US Politics Megathread

[vardar]

My man tommy cotton

[fightinfrenchman]

Pretty thin margin, I'm freaking out that there's a chance Biden might not win Texas

[chris1089]

Pretty thin margin, I'm freaking out that there's a chance Biden might not win Texas

If Boden is to win, which states or combination fo states does he need to win?

[fightinfrenchman]

@chris1089 Well there isn't a specific group but Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin are the big three Hillary lost that were typically blue. Arizona is a likely pick up this time though, and Florida is more likely in play.

[chris1089]

So if Biden won back those 3, but Trump won Arizona and Florida again, who would win? (All other things being equal)

[fightinfrenchman]

So if Biden won back those 3, but Trump won Arizona and Florida again, who would win? (All other things being equal)

Biden only needs those three. But if he takes Arizona then he wouldn't need Wisconsin

[gibson]

Idk what this is getting at. Maybe I’m stupid

Hes saying Tom Cotton is stupid because his arguments for Washington DC not being a state make no sense.

[gibson]

Also, Biden wont win Texas.

[fightinfrenchman]

Also, Biden wont win Texas.

Fortunately we don't need it to win

[fightinfrenchman]

I can't stand Maggie Haberman

[occamslightsaber]

Well the argument is that universal health care should be a right and not a privilege. Ergo in countries that have a health system reflecting this then it is a right and not a privilege.

I think you could somewhat negate the ethical argument that it's not a right if you could point to cheaper costs or better outcomes.

Last time I checked your average US tax payer pays approximately 3 times more than your UK tax payer towards state healthcare. In the UK this gets you the NHS, in the US I believe this funds Medicare and Medicaid and a lot of admin. The short of this is that even though you pay 3 times more a lot of people don't benefit from either program hence they have to take our private insurance which is an additional cost. This also then doesn't seem to cover everything and if you actually require treatment you have to pay for that and any further medication. The costs are extortionate and corrupt and the system has to take a lot of the blame for faciliting it.

I haven't looked at the outcome data in the last couple of years but in general the outcomes were worse than european counterparts on state health care and I doubt anything has radically changed recently.

The problem is that a considerable number of Americans have a fundamentally different understanding of the role of the government compared to other developed countries, yet some people here who have never even been to the US just ignore that and assert healthcare is/should be a right anyway based on the preconceptions they have in their countries. I agree that a lot could be improved with America's healthcare system which tends to favor the healthy and the wealthy, but too many people just compare America with other countries on the surface level and don't even try to understand why there is a strong opposition to healthcare reform in the US.

No one has called the US a third world shithole. I think you might be taking things a little too personally and getting defensive. Wouldn't be the first time.
Criticizing the US health care system is perfectly justified.

May be not those words in that exact order, but I can remember these two off the top of my head, which is why I phrased it the way I did:

You don't get how things work here

Yes, apperantly you live in a third world country with an administration worse than what the Netherlands had 70 years ago.

Nah... The Chinese government killed at least 1000 protesters with a lot of cruelty (e.g. running them over with tanks, multiple times).
While the US is a shithole country, it did not yet reach this level of shitholeness.

Before you go on about context, they made their gripes about the U.S. healthcare system rather clear in previous posts. But hey, feel free to take cheap shots about someone else getting too personal and defensive. It's a routine behavior for some people here to pat themselves on the back apparently.

[fightinfrenchman]

Some more brilliant political analysis from someone who gets paid more than you do despite not offering anything valuable

[wardyb1]

@wardyb1 Did you read the source before you posted it? I think the Canadian system is a very good example of why government run or heavily subsidised systems fail. The following quotes are from the conclusion of the Canadian section: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3633404/

