US Politics Megathread

[lejend]

What about when Obama was president? Vermont passed a socialized medicine law in 2011 but abandoned it three years later. Why?

These are rhetorical questions, obviously. The reality is that socialized medicine is plain infeasible, and Republican obstruction has nothing to do with it.

[Goodspeed]

The money is certainly there, all they would need to do is cut the military budget by like 1%. Don't be telling me the US really needs to be spending almost a trillion on "defense".

[Dolan]

Yeah, also if they just cut the military budget by an additional 1%, they could easily afford universal basic income. But they just lack the willingness to do so.

[Amsel_]

Liberals have supermajorities in the state legislatures of California and Vermont, home of Bernie Sanders. What's stopping them from passing socialized medicine there?

The difference between a state and the federal government is that one controls the printing press and the other doesn't. While the federal government is supposed to run deficits in order to increase the supply of money, states can only spend what they take in. State finances are like a household or a company, but the federal government's finances are like the pretty girl that just smiles and gets everything handed to her. The point being that states would have to tax to the equivalent of all the money spent on healthcare (a stupidly high amount), but Washington doesn't. Although, a lot of leftists don't understand this, so I don't know what their excuse is.

[n0el]

What about when Obama was president? Vermont passed a socialized medicine law in 2011 but abandoned it three years later. Why?

These are rhetorical questions, obviously. The reality is that socialized medicine is plain infeasible, and Republican obstruction has nothing to do with it.

It is feasible. It’s just more so federally like the current socialized medical plans.

[deleted_user]

What about when Obama was president? Vermont passed a socialized medicine law in 2011 but abandoned it three years later. Why?

These are rhetorical questions, obviously. The reality is that socialized medicine is plain infeasible, and Republican obstruction has nothing to do with it.

Demonestratedly feasible in all sorts of capitalist democratic republics: UK, Japan, Germany, Taiwan, Switzerland.

[lejend]

I still don't see why socialized medicine can work only on the national level. Isn't Canada's system essentially province-based, the federal government mainly just transferring funds from one province to another? Democrats have had supermajority control in several states over the past two decades. Not a single one of them has chosen to implement socialized medicine?

[bobabu]

What about when Obama was president? Vermont passed a socialized medicine law in 2011 but abandoned it three years later. Why?

These are rhetorical questions, obviously. The reality is that socialized medicine is plain infeasible, and Republican obstruction has nothing to do with it.

Demonstrated feasible in all sorts of capitalist democratic republics: UK, Japan, Germany, Taiwan, Switzerland.

I also don't get why it's either one way or the other. If you look at Switzerland, we do have universal healthcare mixed with a private system. Everybody is forced to have health care but people can choose from which insurance company they get the insurance. The insurance company can't refuse you for universal insurance. The universal insurance covers the medical costs. The private aspect is that for example if you get an upgrade to semi-private insurance that in your hospital room there will be only 2 people instead of 6.

[lejend]

I also on't get why it's either one way or the other. If you look at Switzerland, we do have universal healthcare mixed with a private system. Everybody is forced to have health care but people can choose from which insurance company they get the insurance. The insurance company can't refuse you for universal insurance. The universal insurance covers the medical costs. The private aspect is that for example if you get an upgrade to semi-private insurance that in your hospital room there will be only 2 people instead of 6.

Sounds like a plan. So how come not a single Democratic state wants to implement such a system?

[bobabu]

The most important thing is to fix the shitty process of electing the Democratic nominee. And Joe Biden wouldn't do shit about it if elected.

[bobabu]

I also don't get why it's either one way or the other. If you look at Switzerland, we do have universal healthcare mixed with a private system. Everybody is forced to have health care but people can choose from which insurance company they get insurance. The insurance company can't refuse you for universal insurance. The universal insurance covers medical costs. The private aspect is that for example if you get an upgrade to semi-private insurance that in your hospital room there will be only 2 people instead of 6.

Sounds like a plan. So how come not a single Democratic state wants to implement such a system?

Well. Tons of problems.
In the US such a system would lack the needed oversight and rules.
Most of the elections aren't policy based. But based on personality. Most of the voters wouldn't even comprehend such a system. People here are talking about policies but most of the policies from both parties candidates are simply bullshit. With Migrants, you should probably be talking about the Cobb Douglas function but no candidate is doing that. They just throw around some random numbers. So it's probably better not to look at policies but the overall direction. It should be policies but since they are all bad due to the election system that doesn't help much.
We do not select our leaders by a popular vote.

[deleted_user]

What about when Obama was president? Vermont passed a socialized medicine law in 2011 but abandoned it three years later. Why?

These are rhetorical questions, obviously. The reality is that socialized medicine is plain infeasible, and Republican obstruction has nothing to do with it.

Demonstrated feasible in all sorts of capitalist democratic republics: UK, Japan, Germany, Taiwan, Switzerland.

I also don't get why it's either one way or the other. If you look at Switzerland, we do have universal healthcare mixed with a private system. Everybody is forced to have health care but people can choose from which insurance company they get the insurance. The insurance company can't refuse you for universal insurance. The universal insurance covers the medical costs. The private aspect is that for example if you get an upgrade to semi-private insurance that in your hospital room there will be only 2 people instead of 6.

Ye, universal* would have been the more correct adjective.

