hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 359 of 433 FirstFirst ... 259309349356357358359360361362369409 ... LastLast
Results 7,161 to 7,180 of 8659

Thread: US Politics Thread, 2.0

  1. #7161
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    14,786
    Quote Originally Posted by mewninn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Forgive me, but isn't lamenting that "Going uninsured to save money would no longer be a choice." a right-wing talking point against the ACA?

    It was certainly one of the more common complaints I heard back in the day on right-wing radio when they were crying about Obama and the ACA.
    Yes it is, but the ACA and the individual mandate was a right-wing plan originally. It doesn't get to masquerade as a progressive policy just because the right now criticizes it.

    Given that the Public Option (medicare) would be available to choose, why would the low income folks not sign up for that, effectively eliminating this risk for them? It sounds like they would be meaningfully subsidized if they do so.

    And back to my original point, is the current system and a 2nd term of Trump better than this Mayer Pete option?
    Because they don't have the money? They just don't have money the same way you or I do. The ACA was also subsidized, but in the case of a worker with ~30k in income, you can still expect to shell out a thousand or more for a plan.

    The $1,200 subsidized plan does you no good if you only have $600 in your account and your credit is terrible.
    Is the individual above better off under a 2nd Donald Trump administration and whatever healthcare policy they choose to provide, ignoring the hundreds of other negative policies Trump would also pursue?

    I'd have to do a lot more research into the specifics (specifics almost assuredly not yet available, given these plans are so general at this point, and only get specific at legislation time). But I question this presumption, it appears ot be provided by a single "let wing think tank" commenter to the WaPo reporter, and not any larger and more thorough analysis.

    But even if we concede that the claim is 100% accurate: I presume the fiscal burden even under Pete would be less than the fiscal burden today, would it not?

    Would an incremental improvement not be superior to a Trump led decline of available services and at higher costs?

    Is Universal Coverage not the first and most vital priority, to ensure everyone has coverage, including a Public Option if they so choose?

    Or is the poor individual struggling to even afford the Pete plan despite the subsidy going to be better off under the Trump Plan?

    I hope this isn't a "we must get it all or we get nothing" kind of devil's bargain here.


  2. #7162
    mewninn's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    3,214
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mewninn View Post
    "decline narratives"

    jfc
    it's an amazing post illustrating bart nearly perfectly, the self-righteous pseudo intellectualism, "There is no alternative" and "the left is wrong by default!" truly encompass beautifully what is wrong with mainstream liberal thinking today, or well... lack of thinking anyway.

    the implied "actually, class analysis is a conspiracy theory" is, without a doubt the capstone of the whole thing, openly pretending that 180'ish years of history simply didn't happen and the managed decline that has defined the west since the death of the soviet union doesn't exist, despite statistical evidence to the contrary.
    It's just a special kind of callous that declining life expectancy and wages are now being equated to either a conspiracy theory, or a cheap rhetorical trick.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mewninn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Forgive me, but isn't lamenting that "Going uninsured to save money would no longer be a choice." a right-wing talking point against the ACA?

    It was certainly one of the more common complaints I heard back in the day on right-wing radio when they were crying about Obama and the ACA.
    Yes it is, but the ACA and the individual mandate was a right-wing plan originally. It doesn't get to masquerade as a progressive policy just because the right now criticizes it.

    Given that the Public Option (medicare) would be available to choose, why would the low income folks not sign up for that, effectively eliminating this risk for them? It sounds like they would be meaningfully subsidized if they do so.

    And back to my original point, is the current system and a 2nd term of Trump better than this Mayer Pete option?
    Because they don't have the money? They just don't have money the same way you or I do. The ACA was also subsidized, but in the case of a worker with ~30k in income, you can still expect to shell out a thousand or more for a plan.

    The $1,200 subsidized plan does you no good if you only have $600 in your account and your credit is terrible.
    Is the individual above better off under a 2nd Donald Trump administration and whatever healthcare policy they choose to provide, ignoring the hundreds of other negative policies Trump would also pursue?

    I'd have to do a lot more research into the specifics (specifics almost assuredly not yet available, given these plans are so general at this point, and only get specific at legislation time). But I question this presumption, it appears ot be provided by a single "let wing think tank" commenter to the WaPo reporter, and not any larger and more thorough analysis.

    But even if we concede that the claim is 100% accurate: I presume the fiscal burden even under Pete would be less than the fiscal burden today, would it not?

    Would an incremental improvement not be superior to a Trump led decline of available services and at higher costs?

    Is Universal Coverage not the first and most vital priority, to ensure everyone has coverage, including a Public Option if they so choose?

    Or is the poor individual struggling to even afford the Pete plan despite the subsidy going to be better off under the Trump Plan?

