General US Politics Discussion

[El Dildo]

Socialist programs like Medicare and Social Security?Yeahh, they're going away within your lifetime. Public schools, welfare, SNAP, DARS, and the rest of the entitlements/taxpayer funded handouts need to disappear too

short sighted and closed minded as always...

you and I wouldn't be communicating right now if not for all the socialized research, technology, and infrastructure that allows for and supports the global economy, not to mention the internet itself.

 

medicare will become universal healthcare within my lifetime.

social security doesn't have to go insolvent either. it's simply a matter of our financial priorities which are extremely out of balance right now thanks to [more than anything] the rampant greed of unregulated capitalism.

 

taxpayer programs pay for almost everything that you've taken for granted in your privileged existence as a US citizen. but you're so arrogant about your own place in life that you'd rather pull the ladder up behind you after climbing it so that nobody else can benefit. you really are an idiot.

[Chiarii]

Lol, universal healthcare in the USA in your life time? Never gonna happen.

 

The cost of treatment is rising, life spans are rising, and the elderly population is increasing, yet, you think we're going to suddenly do a 180 and dole out free healthcare? Moron.

 

I don't benefit from any tax payer entitlements. Medicare underpays throughout every PGY to the point of insult. It can unravel.

 

Sink or swim.

Edited September 18, 2017 by Chiari

[Spaghetti Cat]

Hate to say it but Diablo may be correct. Now, will Medicare be solvent for his lifetime? We just passed 20t in debt and medicare as it is is going broke. So I'd say no. Hope you get that new liver soon buddy!

 

 

@ saggy: answered your previous post but gone over my quote limit. Once I get it all straightened out I'll post.

[sivispacem]

Were nazis proponets of capitalism? Genuine curiosity here.

Nazi Germany was strongly corporatist. It went further than simple capitalism, divesting direct political power to corporations and the military-industrial complex. Fascism has traditionally portrayed itself as a "third way" between capitalism and socialism, but in reality fascist governments simply adopted one an economic policy based on one or the other. Italian Fascism favoured collective management and state ownership, Nazi Germany privatisation of state industry and the blurring of lines between industrialists and policy makers.

[Creed Bratton]

Lol, universal healthcare in the USA in your life time? Never gonna happen.

You're gonna eat these words sometime in the next 10 years. It doesn't take a genius to see which way the wing is blowing. What the f*ck is your excuse?

 

Perhaps it will happen sooner than even I think, if the people grow a few brain cells and realize that Republicans are a psychopathic organization hellbent on killing hundreds of thousands for profit: https://thinkprogress.org/trumpcares-back-and-now-it-will-let-insurers-jack-up-premiums-as-soon-as-you-get-sick-38fff5001bf9/

Edited September 18, 2017 by The Yokel

[Spaghetti Cat]

Nazi Germany privatisation of state industry and the blurring of lines between industrialists and policy makers.

 

 

I don't disagree with that, but here is the 25 points of the Nazi Party, minus all the jooo hatred.

 

 

 

 

10. The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. No individual shall do any work that offends against the interest of the community to the benefit of all.

Therefore we demand:

11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.

12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

13. We demand the nationalization of all trusts.

14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries.

15. We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.

17. We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

18. We demand that ruthless war be waged against those who work to the injury of the common welfare. Traitors, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished with death, regardless of creed or race.

19. We demand that Roman law, which serves a materialist ordering of the world, be replaced by German common law.

20. In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State.

21. The State has the duty to help raise the standard of national health by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor, by increasing physical fitness through the introduction of compulsory games and gymnastics, and by the greatest possible encouragement of associations concerned with the physical education of the young.

22. We demand the abolition of the regular army and the creation of a national (folk) army.

23. We demand that there be a legal campaign against those who propagate deliberate political lies and disseminate them through the press. In order to make possible the creation of a German press, we demand:

(a) All editors and their assistants on newspapers published in the German language shall be German citizens.

(b) Non-German newspapers shall only be published with the express permission of the State. They must not be published in the German language.

© All financial interests in or in any way affecting German newspapers shall be forbidden to non-Germans by law, and we demand that the punishment for transgressing this law be the immediate suppression of the newspaper and the expulsion of the non-Germans from the Reich.

Newspapers transgressing against the common welfare shall be suppressed. We demand legal action against those tendencies in art and literature that have a disruptive influence upon the life of our folk, and that any organizations that offend against the foregoing demands shall be dissolved.

24. We demand freedom for all religious faiths in the state, insofar as they do not endanger its existence or offend the moral and ethical sense of the Germanic race.

The party as such represents the point of view of a positive Christianity without binding itself to any one particular confession. It fights against the Jewish materialist spirit within and without, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our folk can only come about from within on the pinciple:

COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD

25. In order to carry out this program we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the State, the unconditional authority by the political central parliament of the whole State and all its organizations.

