Political Roundtable - Part VI

[barelyawake]

The fiscally conservative socially liberal party is the Democratic Party (unfortunately).

What is the fiscally conservative way to fix healthcare?

[montestewart]

This website snafu is Just So Democrat.

They have big ideas and their hearts are often in the right place, but the implementation is such a disaster that you end up questioning whether the whole thing was even worth it to begin with.

The Republicans are worse because of the powerful faction of hate-mongering, anti-Gay, anti-science, anti-background check to buy a bazooka, anti-woman, "Christians" who wouldn't know the first thing about Christian values.

So yeah. Both parties suck. Can we finally have moderate third party that's socially progressive and fiscally disciplined? Pretty please?

Or even a radically moderate third party.

PS: Where'd you go?

[dckingsfan]

The fiscally conservative socially liberal party is the Democratic Party (unfortunately).

What is the fiscally conservative way to fix healthcare?

I would argue that the Democrats are the socially liberal fiscally unconservative party. I would argue that the Republican party has devolved to the knucklehead party (that is probably going overboard but geez).

I would argue that a party that tries to do the most good within the boundaries of some percentage of the GDP and that wasn't beholden to the unions (pushing the agenda to raise the wages of public employees) would differ from the Democratic party. Example - don't use the more good principle but rather the best use principle. The more good principle is that there is always something more government can do. The best use principle is the notion that you have fixed resources and you prioritize programs and continually cut the least of those programs.

The fiscally conservative way (and socially liberal) is to not break healthcare in the first place is to not give it away free. Those that pay a considerable portion of their deductibles tend to use healthcare more prudently. And you aren't in the back pocket of the drug manufacturers either (cost of asthma medicine case in point). The tax code (deductions for healthcare) was a great giveaway that really didn't help the least in our society.

[Nivek]

The fiscally conservative socially liberal party is the Democratic Party (unfortunately).

What is the fiscally conservative way to fix healthcare?

Wasn't ACA basically the product of conservative think tanks with a trial run implemented by a conservative governor?

[dobrojim]

re the website

lets try to remember, it's just a freakin website. It'll get fixed
in a few days/weeks at worst a couple months. At this point in
history, it's no longer rocket science. Ironic that it was private
sector folks admittedly being supervised by gov empoyees.

reminds me of a not so old saying, To err is human, to really
foul up requires a computer.

[dckingsfan]

The fiscally conservative socially liberal party is the Democratic Party (unfortunately).

What is the fiscally conservative way to fix healthcare?

Wasn't ACA basically the product of conservative think tanks with a trial run implemented by a conservative governor?

Hey Nivek, in previous posts I have already said that fixing the healthcare system is important. The ACA attempts to do so (albeit in a circuitous fashion). I think the timing was not prudent given the economy but... so I am not a huge fan of the timing or implementation of the ACA (I was on record before this huge fiasco )

And I don't feel that the ACA fixes the underlying flaws. Nevertheless, you have to give the Democrats kudos for at least trying.

I feel that a third-party would tip the scales to reasonableness if they truly were a fiscally conservative party that tried to do the most good within the resources we have.

[barelyawake]

"Wasn't ACA basically the product of conservative think tanks with a trial run implemented by a conservative governor?"

Indeed. So, the question remains what is the conservative way to fix healthcare is if it isn't the exchanges. The non-conservative way is single payer.

The Democrats agenda currently:
Raise the minimum wage to $10.00
Immigration reform
Gun clip control
Assault weapons ban
National voter rights act that isn't race based
Infrastructure bank
Banking reform
Birth control and mental health added to health insurance
Cut military spending
Increase taxes on the top one percent
Investment in green energy and up-and-coming tech
Kill subsidies to oil companies
Patent reform
Lower corporate tax while closing loopholes
Raise the retirement age a year or two (effective in the future).

What about the above aren't "moderate" in the scope of our lifetime?

[barelyawake]

The fiscally conservative socially liberal party is the Democratic Party (unfortunately).

What is the fiscally conservative way to fix healthcare?

I would argue that the Democrats are the socially liberal fiscally unconservative party. I would argue that the Republican party has devolved to the knucklehead party (that is probably going overboard but geez).

