US Political Discussion: Trump Administration Edition (Rules in OP)

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by mongey, Mar 2, 2016.

  1. MaxOfMetal

    MaxOfMetal Likes trem wankery. Super Moderator

    Messages:
    33,738
    Likes Received:
    17,960
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2008
    Location:
    Racine, WI
    https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/full/10.1377/hlthaff.9.2.185

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cb...-system-ranks-lowest-in-international-survey/

    https://www.businessinsider.com/the...olding-of-health-insurance-by-all-citizens-17

    Read. Don't just skim.

    The data for Japan only is from 2012. The rest is from 2017.

    https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/socia.../oecd-health-data-health-status_data-00540-en

    Our system is horribly inefficient and wasteful, which is why it's so expensive.

    We need to remove for-profit insurance and hospitals from the system.

    Doctors should be making decisions regarding treatment, not insurance companies.
     
  2. StevenC

    StevenC SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    3,685
    Likes Received:
    2,405
    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Location:
    Northern Ireland
    8 weeks ago I got an operation that would cost $150,000 on average in the USA. There was a complication that meant I had to spend an extra 2 weeks in hospital and go through the the same operation again. Plus 2 MRIs and maybe 10 x-rays, plus all the medication I've been taking still, I'd say that'd easily be a $350,000+ bill anywhere in the USA. I've had physiotherapy every week and probably 10 GP appointments.

    I paid nothing.

    The answer is collective bargaining and non profit healthcare.

    Literally everything the NHS buys costs less than it does in the USA, because the NHS wants the best price and in the USA cost effectiveness isn't important to either insurers or hospital administrators. The hospital isn't paying for it and if the insurer thinks it's too expensive they'll make you pay for it.

    For profit healthcare is such a ridiculous concept for anyone who believes in a person's right to life.

    You know universal healthcare doesn't make private healthcare illegal, right? It just makes it cheaper.
     
    synrgy, vilk, thraxil and 4 others like this.
  3. Adieu

    Adieu SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    875
    Likes Received:
    583
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2010
    Location:
    Moscow

    So?

    Maybe he's *actually* a Muslim and a Communist... how's that a problem? That's still all perfectly legal last I checked????
     
  4. MetalHex

    MetalHex SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    477
    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2019
    ...and also not the government. I agree with this last part of your post 100%
     
  5. StevenC

    StevenC SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    3,685
    Likes Received:
    2,405
    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Location:
    Northern Ireland
    Source on governments making decisions regarding treatment in socialised health systems. Unless you're saying you're against regulators for healthcare.
     
  6. MaxOfMetal

    MaxOfMetal Likes trem wankery. Super Moderator

    Messages:
    33,738
    Likes Received:
    17,960
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2008
    Location:
    Racine, WI
    The government allocates funds in order to make healthcare affordable for everyone. Additionally they negotiate prices with providers to reduce the cost that we pay via taxation.

    I hate to break it to you, but in our current system your medical decisions are being made by bean counters who are promoted and encouraged to deny both care and coverage...unless you're very wealthy and pay cash for all medical expenses. Then our system is great.
     
    JSanta, narad and StevenC like this.
  7. Ralyks

    Ralyks The One Who Knocks Contributor

    Messages:
    4,256
    Likes Received:
    981
    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2011
    Location:
    Dutchess County, NY
  8. MetalHex

    MetalHex SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    477
    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2019
    Obviously it's not working. They shouldn't make laws that require people to have health insurance, and then fine the people who don't. I thought Trump was supposed to get rid of that. I hope he does if not already.

    "Doctors should be making decisions regarding treatment, not insurance companies."
    Doctors that are backed by and pushing pills for big pharma? You have to be more specific on the context of "doctors" because I get the impression that the large majority of them are bought and paid for by big pharma. (Unless you go full holistic)


    You're not breaking anything to me as I know this. My last doctor typed in all my symptons into an Ipad that had an algorithm that put all those answers together and told him what he should prescribe to me....at least it sure seemed that thats exactly how it went down. I no longer see that doctor.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2019
  9. MaxOfMetal

    MaxOfMetal Likes trem wankery. Super Moderator

    Messages:
    33,738
    Likes Received:
    17,960
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2008
    Location:
    Racine, WI
    I'm talking about the socialized healthcare you're afraid of.

    While not perfect it's significantly better than what we have here.

    Agreed. It's terribly inefficient and props up for-profit insurers.