The formation of professional committees and of committees representing the several estates of the realm, to ensure that the laws promulgated by the central authority shall be carried out by the federal states.

The leaders of the party undertake to promote the execution of the foregoing points at all costs, if necessary at the sacrifice of their own lives.

 

 

 

 

That's more on the socialism side I'd argue. Which was what my point was earlier. Those values don't represent individual liberty, it demands state control. Those are two very different ideologies.

 

Saggy, here you go, but I need to break it up. hopefully nobody minds the double post.

 

 

 

 

Remember when I said I wasn't going to do a whole quote-style thing? Well I'm going to have to, don't like it either, but Here We Go!

 

 

 

 

 

 

In your first paragraph you start off with a false conclusions of what I've said, so should I really comment on the rest of it? I don't know who is making this "argument" that you've framed as "anyone with an opposing view is Category A" but it's not by me so I'm not sure how you've misinterpreted and misconstrued that in order to respond.

 

 

Ok don't want to do that, words in mouths and such. Grant me this one thing: for the longest time it's only been one group thats constantly labeled as sexist/racist/homophobe/etc. It's always used as a putdown when someone like myself tries to even make a sensible argument. If I'm putting you in that camp, accept my apologies. It is a lazy argument, but I'm not trying to suggest that you are lazy. I was trying to clarify things AND keep my good name, hope that's understandable. Onward!

 

 

 

 

 

 

But, the rest of your post, first of all the whole "Democrats in the KKK" thing... How many times does someone have to point out the history of the Democratic party to?

 

 

 

See, told ya get a bunch of sh*t each time. I don't need it pointed out, it's historical fact. Here's a helpful video to help others understand my reasoning:

 

 

 

Ok continue please...

 

 

 

 

It's very simple, pre Civil Rights era, the "Dixiecrats" were majorly Democratic leaders in the South who jumped ship to the Republican party at the beginning of the Civil Rights era. So all of those people who you're pointing to in that photo going, "See they're Democrats, they're KKK members," ditched the party in favor for the Republican party in the 50s and 60s.

 

 

 

Oh I see, it's so simple now. The Democrats became the Republicans and the Republicans became the Democrats, but they both kept the same name as the party they were opposed to earlier. Makes total sense. I imagine a scene like this taking place some thanksgiving evening in Tennessee:

 

(Noted Racist) Al Gore Sr. - Little Al, i have something to tell you.

 

(Noted Idiot) Al Gore Jr. - What is it papa?

 

Sr - Son, I've decided to leave the Democrat Party and become a Republican.

 

Jr - But why? You've been a Democrat all your life!

 

Sr - There comes a point in everyones life where they must convert their entire focus into promoting a political party they have been at odds with their entire life.

 

Jr - But that makes no sense. Literally no sense at all. Am I too stupid to get it papa?

 

Sr - Yes little Al you most certainly are.

 

Jr - But papa does that mean that I need to switch parties as well and become a Republican just like you?

 

Sr - No, no, stay a Democrat. In-fact never tell anyone I am a secret Republican. Someday there will be someone who makes an claim about this on the internet. we need to have our stories straight.

 

Jr - What's an internet?

 

Sr - Something you'll invent later on in life. My stupid stupid son.

 

Fin

 

 

I guess my point is that political parties come and go. There are parties like the United Party in South Africa that supported apartheid. They no longer exist as a political party. The Democrat Party, supporter of slavery etc, still exists. There's a clear line from back then and now. It's like the crook who gets caught and says 'no not me, the other guy!' That doesn't hold water.

 

 

 

 

 

Point two, again, you're operating on your faulty premise so I'm not going to respond.

 

 

 

 

 

This will come up shortly...

 

 

 

 

 

 

Point C, Timothy McVeigh... You really need to re-read my post as you've misunderstood something along the line. The point of Timothy McVeigh is to challenge you to find one left-wing radical who has caused as much damage, and whose ideas and ideologies could even possibly lead to the same kind of event. If you don't know much about Timothy McVeigh, then go do some quick research and compare his ideologies with what a lot of these "white nationalists" are preaching.

 

 

 

Ohh that pesky point two. So you've totally skimmed over the point about white nationalists, nazis, etc. Help you out here, denounce denounce denounce. Same with McVeigh. I'm already against them on ideological grounds. Hope that helps.

 

So I'm to find a left wing group that killed the same or more than McVeigh did before you can denounce antifa? Did I get that right or no? If so it seems like an arbitrary number tbh. If antifa killed 167 people it's ok? 168 and it might be problematic? 169 and that's a bridge too far? Seems like one life would be too many. I hope I got it wrong because it sure sounds cold blooded.