I would argue that a party that tries to do the most good within the boundaries of some percentage of the GDP and that wasn't beholden to the unions (pushing the agenda to raise the wages of public employees) would differ from the Democratic party. Example - don't use the more good principle but rather the best use principle. The more good principle is that there is always something more government can do. The best use principle is the notion that you have fixed resources and you prioritize programs and continually cut the least of those programs.

The fiscally conservative way (and socially liberal) is to not break healthcare in the first place is to not give it away free. Those that pay a considerable portion of their deductibles tend to use healthcare more prudently. And you aren't in the back pocket of the drug manufacturers either (cost of asthma medicine case in point). The tax code (deductions for healthcare) was a great giveaway that really didn't help the least in our society.

The only way we "give healthcare away free" is by treating people at hospitals when they are unable to pay. Would you have doctors not admit gun shot victims unless they had insurance?

The main problem with our society is wealth inequality. If not for that, all of these problems would fix themselves because the problem is people can't afford healthcare (because wages across the board are too low).

[dckingsfan]

The fiscally conservative socially liberal party is the Democratic Party (unfortunately).

What is the fiscally conservative way to fix healthcare?

I would argue that the Democrats are the socially liberal fiscally unconservative party. I would argue that the Republican party has devolved to the knucklehead party (that is probably going overboard but geez).

I would argue that a party that tries to do the most good within the boundaries of some percentage of the GDP and that wasn't beholden to the unions (pushing the agenda to raise the wages of public employees) would differ from the Democratic party. Example - don't use the more good principle but rather the best use principle. The more good principle is that there is always something more government can do. The best use principle is the notion that you have fixed resources and you prioritize programs and continually cut the least of those programs.

The fiscally conservative way (and socially liberal) is to not break healthcare in the first place is to not give it away free. Those that pay a considerable portion of their deductibles tend to use healthcare more prudently. And you aren't in the back pocket of the drug manufacturers either (cost of asthma medicine case in point). The tax code (deductions for healthcare) was a great giveaway that really didn't help the least in our society.

The only way we "give healthcare away free" is by treating people at hospitals when they are unable to pay. Would you have doctors not admit gun shot victims unless they had insurance?

The main problem with our society is wealth inequality. If not for that, all of these problems would fix themselves because the problem is people can't afford healthcare (because wages across the board are too low).

Sorry, you missed the point - when we made healthcare deductible and encouraged companies to have no deductibles (union negotiations) - individual didn't need to be responsible for their heathcare spending. That isn't the entire problem, but it is a big portion of the problem.

[Nivek]

If I ever answered a pollster, I'd be in the group of folks who's opposed to ACA. Because I think a single-payer system makes way more sense. To me, ACA is needlessly complex -- it's the kind of thing you get when you try to contort a system around an ideology instead of crafting something that's logical and might actually work.

[dckingsfan]

The fiscally conservative socially liberal party is the Democratic Party (unfortunately).

What is the fiscally conservative way to fix healthcare?

I would argue that the Democrats are the socially liberal fiscally unconservative party. I would argue that the Republican party has devolved to the knucklehead party (that is probably going overboard but geez).

I would argue that a party that tries to do the most good within the boundaries of some percentage of the GDP and that wasn't beholden to the unions (pushing the agenda to raise the wages of public employees) would differ from the Democratic party. Example - don't use the more good principle but rather the best use principle. The more good principle is that there is always something more government can do. The best use principle is the notion that you have fixed resources and you prioritize programs and continually cut the least of those programs.

The fiscally conservative way (and socially liberal) is to not break healthcare in the first place is to not give it away free. Those that pay a considerable portion of their deductibles tend to use healthcare more prudently. And you aren't in the back pocket of the drug manufacturers either (cost of asthma medicine case in point). The tax code (deductions for healthcare) was a great giveaway that really didn't help the least in our society.

The only way we "give healthcare away free" is by treating people at hospitals when they are unable to pay. Would you have doctors not admit gun shot victims unless they had insurance?

The main problem with our society is wealth inequality. If not for that, all of these problems would fix themselves because the problem is people can't afford healthcare (because wages across the board are too low).