    We need to social this, just like the military, police, firefighters, etc.

    We already pay a "fine" via providers passing on the costs of those who don't pay into everyone else.

    We de-facto socialize the risk without socializing the reward.

    :rofl:

    Socializing medicine removes that risk.

    The for-profit and privatization of healthcare is what has allowed rampant incentivized prescribing.

    See how the opioid epidemic is uniquely American.

    Eh. From the sounds of it, you don't really know what socialized medicine entails, the mechanics of how it works and the effects it will (again, not speculation, this is how it works in every developed country) have on what you don't like about the current system.

    Perhaps read articles outside of fear mongering hit pieces from anarchy espousing libertarian blogs.
     
  10. StevenC

    StevenC SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    3,685
    Likes Received:
    2,405
    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Location:
    Northern Ireland
    The NHS doesn't have this issue because it's really hard for "big pharma" to price gouge those with the power to call that a crime.
     
    wannabguitarist likes this.
  11. Ordacleaphobia

    Ordacleaphobia Shameless Contrarian

    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    1,518
    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2013
    Location:
    Chico, CA
    I've seen this a lot, and I've always wondered: If I am genuinely opposed to 'globalization' in general, how should I express that without unknowingly proclaiming that I'm apparently not a fan of the Jews?

    I hate this whole 'dog whistle' thing that's been going on the last couple years. Words have definitions, can we please just use them? If you really think that someone is dirty and using politically correct language to hide it, there's going to be another, provable connection somewhere.

    Damn dude I hope you're doing alright. That sounds like an awful time.
     
    StevenC likes this.
  12. MaxOfMetal

    MaxOfMetal Likes trem wankery. Super Moderator

    Messages:
    33,738
    Likes Received:
    17,960
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2008
    Location:
    Racine, WI
    Early use of the term "globalist" can be traced back to groups like the KKK and Nazi/neo-Nazi groups just before and after WWII. Henry Ford, a thoroughly documented anti-semite, used the term frequently when referring to folks he viewed negatively, especially Jews.

    It's use in political sciences came later.

    There's a difference between "I am for/against globalization" and "globalists run the world".

    Context is key.
     
    thraxil, JoshuaVonFlash and StevenC like this.
  13. Ordacleaphobia

    Ordacleaphobia Shameless Contrarian

    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    1,518
    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2013
    Location:
    Chico, CA
    I really don't think that matters though.
    If I say "I don't think globalization of the widget industry is a net benefit, and will serve as a fast-track to lower quality standards and an exploited workforce with negligible benefits," I think a normal person would understand what I'm saying without conflating me with a guy harping about "the jews!!" all day.

    I'll give you context; for sure. Can't say I've seen a context that points directly to antisemitism, but I'm sure it's out there and I'm sure I'll know it when I see it, and yeah, that's fair.
    But the whole "well this word really means X" exercise is just a waste of everyone's time and energy, imo. Like if someone is a white nationalist, I think you're going to know they're a white nationalist without them saying the word 'globalists.'

    --
    An edit in response to an edit :lol:
    Is the phrase "Globalists rule the world" inherently antisemitic though? I would argue that that statement is true; globalists do the world, as evidenced by the trend toward globalization across seemingly all first-world countries. If world leaders weren't globalists, why would they guide their people toward it?

    And even if the word is being used with disdain, I don't see how it's different from when the words 'democrat' or 'republican' are used disdainfully. If I dislike and look down on republicans as a whole, and I mutter about "those damn republicans," because I dislike right-wing politics, how is that strictly different from when I mutter "those damn globalists," because I dislike globalism? Unless there's some kind of explicit implication at play (which, yeah; context), I don't see how it's any different.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2019
  14. Explorer

    Explorer He seldomly knows...

    Messages:
    6,620
    Likes Received:
    1,148
    Joined:
    May 23, 2009
    Location:
    Formerly from Cucaramacatacatirimilcote...
    First on CNN: Justice Department willing to hand over counterintelligence if Schiff backs off 'enforcement action'

    Remember when Attorney General Barr refused to honor a legal subpoena to appear before the House Judiciary Committee? Basically, the DoJ is claiming they're processing the first batch of documents subpoenaed by the Judiciary Committee, but will stop doing so and will illegally defy the documents subpoena unless the Judiciary Committee stops enforcing the contempt action against Barr.