    I hope this isn't a "we must get it all or we get nothing" kind of devil's bargain here.
    I can only look at what's being proposed (how regressive it is), and what happened the last time a similar plan was implemented.

    I think it would be better in some minor ways like the way the ACA was with preex. conditions and Medicaid expansion, but it would come with serious trade-offs especially on individuals (lol) obligated to consume health insurance, and probably exhaust the Democratic party for a 10% improvement on a system that's still rotten. If few positive things are actually accomplished, and the Republicans sweep back in power, is it worse? Yeah it is. We can't afford to think in decades anymore.

    As a lazy slug populist, if I wanted to do an incrementalism, I would just massively expand Medicaid and enroll the uninsured by default for 0 back-taxes or premiums. Then adjust taxes progressively so maybe if you are the white van man who makes 60k/yr you will take a tax hit for being enrolled in the de facto public option, but as a waiter this certainly shouldn't be the case.
    Last edited by mewninn; February 13 2020 at 10:46:39 PM.

  3. #7163
    Dorvil Barranis's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 18, 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    5,753
    I don't think we can bring costs down until we go single payer, and allow the government to negotiate prices with providers and drug companies.
    "Those who are skilled in combat do not become angered, those who are skilled at winning do not become afraid. Thus the wise win before they fight, while the ignorant fight to win." - Zhuge Liang


  4. #7164

    Join Date
    March 10, 2019
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    The message that 20th century liberalism is not a winning formula in the 21st century.
    And the winning formula in the U.S. in the 21st Century is?
    He hasn't gotten that far yet. Still stuck at decrying all liberals. It's the Golden Era myth, with more than enough of the Puppet Master myth thrown in.

    I reference:
    Warring Fictions: Left Populism and its defining myths.

    Although written from a UK perspective, and with a UK/Labour focus, it's easily translatable to the US situation.

    Why do we disagree? [...] Anger and impotence are felt on both sides [of the center-left and far left divide]. Everyone seems to hate each other, but no one can agree on why.

    Writing from a centre left perspective, this essay points to where the guts of the dispute lie. It argues that disagreements come down to narrative, not core values. Belief or otherwise in the central myths which drive left populism – conflict, insurgency and decline – represents the true dividing line between [the] factions.

    Underpinning all of this are two convictions about the state of [...] politics. The first is that regaining a rational, civil and democratic debate should be the number one priority for people of all leanings. The second is that the crisis of social democracy, which has put progressives out of power [...], is easier to solve than we think. Yet this is impossible when every conversation is distorted by sacred falsehoods and an atmosphere that straitjackets debate [read: myths].

    ​Combative but constructive, Warring Fictions makes the case for pluralism [...]. Rather than a call for faux harmony, it’s an attempt to break the deadlock – providing a route-map for the centre left, an explanation to the far left, and the foundations for a genuine debate between the two.
    https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ent...b01bd1382a1b11
    The far left feels society has become more right-wing on every front; that we must undo the damage and return to Year Zero. The centre left feels the pros of change outweigh the cons – or, if they don’t, that the pros are meaningful and real, and must be salvaged. Even more crucially, the centre left acknowledges what the far left does not: that many shifts to the left and to the right – internationalism and globalisation, for instance – are hard to disentangle.

    [...]

    It explains why the term ‘neoliberalism’, which is a far left shorthand for a society drifting rightwards on every issue, is greeted with bafflement by the centre left.

    It reveals why, in the US, some Bernie Sanders backers went as far as to switch to Trump, with his anti-globalisation pitch, once their first-choice candidate was out of the race. (Polling found that declinism, not radicalism, was the characteristic that distinguished Sandersites from Clintonites).
    https://fabians.org.uk/losing-sides/
    [The far left populism's] blend of protectionism without patriotism is pointless – the worst of every world. It strikes the poses of internationalism and modernity, while rejecting the forms of global cooperation which might solve the big problems.

    It is the result of a mindset built on three foundations, which I characterise as the Dark Knight, the Puppet Master and the Golden Era [read: myths]. They describe, respectively, the left populist tendencies towards moral tribalism, conspiracism and decline narratives.

    The Dark Knight mentality, for instance, means the left instinctively sides – on the basis of Cold War, class war and culture war affiliations – against Britain and Britishness [read: pride in country/patriotism]. The Puppet Master, meanwhile, allows the left to see internationalist institutions like the EU [read: UN/NATO/etc.] as imperialist, ‘Frankenstein’ projects. The Golden Era uses the cod economic term ‘neoliberal’ to imagine an all-encompassing slide to the right since the 1950s – against which knee-jerk protectionism is the only salve.

    It is time to abandon the myths which have somehow led us to believe that both internationalism and patriotism are our enemies.
    Also: https://radixuk.org/opinion/7121-2
    I was intrigued by your analysis of the three dominant myths of the populist left – the Dark Knight, the Puppet Master and the Golden Era. Can you briefly explain them, and maybe how you came up with them?