 

Since you've asked, how about pretty much all of the assassinations or attempted assassinations on Presidents or Presidential candidates? I'd argue that had as much or more of an impact than the bombing in Ok City. It still seems, if you will allow, kinda lazy to me. Should be simple, I believe in X, Y, and Z. We don't need antifa or any other thugs to present our ideas. They should be able to stand on their own without resorting to violence all the time, right?

 

I don't know, moving on...

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think what you're failing to grasp here is the casual relationship that exists between Conservatism and these radical hate groups, and inferring that I'm suggesting there's some kind of intrinsic relationship instead.

 

 

 

When people use the racist card, they have no confidence in their argument. It's a crutch that's been used for far too long. Don't take it personally, but I'm calling out this kind of bullsh*t. Conservatism doesn't support white supremacy.

 

Please continue...

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's kind of funny as I already acknowledged that Conservatives are angry about being found guilty-by-association, which you somehow twisted into me concerting the two were intrinsically related, so I don't think reiterating that is going to help. Maybe if I instead make my point as a question: If you took a picture of a modern day crowd of KKK members, how many do you think would identify as conservative?

 

 

That's my bad, I did. Appreciate it.

 

To the question at hand. People get the idea that half of America has cancelled their gym memberships and bowling leagues and are now joining the Klan en mass. Truth is, I wouldn't know where to find a KKK meeting even if I wanted to. So I couldn't give you an answer.

 

If you're asking me how many creeps I'd accept...ZERO. That's how many.

 

Next.

(Post)

 

 

 

 

VV

Edited September 18, 2017 by Spaghetti Cat

[Spaghetti Cat]

(Part II)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, and try to hammer into your head that Democrats of 1942 are basically the Republicans of now. You've consistently overlooked this when trying to paint the former Democratic party as racist. I'm not even sure what point you think it proves...

 

 

Before it was the 50's and 60's, but ok. The Republicans wanted to segregate the Army and throw thousands of American citizens in prison camps with no due process, got it! Just like the great Republican President FDR.

 

 

 

Okay, so the KKK was the political radical group of the Democrats in 1942. Are you trying to tell me that the KKK isn't the predominant radical group of the Republicans today? Maybe you missed David Duke's endorsement of the Republican party.

 

 

 

 

Yes. Let me expand upon that a bit: Yyyyyyyyyyyyeeeeeeeeeeeessssssss!!!

 

David Duke, this is so sad. I don't think duke would be anywhere without the media trotting him out every couple of years. Even though he ran as a Republican in 2016 Senate Primary, duke received like .5% of the vote. Even if people wanted his endorsement, which was rejected unanimously, what's he bringing to the table?

 

If it makes you feel better, I reject David Duke and any endorsement he may give. Happy? Moving on...

 

 

 

Now, I'm sorry that the reality of the situation is that the Conservative party is synonymous with hatred and bigotry.

 

Except it isn't. You keep bringing it up, but that doesn't make it so. I'm trying to explain why that impression is wrong. Wanna hear me out or no?

 

 

You can throw in all that free market and liberty sh*t all you want,

 

 

It's not sh*t, it's fundamental freedoms given to us by our creator. Preserving those values are what I am all about. Those same fundamental freedoms also totally contradict all the groups you've associated with conservatism. This isn't a throw-away line, it is my value system. I will fight and defend those freedoms enshrined in our constitution.

 

 

...except that time and time again this country has seen Conservative ideals and rhetoric backing the politics of hate. Take a picture of some modern klansmen, and take a random sampling with how many identify as conservatives, and there's your problem clear as day

 

 

Now it's the politics of hate, keeps switching. Im sure you'd like to give an example of this...no? Ok.

 

So a random sampling of Klansman I'd have a hard time finding, how many of those are conservative? None.

 

Quick story, was involved briefly with a tea party group back in '09. There was only one instance where a newcomer came in with those types of beliefs. He was roundly rejected. Will someone call themselves a conservative, sure. Will they be accepted? Nope.

 

Random sampling of antifa, how many are Communists? Just curious.

 

 

 

 

...maybe if you spent less time in denial and trying to cast Democrats in the same light ( while failing to understand why it makes no sense historically ) ((but it does)) you could actually spend more time distancing yourself from these people and making the Conservative party something that people don't associate with this negativity.

 

 

I've already accidentally insulted another poster (sorry chucky was frustrated that day no hard feelings) questioning their ability to read, so pardon me, but what the hell do you think I've been commenting on here? Seriously, I just went through the groups and individual you listed. What would it take, a skywriter? A big billboard? Flashing sign?

 

 

 

You also didn't ask me what I thought should be done about antifa. You just asked if I thought I was wrong for "siding with them" or if I was worried about appearing to be on their side. Again, on that premise, go re-read my post. I'm not at all concerned that any antifa member is going to turn into a Timothy McVeigh because they're breaking windows and pepper-spraying people. On the other hand, there's a lot of incidents recently that suggest the radical right is closer to going full-Timothy than the radical left is.

