Political Roundtable Part XV

[gtn130]

Hey, DC, I'm not gonna keep going point-by-point because it will clog up this thread with stuff nobody wants to read, and I don't care to be SD20's apprentice.

I will say this, though: I did take a look at your posts from Sept 18-24, a week from when the $700B increase in military spending was announced, and you didn't make a single post on the topic unless I missed something.

It should be pretty clear to you how someone can conclude, based on your posting, that you care far more about cutting healthcare spending (entitlements!) than you do about cutting military spending.

Deficit hawk gonna deficit hawk, I guess. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[I_Like_Dirt]

Yep, it would be an unmitigated disaster. I don't know why the cost drivers aren't even being discussed. Both parties are only discussing how to rearrange the deck chairs. They seem unwilling to take on the real issue(s). Maybe they feel that the electorate wouldn't understand?

I think the real issue is the amount of social upheaval it would require. The key cost drivers that need to be tackled are insurance and drugs/supplies, although there are others. Tackling those with any degree of speed would invariably drop the earnings of many people, lose a ton of jobs, generally tank big parts of the economy. And while that probably needs to happen and those parts of the economy redirected elsewhere, the bloat there really needs to be dealt with somehow.

Talk is always about how government spending can be inefficient, and it's true. The catch though is that more efficient spending isn't actually beneficial unless the savings are used in ways that better society, and that simply isn't happening right now on many fronts, and health care is a big one. After a certain point, that money invariably starts going to kickbacks and overinflated wages for top-of-the-pyramid employees, which is absolutely what we've seen for decades now, and it's become a major problem, but they're only a problem for those who can't afford to pay. This is going to become an even bigger problem over the years, too, with automation entering the medical field, which will lead to fewer people sharing the kickbacks and bloat and even more money filtering up. It's just an awful situation.

I tend to lean a bit fiscally conservative myself, but the one part of Bernie's plan that appeals to me is that it's the only proposal I've seen thus far that at least offers a potential platform from which to attempt to tackle that fiscal bloat within the health care field. I don't like the part where it costs more than can be paid for, but honestly, that's really the situation right now anyway so the argument of scale isn't one that bugs me as much as it normally would, particularly when the costs are there.

Societally, we need to have a major discussion over whether or not we are going to triage the ability of the wealthy to pay for top end medical care at the expense of everyone else's ability to have a reasonable degree of quality medical care, or triage the ability of everyone to have the ability to have a reasonable degree of quality medical care. Sadly, right now we're moving towards the former at an alarming speed and at an unsustainable rate every bit as much as Bernie's plan. With Bernie's plan, yeah, it's fiscally unworkable at this time, but with a single payer, there is at least the potential for a party with the political will to attempt to tackle those cost drivers somehow. There really isn't right now. It almost assuredly wouldn't work, but nothing is working now anyway, so building an expensive door into that particularly problem appeals to me on a certain level, even beside the argument that it's a responsibility I really feel that society is shirking to its own detriment while instead prioritizing internal bloat, corruption and not paying taxes.

[cammac]

Yep, it would be an unmitigated disaster. I don't know why the cost drivers aren't even being discussed. Both parties are only discussing how to rearrange the deck chairs. They seem unwilling to take on the real issue(s). Maybe they feel that the electorate wouldn't understand?

I think the real issue is the amount of social upheaval it would require. The key cost drivers that need to be tackled are insurance and drugs/supplies, although there are others. Tackling those with any degree of speed would invariably drop the earnings of many people, lose a ton of jobs, generally tank big parts of the economy. And while that probably needs to happen and those parts of the economy redirected elsewhere, the bloat there really needs to be dealt with somehow.

Talk is always about how government spending can be inefficient, and it's true. The catch though is that more efficient spending isn't actually beneficial unless the savings are used in ways that better society, and that simply isn't happening right now on many fronts, and health care is a big one. After a certain point, that money invariably starts going to kickbacks and overinflated wages for top-of-the-pyramid employees, which is absolutely what we've seen for decades now, and it's become a major problem, but they're only a problem for those who can't afford to pay. This is going to become an even bigger problem over the years, too, with automation entering the medical field, which will lead to fewer people sharing the kickbacks and bloat and even more money filtering up. It's just an awful situation.

I tend to lean a bit fiscally conservative myself, but the one part of Bernie's plan that appeals to me is that it's the only proposal I've seen thus far that at least offers a potential platform from which to attempt to tackle that fiscal bloat within the health care field. I don't like the part where it costs more than can be paid for, but honestly, that's really the situation right now anyway so the argument of scale isn't one that bugs me as much as it normally would, particularly when the costs are there.

Societally, we need to have a major discussion over whether or not we are going to triage the ability of the wealthy to pay for top end medical care at the expense of everyone else's ability to have a reasonable degree of quality medical care, or triage the ability of everyone to have the ability to have a reasonable degree of quality medical care. Sadly, right now we're moving towards the former at an alarming speed and at an unsustainable rate every bit as much as Bernie's plan. With Bernie's plan, yeah, it's fiscally unworkable at this time, but with a single payer, there is at least the potential for a party with the political will to attempt to tackle those cost drivers somehow. There really isn't right now. It almost assuredly wouldn't work, but nothing is working now anyway, so building an expensive door into that particularly problem appeals to me on a certain level, even beside the argument that it's a responsibility I really feel that society is shirking to its own detriment while instead prioritizing internal bloat, corruption and not paying taxes.

Bernie Sanders reminds me of Tommy Douglas who was Premier of Saskatchewan and introduced medicare to his province. He was a dyed in the wool socialist but by most Canadians he is the most important person in our history.When he was a member of Parliament and never part of a ruling party brought our medical system into existence. Was it exactly as he wanted no but over the years it has been tweaked and become better. As a aside Donald Sutherland was his son in law and Kiefer Sutherland his grandson.

In the USA it is both a cultural battle as well as a battle against huge companies who stand to lose billions. One problem is the Nimby effect which some on the board exhibit plus a well established right wing religious establishment. They moan against abortion but the same time do not want to provide pregnant women with prenatal care and quality birth care. Well over 600,000 households go bankrupt over healthcare costs in USA every year the single largest cause of bankruptcy.

I think every part of any government has fluff and needs financial hawks looking at budgets not people with political agendas gutting important institutions.

[dckingsfan]

...Sadly, right now we're moving towards the former at an alarming speed and at an unsustainable rate every bit as much as Bernie's plan. With Bernie's plan, yeah, it's fiscally unworkable at this time, but with a single payer, there is at least the potential for a party with the political will to attempt to tackle those cost drivers somehow. There really isn't right now. It almost assuredly wouldn't work, but nothing is working now anyway, so building an expensive door into that particularly problem appeals to me on a certain level, even beside the argument that it's a responsibility I really feel that society is shirking to its own detriment while instead prioritizing internal bloat, corruption and not paying taxes.

But, wasn't this the same argument for the ACA - we will put this in place and the cost drivers will take care of themselves - but they didn't and haven't.

I would be all for single payer - but we know that the cost drivers would have to be part of the legislation. Until we deal with that we won't be able to get to a sustainable model of healthcare - even if we taxed the one percent 100% of their income.

[DCZards]

But, wasn't this the same argument for the ACA - we will put this in place and the cost drivers will take care of themselves - but they didn't and haven't.

I would be all for single payer - but we know that the cost drivers would have to be part of the legislation. Until we deal with that we won't be able to get to a sustainable model of healthcare - even if we taxed the one percent 100% of their income.

IIRC, Obamacare did slow the rate of growth in healthcare costs the first couple of years. But, as many people pointed out, including Obama, ACA is a flawed law. However, instead of fixing the law, the Republicans took vote after vote to repeal Obamacare. And since that's failed they've now chosen to sabotage it.

[dckingsfan]

But, wasn't this the same argument for the ACA - we will put this in place and the cost drivers will take care of themselves - but they didn't and haven't.

I would be all for single payer - but we know that the cost drivers would have to be part of the legislation. Until we deal with that we won't be able to get to a sustainable model of healthcare - even if we taxed the one percent 100% of their income.

IIRC, Obamacare did slow the rate of growth in healthcare costs the first couple of years. But, as many people pointed out, including Obama, ACA is a flawed law. However, instead of fixing the law, the Republicans took vote after vote to repeal Obamacare. And since that's failed they've now chosen to sabotage it.

ACA didn't really slow the rate of growth, the great recession did that. And though I blame the Rs for being obstructionist and offering nothing better - the ACA is very flawed and would be very difficult to fix. And even if they did fix it - it wouldn't keep the train from going off the cliff.

The ACA did have some solid aspects as well. Not being able to be bumped off your insurance, limiting the profit an insurer can take on a policy and being able to keep your kids on your policy longer were all solid aspects of the law.

But it didn't address the cost drivers - you could blame the Rs for that - they could have jumped in and made it bipartisan. But, I think that the Ds were equally obstructionist on that matter as well (addressing the cost drivers).

[gtn130]

But, wasn't this the same argument for the ACA - we will put this in place and the cost drivers will take care of themselves - but they didn't and haven't.

I would be all for single payer - but we know that the cost drivers would have to be part of the legislation. Until we deal with that we won't be able to get to a sustainable model of healthcare - even if we taxed the one percent 100% of their income.

IIRC, Obamacare did slow the rate of growth in healthcare costs the first couple of years. But, as many people pointed out, including Obama, ACA is a flawed law. However, instead of fixing the law, the Republicans took vote after vote to repeal Obamacare. And since that's failed they've now chosen to sabotage it.

ACA didn't really slow the rate of growth, the great recession did that. And though I blame the Rs for being obstructionist and offering nothing better - the ACA is very flawed and would be very difficult to fix. And even if they did fix it - it wouldn't keep the train from going off the cliff.

The ACA did have some solid aspects as well. Not being able to be bumped off your insurance, limiting the profit an insurer can take on a policy and being able to keep your kids on your policy longer were all solid aspects of the law.

But it didn't address the cost drivers - you could blame the Rs for that - they could have jumped in and made it bipartisan. But, I think that the Ds were equally obstructionist on that matter as well (addressing the cost drivers).

Bolded is a tell. Democrats made a ton of concessions on ACA to the point where the ACA is nearly a republican plan. It's why the Republicans can't actually repeal ACA today - they don't have any healthcare ideas aside from the hardliners' desire to totally privatize everything and massively contract the federal government. ACA is 90% a facsimile of what Republicans would come up with in an alternate universe where Obama never existed.

[Wizardspride]

IIRC, Obamacare did slow the rate of growth in healthcare costs the first couple of years. But, as many people pointed out, including Obama, ACA is a flawed law. However, instead of fixing the law, the Republicans took vote after vote to repeal Obamacare. And since that's failed they've now chosen to sabotage it.

ACA didn't really slow the rate of growth, the great recession did that. And though I blame the Rs for being obstructionist and offering nothing better - the ACA is very flawed and would be very difficult to fix. And even if they did fix it - it wouldn't keep the train from going off the cliff.

The ACA did have some solid aspects as well. Not being able to be bumped off your insurance, limiting the profit an insurer can take on a policy and being able to keep your kids on your policy longer were all solid aspects of the law.

But it didn't address the cost drivers - you could blame the Rs for that - they could have jumped in and made it bipartisan. But, I think that the Ds were equally obstructionist on that matter as well (addressing the cost drivers).

Bolded is a tell. Democrats made a ton of concessions on ACA to the point where the ACA is nearly a republican plan. It's why the Republicans can't actually repeal ACA today - they don't have any healthcare ideas aside from the hardliners' desire to totally privatize everything and massively contract the federal government. ACA is 90% a facsimile of what Republicans would come up with in an alternate universe where Obama never existed.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[dckingsfan]

... But, I think that the Ds were equally obstructionist on that matter as well (addressing the cost drivers).

Bolded is a tell. Democrats made a ton of concessions on ACA to the point where the ACA is nearly a republican plan. It's why the Republicans can't actually repeal ACA today - they don't have any healthcare ideas aside from the hardliners' desire to totally privatize everything and massively contract the federal government. ACA is 90% a facsimile of what Republicans would come up with in an alternate universe where Obama never existed.

A tell is that I am giving something away. Tell me where I am giving something away - did you feel I was supporting the Rs in my comments? Tell me where the Ds went after the cost drivers?

I personally don't care who's idea the ACA was - as structured it was very flawed - assume that you blame this on the Rs. After all, your Ds were not complicit in the bad legislation process - or you will have a very good excuse for them.

[stilldropin20]

Too much whining from gtn n wizardspride about obama. And d's vs. R's.

You both are clearly just hard line obama supporters no matter the policy.

If not name me the 5 biggest mistakes obama policy during his 2 terms.

Sent from my SM-N920T using RealGM mobile app

[Wizardspride]

Too much whining from gtn n wizardspride about obama. And d's vs. R's.

You both are clearly just hard line obama supporters no matter the policy.

If not name me the 5 biggest mistakes obama policy during his 2 terms.

Sent from my SM-N920T using RealGM mobile app

Hardline Obama supporter? No.

But I am a liberal and because of that naturally, more times then not I'm going to align myself with Obama

And I'm FINE with that.

But as for your question:

1.)The decision to go support the rebels in Libya. I don't have an issue with supporting them but if you're going to do it, go all in or not at all. Shouldn't have drawn that "Red line".

2.)Should have put more stipulations on the banks when TARP was passed.


There's others as well but I didn't list them because some of these policies required him to compromise with the other side.

Not faulting him for those.

[Wizardspride]

Fwiw,

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[cammac]

Too much whining from gtn n wizardspride about obama. And d's vs. R's.

You both are clearly just hard line obama supporters no matter the policy.

If not name me the 5 biggest mistakes obama policy during his 2 terms.

Sent from my SM-N920T using RealGM mobile app

Hardline Obama supporter? No.

But I am a liberal and because of that naturally, more times then not I'm going to align myself with Obama

And I'm FINE with that.

But as for your question:

1.)The decision to go support the rebels in Libya. I don't have an issue with supporting them but if you're going to do it, go all in or not at all. Shouldn't have drawn that "Red line".

2.)Should have put more stipulations on the banks when TARP was passed.


I'm sure there's more than that but those are the one's that really stand out to me.

SD20 I'm much more of a fiscal conservative/realist than you are and only one thing the Trump/Republican majority has proposed makes sense. That is making a nonprofit corporation for traffic control which was a direct ripoff of the Canadian system. It also didn't gain traction in the legislature. The rest has been a direct assault against the average American. No government is perfect but this but this is the worst insult of democracy in my lifetime. You base you credibility on myths that have been disproved many times. You lack any credibility other than a braggadocios manner with a superior complex likely hiding a inferiority complex that reminds me somewhat of Donald.

[DCZards]

You base you credibility on myths that have been disproved many times. You lack any credibility other than a braggadocios manner with a superior complex likely hiding a inferiority complex that reminds me somewhat of Donald.

[montestewart]

You base you credibility on myths that have been disproved many times. You lack any credibility other than a braggadocios manner with a superior complex likely hiding a inferiority complex that reminds me somewhat of Donald.

So that's where the Little Hands nickname came from.

[stilldropin20]

This is so odd to me. I'm a poor kid from the south side of chicago. parents were hard core drug dealers and "connected" to be honest. I ended up serving aboard the USS parche and USS Bates as a ships diver and ET/CT tech (now intelligence officer) so i did missions with the SEALS on the bates, then became a 2 sport NCAA div athlete when i went to college, then a doctor/oral surgeon, then successful real estate developer...and none of you think you have anything to learn from me. and in fact you all think you got the entire world figured out and I'm somehow an idiot? Imagine all that is true for a second. and then imagine that I'm 45 and my girlfriend is a 26 year old former playboy model and northwestern grad(which i mentoin just to paint you a picture of the lifestyle i live. A different ex girl friend was a ranking employee of penny pritzker so i was at the christmas party in 2008 among like 80 people in a living room. obama was there all night with the entire cabinet. All my friends are investment bankers/doctors/lawyers/developers/contractors/police officers. My step brother did 20 years marines (12 tours in the middle east)and now is a dept of homeland security ranking officer. I mean I could go on. seriously on and on.

and you guys dont think you have anything to learn from me? Shocking. you guys clearly are NOT here to learn. you are here to hear yourself talk. and frankly. most of you dont know jack shxt. sorry not sorry. I probably knew more about this world in '93 when i left the military. sad. carry on.

[gtn130]

and you guys dont think you have anything to learn from me? Shocking. you guys clearly are NOT here to learn. you are here to hear yourself talk. and frankly. most of you dont know jack shxt. sorry not sorry. I probably knew more about this world in '93 when i left the military. sad. carry on.

[gtn130]

... But, I think that the Ds were equally obstructionist on that matter as well (addressing the cost drivers).

Bolded is a tell. Democrats made a ton of concessions on ACA to the point where the ACA is nearly a republican plan. It's why the Republicans can't actually repeal ACA today - they don't have any healthcare ideas aside from the hardliners' desire to totally privatize everything and massively contract the federal government. ACA is 90% a facsimile of what Republicans would come up with in an alternate universe where Obama never existed.

A tell is that I am giving something away. Tell me where I am giving something away - did you feel I was supporting the Rs in my comments? Tell me where the Ds went after the cost drivers?

I personally don't care who's idea the ACA was - as structured it was very flawed - assume that you blame this on the Rs. After all, your Ds were not complicit in the bad legislation process - or you will have a very good excuse for them.

You're giving it away, as usual, that you're no different than every other deficit hawk - spending only matters when it's on things you don't like. 'Entitlements' make you see red, but military spending is always a-okay because of the most literal reading of Muh Constitution. Yawn

In this case it's that you think Democrats were "equally obstructionist" as Republicans or whatever when it comes to ACA. Like, that's obviously wrong.