Several lessons can be learned from the Canadian experience. When government provides a product “free” to consumers, inevitably demand escalates and spending increases. Products provided at zero price are treated as if they have zero resource cost. Resource allocation decisions become more inefficient over time and government is forced either to raise more revenue or curb services. A number of the provincial health plans are moving to reduce spending by dropping services from the approved list of the “medically necessary”. A second lesson from the Canadian experience is that everything has a cost. When care requires major diagnostic or surgical procedures, the “free” system must find some other mechanism to allocate scarce resources. The Canadian system delegates this authority to the government. Resource allocation is practiced, not through the price mechanism, but by setting limits on the investment in medical technology. Proponents will argue that using waiting lists as a rationing measure is reasonable and fair. Opponents find the lists unacceptable and an unwelcome encroachment on individual decision-making in the medical sector. Proponents of the single payer alternative must deal with the fact that Canadians face waiting lists for some medical services especially for high – tech specialty care. To avoid delays in treatment, many Canadians travel south to the United States for more advanced treatment. (emphasis added)

The source states the system becomes less efficient over time.

It drops services. This is similar to UK where you can't get certain procedures. For instance I probably can't get surgery on my rotator cuff (although I'm going to ask soon) since it's only affect is that I am less competitive playing cricket and over sports with overhead action.

The Canadian system does not lend itself to pioneering and development of new products.

The above are all classic features of government price controls.

Critics of the Canadian system must deal with the fact that most Canadians support their version of Medicare. The single most important defense of medical care delivery in Canada is that it works relatively well. Regardless of the problems faced by the system, critics must face the reality that the medical care system provides its residents with access to all “medically necessary hospital and physician services” at a fraction of the per capita cost of the U.S system.

They are happy with their mediocre healthcare system. They spend less on healthcare. The first quote tells us that if the Canadian system were to provide the same services as those in the US (which is by no means perfect) they would be less efficient.

I don't know why you are pretending the other source (https://www.thebalance.com/universal-he ... re-4156211)is a serious piece of work.

I posted the source, because it is a good source. It actually poses a very fair look at the entire situation. I'm not here to post biased crap that can be easily disproven. The conclusion enunciated a clear view of the entire situation and the comparison between the systems. We know that socialised systems have issues but there is no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Your point about your rotator cuff is the advantage of the additional private system. If you can't afford healthcare, then the wait for an elective surgery is perfectly justified. If you can afford to pay to do that then do so. That seems like a fair trade off. The point on RND is semi valid. Yes it doesn't lead to many new developments because as it stands the American system lifts a lot of the burden. However you would find many countries would probably work more towards that if the US system changed. That quote you provided seems to be rather apt in all honesty. It works relatively well for less. That to me is much better than "we work really well for a few, while charging them bucket loads, oh and millions of people miss out completely".

Also on that second source, I believe it was fully sourced so I'm not sure what your issue with that is.

It [socialised healthcare] is most definitely cheaper both as a percentage of GDP and per capita.

This is a huge category error. The Canadian system is not providing the same level of healthcare that the US is, so you can't compare the total % of GDP or cost per person between the two systems. It's like saying that I can run 100 metres faster than Usain Bolt can run 200 metres. It's not comparing like for like.

They don't have to be providing the exact same level to compare them. Outcomes are what matters. Infant mortality rate is way down, life expectancy way up. If we can't compare them, then you could never compare anything unless they are the exact same thing which is ridiculous. We can understand the differences in the system and see the effect they have.

You say you believe in other measures that would solve this [people being left behind], if so name them.

It’s called charity and the social safety net.

Fuck me charity. Because that has never been abused, or used corruptly. And now you are relying on the empathy of just a slim few.

If the free market in regards to healthcare and education is the solution then explain how it works.

The free market incentivizes efficient, value for money services via the profit incentive. Those that can’t offer that kind of service go broke.

You act as if the market will drive prices to 0. Because for most poor people unless prices are 0 they will not be able to afford it. So if they can't afford it, how does it get them out of poverty. Quite clearly the best healthcare would go to those that pay the most, widening the gap between rich and poor as the poor would be in and out of care much more often. Driving the cycle further. Similiarly with education. The richest get the best education and are able to get the best jobs. Poor people either get shit education resulting in them being at the bottom of the totem pole, or they get no education because they can't afford it, so they don't even get on the totem pole.

The number of unsubstantiated assumptions in your argument is ridiculous. How do I act as is the market will drive prices to 0? You are clearly assuming something that forces you to read what I said in that way.
But they can afford flat screen tvs, air conditioning and 1 or even two cars? (based on America) Surely people “can afford” basic health care coverage, it’s a question of priorities. If they really can’t, that’s where charity and the social safety net step in.
Is government run education brilliant? Fantastic if you had a good experience with it, but I didn’t. I learnt far more in 2 years of homeschooling from age 12-13 than I did from 3 years of state school aged 14-16 (even though I was older at the state school.) In total I have learnt far more outside of school than I ever did inside of it. (except maybe how to deal with idiots and slanderers.)
You make lots of assertions. You also forget that you have to want to learn to learn stuff. I went to a school that was in the bottom 1/3rd of the bottom 1/3rd of counties in a country that is very average for education (dozens from the top but top 6 or something for GDP PPP.) The kids who were failing, apart from one or two exceptions, were failing because they didn’t try, not because the teacher was awful. Kids need parents who care enough about education to instill a good work ethic in them, teach them to think critically and to prize knowledge etc.

You act as if prices will drive to 0 because at that point you had made no argument for the people that have 0 dollars to spend on healthcare. Ignoring flat screen tv's, air con could be considered life saving in certain locations. Cars are pretty much a requirement for daily life to get to and from work.
Your experience with homeschooling is great. But I know people that have just as bad experiences with home schooling that you said you did with state schools. Likewise, many poor people can't afford to homeschool because they are forced to work. State education provides everyone with the equal opportunity to get an education. That is the brilliance of it. Once you are in, you actually can pull yourself up by your bootstraps. If kids don't try then so what? They will still be learning more than if they were stuck at home doing nothing.

If your argument is that these people deserve to just cop this, then say it. Again, how many people live paycheck to paycheck, who possibly are already under the tax free threshold. So with the abolishment of income taxes they don't get anymore money. They now have to pay for healthcare and education which they can't afford as they have to put food on the table.

I’ve just shown why “this” is completely false. Have you read what I said? I’m not arguing for abolishment of income taxes. I think there are legitimate reasons for the government to tax people. As for not being able to afford to have food put on the table, when was the last time someone starved to death in UK, USA, Australia who was not able to get charitable help?

Two points. One, if taxes are theft, then why is there now a legitimate reason to tax people? It is either all theft or it isn't. Two, even if you move away from the tax is theft stance, then you are still asking for a significant lowering of income taxes. None of which saves the poorest a dollar. So they are now paying more than they had to. As for when was the last time someone starved to death, I would think it quite regular in all honesty. Homelessness is rampant in many places and many people miss out on meals, I'd think it likely sometimes someone misses out completely.

There is nothing wrong with being capitalist. Most people here are. But there is no need to praise it blindly without feeling empathy for those who it hurts the most…throwing them to the wolves and saying fend for yourself, drags us all down.

I’m glad you say that there is no need to praise capitalism blindly. I agree with you. I also think that there is no need to criticize it blindly too. Aha, the old I’m nice and you are mean argument. Nice ad hominem. I’m a bit concerned that you may be some kind of telepath; apparently you can see in my brain and tell that I don’t know the drawbacks of capitalism and that I don’t feel empathy. Thanks for informing me.

Where on earth was the ad hominem? Where did a call you anything at all? Bizarre.

Nothing wrong with a social security net and some regulation here and there.

I agree with you. At least try and pretend to argue against what I have said.

Again not sure why you fire back like this. I was stating my views, they don't have to be in opposition to yours.

When this happens you allow people to get better jobs, creating more wealth which is good for everyone.

How are jobs created? At least we seem to agree with the need for wealth to be created, rather than simply distributed.

Jobs are created because the poorest group have money to spend as a consumer or to grow their wealth. They become much more likely to join the middle class with a well paying job. This is like economics 101.

