taxpayer money to the medical sector, and single payer would therefore just result in Medicarization of the entire industry, which is, again, worse.
|
Northern Ireland25394 Posts
On November 08 2024 23:15 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2024 22:56 WombaT wrote:
As a general observation when did skepticism about Big Pharma move from being generally the purview of the left to at least being as common on the right?
Was it purely Covid?
It seems to make much less sense anyway. The left’s is, especially within the US system embedded in profit motive forming an obvious potential conflict of interest.
But the right don’t seem to have many innate problems with for-profit-healthcare, indeed many believe it improves quality through competition.
But for some reason this rationale doesn’t apply to Big PharmaTM? Someone make it make sense yo It's 1) a science pivot around global warming that's been going on for close to 30 years and 2) reflexive anti-Republicanism and 3) costs of Obamacare. In other words, when the left took the mantle of global warming as one of the main pillars of their platform, it generalizes (wrongly, but nevertheless) to a deference to anything vaguely scientific, which includes medicine, which huge pharmaceutical companies are a proxy for. Also, because Obamacare and other causes have increased the cost of healthcare in general in the US, any questioning of the costs suffered by the people and taxpayer, or questioning of the motives and profits of the enormous companies, would be an indirect attack on Obamacare, which would be sacrilege. Last, if Republicans oppose something they must just be wrong so the opposite is good.
So, nonsensical basically?
I think it’s perfectly reasonable to have skepticism towards Big PharmaTM incidentally, it’s this framework that confuses me.
Also, it’s not always the same people sharing the same positions, but I’ve ran into many who distrust Big PharmaTM and their solution is to have less regulation.
To use one of my favourite words, it strikes me as utter bollocks when one combines stated rationales.
Obamacare didn’t massively fundamentally change incentives and potential conflicts of interest between insurance and pharmaceutical companies.
I feel it’s massively overused, often inappropriately but cognitive dissonance is applicable to some scenarios, and certain viewpoints held by a seemingly growing section of the right do seem to fit the bill.
Olga Korbut herself would struggle to do some of the contortions of basic logic connection that some people have to if they’re asked to explain their positions.
On the flip side, your Ron Paul type libertarian I’ll heartily disagree with, but it’s a consistent enough framework that within itself makes sense.
|
On November 08 2024 23:40 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2024 23:27 Sadist wrote:
Oblade if I sell you insurance for 1k a year and it covers nothing, do you really have insurance? If I force you to buy a new luxury sedan when you have a bikeable life and no income, are you better off? Show nested quote +On November 08 2024 23:27 Sadist wrote:
If you are worried about cost do you support single payer where the entire US population can negotiate as a single block to drive down cost?
No, because the costs of running a hospital in Oklahoma are different than those of running one in Manhattan, and Medicare, the largest government customer of healthcare, is a waste funnel of taxpayer money to the medical sector, and single payer would therefore just result in Medicarization of the entire industry, which is, again, worse.
So how come that every other country has way lower healthcare costs than the US, with at least similar or better health results?
How come that the US is an incredibly strong outlier compared to any country with a single payer or other public healthcare system?
|
Medicare is kneecapped by not being allowed to negotiate drug prices. Not to mention it doesnt even cover everyone, you could lower prices even more if everyone in the US is covered.
If we want to pay different locals different rates to account for cost of living thats fine too. All of these problems are solvable. Instead you want survival of the fittest. Please use your critical thinking hat. How fo you think prices are handled today?
The insurance companies and the hospitals are in a negotiating battle. The number of customers each group have gives them leverage over the other in negotiating. Its absolute bullshit regular people are caught in the middle of this.
|
Austria4113 Posts
On November 08 2024 22:51 Uldridge wrote:
Just glancing over its side effects it seems like a dogshit drug to take. Let's say we disagree on how we interpret this, MP. Anything that even remotely looks closely like a ribonucleotide or ribonucleoside you should nope out of imo.
I listen to experts, not random people on the internet. They're credible, we're not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