    The Dark Knight, Puppet Master and Golden Era, are the three populist vices of the left. [...]

    The Dark Knight represents the moral struggle between left-wing virtue and right-wing self-interest. It breaks people and issues down into a series of conflicts of good against bad.

    The Puppet Master myth is about power and control. It essentially says we live in a thinly disguised dictatorship run by elites – not in a complex democracy.

    The Golden Era is a story based on a ‘spirit of socialism’ in the 1950s or before that, which has supposedly been destroyed by a ‘neoliberal’ modern world.

    These are, in many ways, founding myths for the left. They define Labour as a party of valiant struggle – against an immoral enemy, an all-powerful oppressor or a dystopian future. And they therefore confine us to opposition – as well as leading to ethical dead-ends [...].
    Emphasis/redaction mine ...
    Isn't there a large amount of truth in this: "The Golden Era is a story based on a ‘spirit of socialism’ in the 1950s or before that, which has supposedly been destroyed by a ‘neoliberal’ modern world"? OK maybe not socialism per se but certainly high taxes and high government investment that was slowly eroded away by, yes, the neoliberal modern world.

  5. #7165
    Lachesis VII's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 20, 2011
    Location
    Egghelende
    Posts
    5,702
    Shhh. Common sense upsets liberals.

  6. #7166
    Ruri's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Exclamation, USA
    Posts
    2,262
    Quote Originally Posted by August View Post
    Isn't there a large amount of truth in this: "The Golden Era is a story based on a ‘spirit of socialism’ in the 1950s or before that, which has supposedly been destroyed by a ‘neoliberal’ modern world"? OK maybe not socialism per se but certainly high taxes and high government investment that was slowly eroded away by, yes, the neoliberal modern world.
    It is absolutely true, as long as we're using the term "neoliberal" correctly. "Neoliberalism is generally associated with policies of economic liberalization, including privatization, deregulation, globalization, free trade, austerity, and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society." These things definitionally erode social programs.
    This is worse than I thought, there's no butter in my coffee!

    Quote Originally Posted by QuackBot
    Do you even lift? Do you even post.

  7. #7167
    Donor Sparq's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Location
    Strayastan
    Posts
    9,960
    because this is the default 'lol America' thread,


  8. #7168
    mewninn's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    3,214
    https://gizmodo.com/new-huawei-indic...cussion-region

    The Department of Justice announced on Thursday that it was unsealing a superseding indictment against Chinese tech giant Huawei, charging the company and several of its affiliates under a law traditionally used to take down sprawling criminal syndicates that operated under multiple layers of secrecy.
    A RICO charge means that Huawei and the other companies could face huge consequences if they are found to have collectively acted as such a criminal enterprise.

    “It escalates the charges rather dramatically, alleging Huawei itself is a criminal enterprise (rather than a regular company that happened to break the law),” Julian Ku, a constitutional law professor at Hofstra University School of Law, told Gizmodo via Twitter DM. “... RICO is different because it means that all of the various things Huawei is alleged to have done are part of a larger plan to profit off illegal activities.”
    pretty cool, but let's do some American companies next

  9. #7169
    Lachesis VII's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 20, 2011
    Location
    Egghelende
    Posts
    5,702
    It’s never RICO.

  10. #7170
    Lachesis VII's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 20, 2011
    Location
    Egghelende
    Posts
    5,702
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruri View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by August View Post
    Isn't there a large amount of truth in this: "The Golden Era is a story based on a ‘spirit of socialism’ in the 1950s or before that, which has supposedly been destroyed by a ‘neoliberal’ modern world"? OK maybe not socialism per se but certainly high taxes and high government investment that was slowly eroded away by, yes, the neoliberal modern world.
    It is absolutely true, as long as we're using the term "neoliberal" correctly. "Neoliberalism is generally associated with policies of economic liberalization, including privatization, deregulation, globalization, free trade, austerity, and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society." These things definitionally erode social programs.
    That’s really the only way anyone here uses it.

  11. #7171
    Kai's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 2, 2012
    Posts
    7,302
    Not all of those things are equal. Free trade and to a lesser extent, globalisation, don't necessarily decrease social programs. The fact that they have tended to is because of implementation and the fact that we've let corporations get away with exploiting foreign workers.

    That's largely because of regulatory capture.

    There's no reason that you can't theoretically have a free trade system that says "if you cant prove non-exploitative labour / whatever practices pay these duties". It's whats been suggested be done as part of carbon pricing and is essentially what the EU is demanding from Britain post-Brexit.

  12. #7172
    Lachesis VII's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 20, 2011
    Location
    Egghelende
    Posts
    5,702
    Sure but that wouldn’t necessarily be neoliberalism anymore.