If you want to deal with wealth inequality deal with the education system. But that would mean that Democrats would have to take on the Unions - and that isn't going to happen. We need another party for that.

[dckingsfan]

The Democrats agenda currently:
Raise the minimum wage to $10.00
Increase taxes on the top one percent
Lower corporate tax while closing loopholes
What about the above aren't "moderate" in the scope of our lifetime?

Please note that Reid will only fix the tax system if it means substantial new revenue. Not revenue that would go against the debt, new revenue. We have a spending problem that the Democrats alone can't wrap their arms around (Republicans are very culpable as well). That is NOT moderate and NOT fiscally conservative.

You should be lobbying your party to change that - although I believe you might as well scream at a brick wall.

Or want to add a new party that would help move things along.

[barelyawake]

We don't have a spending problem.

We have a wealth inequality problem, leading to a lack of taxation and overuse of government services problem.
We have a retirement age is too low problem.
We have a wages are too low problem.
We have a health care prices are too high problem leading to a government spends too much on healthcare problem.

We have a military spending problem.

[Nivek]

Also the rent, barleyawake. It's too damn high.

[dckingsfan]

We don't have a spending problem.

We have a wealth inequality problem, leading to a lack of taxation and overuse of government services problem.
We have a retirement age is too low problem.
We have a wages are too low problem.
We have a health care prices are too high problem leading to a government spends too much on healthcare problem.

We have a military spending problem.

OK, the subject of this mini thread is why we need a second party.

Wealth inequality - primarily an education issue - won't be dealt with because of union influence
Retirement age is too low - add to that means testing - Pelosi is violently against both
Wages are too low, see Wealth inequality
Healthcare too high - created by tax incentives and union lobbying to reduce copay, medical device and pharmaceutical company exploitation of the patent process. ACA was a fix without fixing the problems.

I am not saying Democrats are bad - I just think another party might help them move off their built-in problems.

[barelyawake]

Also the rent, barleyawake. It's too damn high.

Absolutely.

[fishercob]

PS: Where'd you go?

Here and there. There's no way to say this without sounding like a huge dick, but I'm at peace with that: this place just isn't what it once was.

Part of it is that the basketball blogosphere has completely exploded in the past few years; I literally don't have time to read all of the interesting things that are out there right now. And while there are some really good writers here -- some very funny, some insightful, some both -- one has to wade through so much dull, poorly-written, unoriginal manure to get to most of it. And even amongst some of my favorites, it's sort of telling when I come back from a however-many-week hiatus to see people posting the same things over and over again.

I imagine I'll participate more when the season actually starts, and there's actual real basketball that counts to analyze and discuss. We shall see. I'll probably be here more if the WIzards aren't terrible, because it's unbearable when they are. I'm not entirely optimistic on that front. But I love that Bradley Beal -- that kid is special.

Cheers.

[barelyawake]

Wealth inequality is a lack of private unions and minimum wage problem.

Driving or would respond in more depth. To be continued...

[montestewart]

PS: Where'd you go?

Here and there. There's no way to say this without sounding like a huge dick, but I'm at peace with that: this place just isn't what it once was.

Part of it is that the basketball blogosphere has completely exploded in the past few years; I literally don't have time to read all of the interesting things that are out there right now. And while there are some really good writers here -- some very funny, some insightful, some both -- one has to wade through so much dull, poorly-written, unoriginal manure to get to most of it. And even amongst some of my favorites, it's sort of telling when I come back from a however-many-week hiatus to see people posting the same things over and over again.

I imagine I'll participate more when the season actually starts, and there's actual real basketball that counts to analyze and discuss. We shall see. I'll probably be here more if the WIzards aren't terrible, because it's unbearable when they are. I'm not entirely optimistic on that front. But I love that Bradley Beal -- that kid is special.

Cheers.

Understood. Your absence makes it more so. Hope it's a decent season.

[dckingsfan]

Wealth inequality is a lack of private unions and minimum wage problem.

I would say

Antiquated educational system, public unions
+
lack of private unions
+
increase in bureaucratic rules
+
And of course - the economy - we now have 90.6M unemployed
+
increase in long-term unemployment/disability benefits (lumping everything together) with poor rules governing the cut-off of those funds if the individual is partially employed