    These guys are idiots, including Barr for ordering the illegal refusal of the documents subpoena. Barr can't expect the Democrats to forget that Barr is the head of the DoJ and that he is the one who ordered the denial of documents. It's clear that Democrats have the superpower of memory, which has become apparent even in this topic when conservatives try to overcome or bury easily remembered facts and occurrences.

    Oh... and tomorrow marks the meeting wherein House Democrats will set their internal timetable for pursuit of building the impeachment case against Donald Trump. That will increase the scope of their investigative powers.
     
  15. MaxOfMetal

    MaxOfMetal Likes trem wankery. Super Moderator

    Messages:
    33,738
    Likes Received:
    17,960
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2008
    Location:
    Racine, WI
    I'm not passing judgment either way.

    Just giving you some context of the specific word we're talking about.

    It wasn't a perfectly harmless term that was later co-opted, it actually started out as a slur.
     
    Ordacleaphobia likes this.
  16. Ordacleaphobia

    Ordacleaphobia Shameless Contrarian

    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    1,518
    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2013
    Location:
    Chico, CA
    I know; I appreciate it.
    I'm more referring to what I'm seeing in the current political climate in general. Use of the phrase "it's a dog-whistle," to re-characterize language just seems to be growing increasingly common and I dislike it. This specific case makes a good example I think because the definition of the word can be clearly inferred by the word itself. Any other meaning assigned to the phrase kind of has to be endowed by the person hearing/reading it.
     
  17. MaxOfMetal

    MaxOfMetal Likes trem wankery. Super Moderator

    Messages:
    33,738
    Likes Received:
    17,960
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2008
    Location:
    Racine, WI
    It's nothing new. I just think it's being called out more and folks aren't used to it.

    Language and word choice is important. While I'm sure most see no malevolence in using certain words there are those out there who do and will use that to justify their often toxic world views.
     
  18. StevenC

    StevenC SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    3,685
    Likes Received:
    2,405
    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Location:
    Northern Ireland
    Thanks, everything is coming along and I'm long over the worst of it. Not being allowed out of bed for 2 weeks isn't fun. Pro tip: have a healthy spine.

    I think the point is that the words "globalisation", "globalism" and "globalist" don't have the same meaning. Globalisation is the trend of interconnections forming and processes diversifying geographically. Globalism is a feature of a modern technological society, where you and I are able to communicate easily, along with the notion that being born in a different place doesn't make us inherently better or worse/different. A globalist isn't the word for someone who is pro-globalisation or subscribes to globalism. For example, you might imagine someone who believes in a free and open market to be for globalisation, but then you have current Republicans espousing the virtues of that open market while also blaming things on "the globalists".

    Because "globalist" isn't something anyone identifies as.

    Now, honestly Drew probably jumped the gun with his comment. MetalHex said globalism, seemingly innocently disagreeing with the notion of open borders and helping one's fellow man. Calling it a globalist plot would have been a different issue.
     
  19. MetalHex

    MetalHex SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    477
    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2019
    Your comparing the U.S. to countries that have on average the same population as Connecticut and fewer population than Texas, alone. I dont know how it would work to apply this method to our entire country...

    As far as quality of life and life expectancy, that is entirely subjective. A kid could sit in front of the tv and play video games and subsequently live until hes 100 and say he has had the happiest life he could have ever imagined, so let's not go down that road. I just buried my grandfather last week who passed at 97 years old. My grandmother, 96, is still alive and well. Theres too many factors when talking about these two things that cannot accurately be measured.

    The opioid epidemic is uniquely American? Ever been to Vancouver? Aside, not for nothing, but it seems that the states with the worst opioid related problems are blue states, with the unusually, strange exception being California.https://www.drugabuse.gov/drugs-abuse/opioids/opioid-summaries-by-state
    That being said, with drug smuggling in this country at unknown amounts, its just one more reason for tighter border security and vetting processes and not have open borders as some person said a page ago..

    Police, fireman, are all funded with state tax.

    I dont know if Canadas healthcare system is better. I hear people have to wait months just to see a specialist, and i wonder how many Canadians say fuck I'm going to America to see a doctor.
     
  20. narad

    narad Progressive metal and politics

    Messages:
    8,392
    Likes Received:
    8,314
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Location:
    Tokyo
    Then let's pretend our country is 50 independent countries, each with free healthcare. BAM. Problem solved.
     
    synrgy, Thaeon and StevenC like this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.