    Hell, globalization and free trade are acceptable under full communism.

    But the whole package of neoliberal signifiers is... well, a package. Recall rags like The Economist talking about the neoliberal “miracle of Chile” under Pinochet back in the 1970s. Things haven’t changed that much.

  13. #7173
    Movember 2011 RazoR's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    The Motherland
    Posts
    31,896
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    Sure but that wouldn’t necessarily be neoliberalism anymore.

    Hell, globalization and free trade are acceptable under full communism.

    But the whole package of neoliberal signifiers is... well, a package. Recall rags like The Economist talking about the neoliberal “miracle of Chile” under Pinochet back in the 1970s. Things haven’t changed that much.
    full communism IS globalization, comrade

  14. #7174
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    20,730
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mewninn View Post
    "decline narratives"

    jfc
    it's an amazing post illustrating bart nearly perfectly, the self-righteous pseudo intellectualism, "There is no alternative" and "the left is wrong by default!" truly encompass beautifully what is wrong with mainstream liberal thinking today, or well... lack of thinking anyway.

    the implied "actually, class analysis is a conspiracy theory" is, without a doubt the capstone of the whole thing, openly pretending that 180'ish years of history simply didn't happen and the managed decline that has defined the west since the death of the soviet union doesn't exist, despite statistical evidence to the contrary.
    It also does absolutely nothing to explain the current crisis and rejection of key liberal democratic institutions like the EU.
    Last edited by Keckers; February 14 2020 at 10:02:33 AM.
    Look, the wages you withheld from the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of Hosts. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves for slaughter.

  15. #7175
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    20,730
    The 'golden era' was about the trajectory of society and a shared belief in future prosperity and progress; the narrative of a shared stake in society and a collective mentality in building social institutions and cultural inclusion. It wasn't an end state you simpleton.
    Look, the wages you withheld from the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of Hosts. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves for slaughter.

  16. #7176
    Movember '11 Best Facial Hair, Best 'Tache Movember 2011Movember 2012Donor helgur's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 24, 2011
    Location
    Putting owls in your Moss
    Posts
    9,759
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    The 1950, in both the UK and the US (or elsewhere in the western developed world) were emphatically not some sort of social democratic paradise.
    Some european countries went back to their pre war GDP in the mid '40ies and there where already solid social welfare programs back then

    You are talking out of your ass.

  17. #7177
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    20,730
    Look, the wages you withheld from the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of Hosts. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves for slaughter.

  18. #7178
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    20,730
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    Sure but that wouldn’t necessarily be neoliberalism anymore.
    Isn't that convenient?
    Isn't that just how inclusive definitions work?
    Look, the wages you withheld from the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of Hosts. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves for slaughter.

  19. #7179
    Timaios's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    1,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jonesbones View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by depili View Post
    Also by Finnish political standards your commie-Bernie would be fit to lead our right-leaning conservative party no problem...
    Can you educate me?

    What is the difference (in policy) between a Finnish Right-Wing Healthcare System (i.e. Bernie's Plan, per above) and a proper Left-Wing Finnish or European Healthcare System?

    Not asking for deep technical details, just the broad strokes.
    I would imagine (I'm not Finnish hurr hurr) is that there is a VAST difference between government being the primary health insurer and government being the actual healthcare system (doctor, nurses, etc are state/fed employees).
    Yes, I would agree that is a meaningful difference. Thank you.
    As depili did not respond, yes, this is the main difference. With the exception of (most) psychotherapy, government or the municipalities (or groups of municipalities) are the actual healthcare system and the staff are government/municipality employees in Finland. Surprising no one, getting into psychotherapy is a fucking mess, with the patient needing first an assessment, a referral, and then to apply for subsidy from the government health insurance agency to get some of the costs paid by the state. It's a horrid system in comparison to all other health care.

    (This is not to say there aren't issues - there are plenty, e.g., division of tasks between 'basic' health care in community health centers and 'specialist' health care in university hospitals and getting a referral to a specialist, the 'occupational health services' that are private organizations providing care for the employed but not for other groups etc. etc.)

    Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connaît point. - Blaise Pascal, Pensées, 277

  20. #7180
    Movember '11 Best Facial Hair, Best 'Tache Movember 2011Movember 2012Donor helgur's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 24, 2011
    Location
    Putting owls in your Moss
    Posts
    9,759
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by helgur View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    The 1950, in both the UK and the US (or elsewhere in the western developed world) were emphatically not some sort of social democratic paradise.
    Some european countries went back to their pre war GDP in the mid '40ies and there where already solid social welfare programs back then

    You are talking out of your ass.
    Dude, the war didn't finish until the mid '40ies. What are you even on about?
    I consider 1946 still the mid forties

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •