Political Discussion

RenegadeMonster said:
The Stimulus bill is in Jeopardy once again in the senate.

Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, is planning a days long stunt to try to delay if not block it's passage.

First up, he pans on having the entire bill read on the senate floor, which would take a minimum of 10 hours. He also has not ruled out the filibuster.

The GOP has a problem, and that is that the stimulus bill is hugely popular even among their voters. So they can't oppose the checks to American directly. So Sen. Ron Johnsons game is to call out and protest everything bundle with the bill. Delaying its passage and perhaps preventing the bill in its entirety form being passed. This will delay it's passage until after expanded unemployment benefits expire which will hurt millions of Americans. Then, they plan to point the finger at Democrats for the failure to get this bill passed because of all the political games they played trying to bundle their agenda with it.
Click to expand...
Perhaps we should try electing people who aren't sociopaths at some point, jesus christ.

Going to unwatch this thread and take another break. Can't handle the constant misery deluge.
 
Chucktshoes said:
It’s always good when you have someone whom you like, or even at the very least respect, that holds such differing views to debate with. That’s something that is becoming clearer to me. If you can’t engage with the other human being, as a human being, there’s no point in even bothering. In addition, if you don’t already hold that standing in someone’s life, your opinions are worthless to that person. Save the energy for places it will be of value.

That was part of the issue with my prior engagements with folks here before and will inform my ongoing discussions in this thread. I need to recognize when the friction is about ideas, or people. There are some folks on here I just don’t like. I guarantee that some folks here just don’t like me. That’s ok. It’s on me to resist the urge to tie into it with someone whom I simply don’t like. As far as what others do, that’s not on me.
Click to expand...
I think this is ultimately why I deactivated FB. I would post something and my friends (who didn't know each other) would fight on my feed, or I would get so many horrible things about people hurting others who aren't in the same political party. It's this idea of people "coming for" other people just because they are democrat or republican. That hurt my heart that people could be so cruel and awful as to wish death on others. The reason I engage in politics is to hopefully help people, not harm them. It's sad to me when we can't even talk about the real problems because of bi-partisanship.

Chucktshoes said:
For the population as a whole, not any single group. There are too many folks with differing needs and wants. I believe that a mix of commercial and charitable entities is the best way to go.

One of the biggest net losses to the population as a whole in the US was the morphing of religiously affiliated hospitals from charitable organizations to commercial entities. It is a great failure of the Church to allow that to have happened.
Click to expand...
Have you looked into the German model of healthcare? It's something that I think could work here. There's a mix of public and private option. The biggest push back I am seeing in this arena is from private health care. There have been grumblings among progressives that an actual public option should be made available, and that option would be priced much less than the commercial plans currently available in private insurance because there wouldn't be any shareholders. It's a neat idea that could work, but this would put tremendous pressure on the big insurers to either lower prices or actually provide a service that people are willing to pay a little more for. The biggest problem in healthcare today is cost containment. This could be alleviated by more competition, but given the amount of clinics and doctors large hospital systems have and the stranglehold large private insurers have on the market, the barrier to entry is immense. We need to break apart a lot of these big institutions based on the criteria in the Sherman Act (anti-trust laws that have been on the books for quite a while) and create a better environment for competition. But we should not sacrifice people's health needs for competition's sake.
RenegadeMonster said:
It also opens the door for the healthcare system to refuse to care for certain people because it goes against their religion. This type of healthcare system would not be very friendly for the LGBTQ community, nor would they provide abortions.
Click to expand...
There are a few organizations that focus on the LGBTQ community, but there are things like the Ryan White program that support people living with HIV/AIDS that I'm not sure who would step up and take this over if there was no federal support.
 
RenegadeMonster said:
The Stimulus bill is in Jeopardy once again in the senate.

Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, is planning a days long stunt to try to delay if not block it's passage.

First up, he pans on having the entire bill read on the senate floor, which would take a minimum of 10 hours. He also has not ruled out the filibuster.

The GOP has a problem, and that is that the stimulus bill is hugely popular even among their voters. So they can't oppose the checks to American directly. So Sen. Ron Johnsons game is to call out and protest everything bundle with the bill. Delaying its passage and perhaps preventing the bill in its entirety form being passed. This will delay it's passage until after expanded unemployment benefits expire which will hurt millions of Americans. Then, they plan to point the finger at Democrats for the failure to get this bill passed because of all the political games they played trying to bundle their agenda with it.
Click to expand...
Actually, I'm sort of in favor of them reading the bill. If you are going to pass a bill that's this big, you should have to read it and you should have to attend the reading prior to it being passed. I think they should do this for every bill. I get that this delays checks, but this foot dragging is the same tactic the democrats used in November/December to delay those checks. The checks are not popular with the ruling class. Neither side wants us to have them.
 
Space Wanderer said:
Do you have any particular systems in mind, that have been shown to be less efficient and humane than they are perceived to be? I‘m not accepting “the UK” as an answer since that system was not so much revealed as (deliberately) destroyed over time.
Click to expand...

I actually think @Chucktshoes politics would be against an NHS style system given that its big government intervention and paid for through taxation and he’s very much a pared back to the bare minimum small state kinda guy.

And yes the NHS has been vandalised by successive conservative governments but the principle of universal healthcare free at the point of access absolutely still exists in the U.K.
 
nolalady said:
Actually, I'm sort of in favor of them reading the bill. If you are going to pass a bill that's this big, you should have to read it and you should have to attend the reading prior to it being passed. I think they should do this for every bill. I get that this delays checks, but this foot dragging is the same tactic the democrats used in November/December to delay those checks. The checks are not popular with the ruling class. Neither side wants us to have them.
Click to expand...
I'm find with reading the whole bill. That does not bother me. What bother's me is the days long game of delays he has planned after reading the bill.

In the article I read reading of the bill was only the first tactic of many to come from Ron Jonson.

I'm also more worried about people not getting their unemployment checks than a delayed stimulus.
 
re: Church-run hospitals

My wife still has nightmares about the hoops she had to jump through to get access to basic birth control (for cycle control, not even contraception) that was covered by her hospital's insurance. That really soured the both of us to Church-run hospitals.
 
Chucktshoes said:
I recognize that government intervention caused this issue so reject the idea that government intervention can fix it. It’s simply not in their interests to do so.
Click to expand...

I disagree that government intervention caused it; I would argue that it's private corporate interests that have caused it by interfering with government. The federal US gov didn't say "let there be a private business for us to funnel money to by acquiescing to their desires" -- the business was made without the help of the government and then it injected itself into the process, perverting it's function from a strictly medical one into a fiscal one.
 
Chucktshoes said:
Each would be varying degrees of awful.

Please don’t take this as a personal attack or insult. That idea is based upon as rose colored fantastical view of the nature and abilities of government and the people involved in it as Margret Mead’s view of the antebellum South.
Click to expand...
No offense taken!

I don't deny my views are often on the optimistic, best case scenario, side of things. However, I think that if we're not trying to attain these things, if we just give up on the concept that we can have an non-corrupt government who actually makes an effort to represent the people, then we're never going to make anything better. Just accepting that everything will always be bad stunts progress.

I don't have the sort of faith in humanity you do that people would just do what's right or even necessary without encouragement. Whether that encouragement takes the form of regulations and standards of practice, or tangible consequences for your actions.

And you're right, we all have very different opinions on how things should be done, so it's nigh impossible to have everyone represented. But we can work in majorities based on majority needs.
 
Space Wanderer said:
Do you have any particular systems in mind, that have been shown to be less efficient and humane than they are perceived to be? I‘m not accepting “the UK” as an answer since that system was not so much revealed as (deliberately) destroyed over time.
Click to expand...
Joe is correct in his assessment of my views. I am opposed to government control of most everything based on principle. Also, government attracts the worst of the worst people along with the well meaning. The terrible people are just way more competent and accumulating power and influence.

Joe Mac said:
I actually think @Chucktshoes politics would be against an NHS style system given that its big government intervention and paid for through taxation and he’s very much a pared back to the bare minimum small state kinda guy.
And yes the NHS has been vandalised by successive conservative governments but the principle of universal healthcare free at the point of access absolutely still exists in the U.K.
Click to expand...

yukbon said:
counterpoint:

View attachment 90443

And on the "less discrimination [...] than you realize" front, let's go all the way back to the old timey days of 2012.

Or this last year's unending Karen complaints about being discriminated against for not wearing masks. etc.
Click to expand...

Time to get spicy. I have no issue with folks denying service to anyone for any reason. Plus, I’d rather know who the raging bigots are so I can choose not to provide them with my business.

yukbon said:
I disagree that government intervention caused it; I would argue that it's private corporate interests that have caused it by interfering with government. The federal US gov didn't say "let there be a private business for us to funnel money to by acquiescing to their desires" -- the business was made without the help of the government and then it injected itself into the process, perverting it's function from a strictly medical one into a fiscal one.
Click to expand...
As long as government is in the business of regulating the buying and selling of things, the first things to be bought and sold will be the politicians. The only way to get rid of the corrupting influence of big money in government is to make it so government can’t hand out favors to pick winners and losers.
 
Max Sterling said:
No offense taken!

I don't deny my views are often on the optimistic, best case scenario, side of things. However, I think that if we're not trying to attain these things, if we just give up on the concept that we can have an non-corrupt government who actually makes an effort to represent the people, then we're never going to make anything better. Just accepting that everything will always be bad stunts progress.

I don't have the sort of faith in humanity you do that people would just do what's right or even necessary without encouragement. Whether that encouragement takes the form of regulations and standards of practice, or tangible consequences for your actions.

And you're right, we all have very different opinions on how things should be done, so it's nigh impossible to have everyone represented. But we can work in majorities based on majority needs.
Click to expand...
My position is that government can’t be reformed or made non-corrupt. It’s an impossibility based upon my acceptance of the fallen nature of man and the reality that all man made structures and systems will reflect that brokenness. True progress is made by good folks working within their sphere of influence and making the world around them better. Help your neighbor. Be involved in meeting their needs. That’s how things improve. Voting to empower folks to use violence to effect an outcome you like doesn’t get there.
 
Chucktshoes said:
Joe is correct in his assessment of my views. I am opposed to government control of most everything based on principle. Also, government attracts the worst of the worst people along with the well meaning. The terrible people are just way more competent and accumulating power and influence.





Time to get spicy. I have no issue with folks denying service to anyone for any reason. Plus, I’d rather know who the raging bigots are so I can choose not to provide them with my business.


As long as government is in the business of regulating the buying and selling of things, the first things to be bought and sold will be the politicians. The only way to get rid of the corrupting influence of big money in government is to make it so government can’t hand out favors to pick winners and losers.
Click to expand...
What do you think about people who have accumulated power and influence at health insurance companies?
 
Chucktshoes said:
I generally don’t think about them. They aren’t using the threat of violence to steal from me or abrogate my natural, God given rights as a human being.
Click to expand...
Should they be able to charge you 1200% of what you would pay in Canada, the UK or Germany for something like heart surgery? How is that not stealing from you?
 
RenegadeMonster said:
Should they be able to charge you 1200% of what you would pay in Canada, the UK or Germany for something like heart surgery? How is that not stealing from you?
Click to expand...
Healthcare is a service provided by the labor of others. It isn’t a right. Declaring it as such is a fundamental misunderstanding of what rights are. The providers of any service are free to charge what they wish for their services. Our current healthcare system is setup in such a way that it divorces the consumer of the care from the payer of the care. That creates vast bloat and inefficiencies that inflate the costs of the care as true market competition doesn’t exist. As far as what the costs are in other countries, I don’t live there so it isn’t my concern.
 
Chucktshoes said:
Healthcare is a service provided by the labor of others. It isn’t a right. Declaring it as such is a fundamental misunderstanding of what rights are. The providers of any service are free to charge what they wish for their services. Our current healthcare system is setup in such a way that it divorces the consumer of the care from the payer of the care. That creates vast bloat and inefficiencies that inflate the costs of the care as true market competition doesn’t exist. As far as what the costs are in other countries, I don’t live there so it isn’t my concern.
Click to expand...

Healthcare is actually a right in manny European countries. And not only are costs much lower, you would owe nothing if you had a heart attack in one of those countries while visiting and required open heart surgery to fixed a clogged artery. It doesn't matter what health insurance plan you have or if you even have health insurance.
 
Chucktshoes said:
Healthcare is a service provided by the labor of others. It isn’t a right. Declaring it as such is a fundamental misunderstanding of what rights are. The providers of any service are free to charge what they wish for their services. Our current healthcare system is setup in such a way that it divorces the consumer of the care from the payer of the care. That creates vast bloat and inefficiencies that inflate the costs of the care as true market competition doesn’t exist. As far as what the costs are in other countries, I don’t live there so it isn’t my concern.
Click to expand...
It should be a right. Why should someone who is poor have less access to health care than someone who is affluent?
 
RenegadeMonster said:
Healthcare is actually a right in manny European countries. And not only are costs much lower, you would owe nothing if you had a heart attack in one of those countries while visiting and required open heart surgery to fixed a clogged artery. It doesn't matter what health insurance plan you have or if you even have health insurance.
Click to expand...
I understand how the world works in other places. I’m not an ignorant buffoon here. I just reject your worldview as wrong and I maintain that your definition of certain words is incorrect.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top