On the point of corporations are able to go bust and that public sectors can't. Do you think public sectors are going to intentionally run at a loss?

No. You aren’t addressing the point. You are asking questions that only someone with an absurd position would give a different answer to. Essentially you are fighting another straw man.

I'm just unsure on your stance. Either the public sector is going to try and run as efficiently as possible and give the best outcomes as possible like a private service, or they aren't and the public and government review will quite quickly work out what the problem is. Public services are heavily scrutinised constantly so to act like they are just going to be so much less efficient without a good trade off is interesting.

Most of them make money and if they aren't they are usually providing a service which is vital and that no one else would provide at an affordable price.

No. Would you like to substantiate this?

[/quote]
For example, in Australia there is a service called CapTel part of the National Relay Service which helps deaf people using telephone services. It is quite expensive but provides the best help possible for deaf people who need to use a phone. It was going to be sold off and shut down by the private industry because it wasn't going to make them enough money, as they would have to charge much too much for it to make them money. In the end though, it was saved due to national outcry and the government decided to keep it. This sort of service though is pretty much only viable in the government sector as it provides a vital service for a small vulnerable group.

Another example would likely be the post office. I know in Australia it is the case, and I know in the US they just had the big issue with the USPS. Nothing wrong with private services competing with them, but in isn't profitable to service many rural areas that would be completely left behind without the public post service.

[fightinfrenchman]

Make your own cringe threads to discuss things other than the 2020 US elections

[wardyb1]

Make your own cringe threads to discuss things other than the 2020 US elections

Yeah I'm done with that now anyway. I just wanted to respond, considering we were having a decent discussion then he claimed I was bring out ad hominems.

[wardyb1]

In other news, Republican senators are definitely getting worried for November. All of them I think now wearing masks in the Senate. Both Cruz and Cornyn sent a letter trying to urge more testing. Start to break from the Trump rhetoric a bit and hedge their bets I think.

[iNcog]

-- deleted post --

[deleted_user]

Just watch the Frontline piece. Dying is bad.

[fightinfrenchman]

Just watch the Frontline piece. Dying is bad.

Why haven't you considered that dying is actually good? Stop trying to censor my pro-death views

[occamslightsaber]

What are the arguments for "strong opposition to healthcare reform" ?

It's literally just that it's a for-profit lobby and people believe in that government oversight costs money. Those beliefs are wrong.

Mostly from conservatives and libertarians that the government has little to no business in healthcare and that healthcare is/should be an individual responsibility. They don't think it's fair, for example, to make someone who took good care of their physical well-being and avoided unhealthy vices throughout their whole life pay for someone else who destroyed their body with drug use and so on. Rugged individualism is still a defining characteristic of the American mindset in many ways (right to bear arms to defend oneself, "pull yourself by your bootstraps", etc...). Of course, there is a powerful lobby by people who live off or profit off from current healthcare practices like you said, but there are also many who are opposed to reforms in principle.

Note that I don't actually support these views. I grew up abroad with universal healthcare, so I am well aware of its benefits. But I think we as a society first need to forge a much broader consensus that the healthy and wealthy should willingly pay for the sick and the poor. I believe we are slowly moving in that direction already, which is why I am opposed to "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, the ends justify the means, so cough up some extra bucks right now, rich people!" type of approach to healthcare. I feel like a lot of people here are just beating a dead horse that is our healthcare system and oversimplifying the issue without addressing the obstacles and ethical issues along the way.

[fightinfrenchman]

@occamslightsaber It's not really about individualism, it's about Republicans being white people who dislike black people, and thus want black people to suffer

[fightinfrenchman]

Trump predicts a Biden win

[wardyb1]

Man doesn't even have policy goals and people will still vote for him.

[wardyb1]

Trump predicts a Biden win

To be fair he probably doesn't want to win. He didn't want to win in 2016.

[chris1089]

@wardyb1 it seems we can look at the same words and same argument and see completely different things. I'll try and respond to the couple of points where we could have a bit more constructive conversation.