[lejend]

I also don't get why it's either one way or the other. If you look at Switzerland, we do have universal healthcare mixed with a private system. Everybody is forced to have health care but people can choose from which insurance company they get insurance. The insurance company can't refuse you for universal insurance. The universal insurance covers medical costs. The private aspect is that for example if you get an upgrade to semi-private insurance that in your hospital room there will be only 2 people instead of 6.

Sounds like a plan. So how come not a single Democratic state wants to implement such a system?

Well. Tons of problems.
In the US such a system would lack the needed oversight and rules.
Most of the elections aren't policy based. But based on personality. Most of the voters wouldn't even comprehend such a system. People here are talking about policies but most of the policies from both parties candidates are simply bullshit. With Migrants, you should probably be talking about the Cobb Douglas function but no candidate is doing that. They just throw around some random numbers. So it's probably better not to look at policies but the overall direction. It should be policies but since they are all bad due to the election system that doesn't help much.
We do not select our leaders by a popular vote.

What about on the local/state level? In Vermont, home of Bernie Sanders, where a majority of residents favor socialized medicine according to the polls, the Democrats campaigned on the idea and won a supermajority of seats in the legislature, as well as the governorship. They even passed a socialized medicine bill into law, but then they abandoned the whole thing years later. Why? Isn't it important to save people from dying due to lack of health care?

[bobabu]

Show hidden quotes

I also don't get why it's either one way or the other. If you look at Switzerland, we do have universal healthcare mixed with a private system. Everybody is forced to have health care but people can choose from which insurance company they get insurance. The insurance company can't refuse you for universal insurance. The universal insurance covers medical costs. The private aspect is that for example if you get an upgrade to semi-private insurance that in your hospital room there will be only 2 people instead of 6.

Sounds like a plan. So how come not a single Democratic state wants to implement such a system?

Well. Tons of problems.
In the US such a system would lack the needed oversight and rules.
Most of the elections aren't policy based. But based on personality. Most of the voters wouldn't even comprehend such a system. People here are talking about policies but most of the policies from both parties candidates are simply bullshit. With Migrants, you should probably be talking about the Cobb Douglas function but no candidate is doing that. They just throw around some random numbers. So it's probably better not to look at policies but the overall direction. It should be policies but since they are all bad due to the election system that doesn't help much.
We do not select our leaders by a popular vote.

What about the local/state level? In Vermont, home of Bernie Sanders, where a majority of residents favor socialized medicine according to the polls, the Democrats campaigned on the idea and won a supermajority of seats in the legislature, as well as the governorship. They even passed a socialized medicine bill into law, but then they abandoned the whole thing years later. Why? Isn't it important to save people from dying due to lack of health care?

God even straight out of my head without informing myself I can give you plenty of reasons. Just think about it. A universal health care system doesn't benefit the healthy. So it makes sense to leave the state in order to get cheaper health care somewhere else if you are healthy. That's basic game theory. Also if only some insurance companies in one state do this they won't have much power over the drug companies making it impossible to bargain. You will have a system where there are too many sick people and weak insurance companies. But there are many more reasons and I am not gonna list them all.

[kami_ryu]

-- deleted post --

[Jam]

health care in the USA is a fucking joke lol

I pay so much and get shit coverage if I need to be treated

there are no better options

https://www.gofundme.com/

[Dolan]

The whole country US of A is built based on gold rush mentality.

All the systems in the USA are geared towards private hands maximising profits.

[Googol]

The whole country US of A is built based on gold rush mentality.

All the systems in the USA are geared towards private hands maximising profits.

I think i get what you mean.

[n0el]

@lejend like i said, it is not easy to integrate federal money into the program, which is absolutely necessary. Also, in Vermont, corporations that operated in multiple states had exceptions, so there goes a large funding base. Running a public option at a state level is probably possible, but makes no sense due to the scale of the issue compared to running it on a national level where such systems already exist and thrive (74% have at least a somewhat favorable opinion of Medicaid).

[Amsel_]

I still don't see why socialized medicine can work only on the national level. Isn't Canada's system essentially province-based, the federal government mainly just transferring funds from one province to another? Democrats have had supermajority control in several states over the past two decades. Not a single one of them has chosen to implement socialized medicine?

I don't know much about Canada's system, so please correct me if I'm wrong. But it seems like the federal government is the one footing the bill, according to: https://www.aimseducation.edu/blog/us-v ... fferences/

"Additionally, care is provided by plans created in each province or territory, rather than a single, unified federal health plan. The Canadian government pays into these plans, but each territory and province is responsible for taking this money to create their own system under the guidelines set forth by Canadian Health Act (CHA)."

[Dolan]

What's wrong with the merchants?

Nothin' at all. These leftists who press for universal, state-funded healthcare seem to be hellbent on making my uncle, Larry, who's making lots of geshefts in private US healthcare, poorer.
Such a hateful bunch, smh.

Pic related
[spoiler=my uncle Larry][/spoiler]

[fightinfrenchman]

@Vinyanyérë

[Dolan]

@fightinfrenchman Why are you proposing stuff that would make my uncle Larry poorer? Do you have something against him?

[Goodspeed]

Poor Larry
At least he'll get free health care

[evilcheadar]

The whole country US of A is built based on gold rush mentality.

All the systems in the USA are geared towards private hands maximising profits.

That's just some guy washing his hands man