 

 

 

Ok, pardon me, What do you think should be done about antifa? I've argued cutting off funding as best as possible and stricter police presence whenever this group shows up. What would you suggest?

 

As I re-read the post, it says that you don't think that any sort of condemnation would do any good. Why not? At the end of your post you link to an article about a guy who was doxxed for being at the Charlottesville rally. If that's legitimate, why not the groups on the far-left like antifa? Why is one cause worthy and the other not? I'll be happy to condemn both groups, care to do the same?

 

Again the McVeigh reference. Does violently disrupting rallies and speeches compare to the bombing in Ok City? No. Should it reach that point? Hell no! Don't go down that road. That's my problem with all of this. Let's say for a second that I am 100% the bad guy here. Does the use of violence help or hurt your cause? I'd argue it hurts. Cozying up to these violent groups doesn't make you the good guy. Quite the opposite.

 

 

 

 

Now if you want to talk about what should be done about antifa? Better crowd control is needed

 

 

Agreed agreed agreed. The only "group" I've advocated for here this past week has been the police. They did a fine job in Portland/Vancouver. A fine job (finally) in Berkley during the Ben Shapiro speech there. Compare that to the previous speech given by Milo.

 

 

 

Instead, if city organizers refused to issue permits to demonstrate in areas they can anticipate these kinds of problems it would be that much safer for everyone. Antifa can't break that many windows if you seclude the event to a park or warehouse district. Sequester it away from large traffic thoroughfares to avoid vehicular assaults ( including drive-by masing ).

 

(E: think I may have mis read you. the demonstrators should be secluded but not the event/speaker? not sure if protesters had permits. IDK would have to look it up. Continued below, correct me if I'm wrong here plz...)

 

Now that would be government limits on Free Speech.

 

Let's take Ben Shapiro for example, people like that have gone out, done the right thing, got all the paperwork and had everything in order to give a speech. Along comes groups like antifa, yes and others, to protest that event. Who's gone through the trouble to do everything right here? And who's gone out and done everything to break sh*t and tear things up? Agree or disagree with the event or speaker or whatever, what groups like antifa do are in the wrong.

 

Why not, where's my don knoxx here...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

nip it in the bud BEFORE it turns into something like a McVeigh? This should be like Politics 101.

 

 

 

 

The approach you favor is more problematic in my mind. You support the DoJ labeling them as a terrorist organization, meanwhile haven't even offered an explanation of how you're supposed to distinguish between antifa members and people just wearing black hoods and masks. Should it just be a crime to wear black hoods and masks and a protest, that seems awfully prohibitive, why should people not be allowed to protect their identity if they're espousing politics which are controversial and could then spill over and effect their personal lives?

 

 

 

 

 

Ah problematic, I've done it again...

 

Now I'm pretty sure there were some mighty fine Democrats under those white hoods marching through the streets of NYC. Good gentleman and pillars of their communities back then. Why should we sully their good names now?

 

If you are marching through the streets with a mask over your face, dressed like a bunch of other troublemakers looking for a mark, chances are you're probably not the good guys. Am I right?

 

 

Sorry everyone, to bring it full circle. I worry about universal healthcare coming since the repeal wasn't handled. i worry that that's the only thing Congress can agree on, rather than the free market. Pretty sad.

[sivispacem]

Even putting aside the differences between actual implementation of policies and stated policies, none of those suggest the core tenet of socialism- the control of the means of production by the workers. What you actually have is a hybrid of state capitalism and corporatism.

 

The economy is centrally planned inasmuch as the government sets the overall objectives, in line with their interpretation of the "national good". The specific management of industry is left to committees of wealthy business leaders that have pledged allegiance to the Nazi party, who are also responsible for informing progression. The state reserves the right to seize corporate property for the "national good", but in practical terms what this meant was a monopoly of wealthy industrialists dividing up smaller competitors by using their political leverage and close relationship with Nazi leadership to form vast privately owned industrial conglomerates such as IG Farben and Reichswerke Hermann Göring from the fragmented remains. Even after much of the defence industrial base was renationalised in name under the Ministry of Armaments and later Rüstungsstab, armaments-industry industrialists still ran the show.

[Fonz]

 

I don't disagree with that, but here is the 25 points of the Nazi Party, minus all the jooo hatred.

 

 

 

 

10. The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. No individual shall do any work that offends against the interest of the community to the benefit of all.

Therefore we demand:

11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.

12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

13. We demand the nationalization of all trusts.

14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries.

15. We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.

17. We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

18. We demand that ruthless war be waged against those who work to the injury of the common welfare. Traitors, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished with death, regardless of creed or race.

19. We demand that Roman law, which serves a materialist ordering of the world, be replaced by German common law.

20. In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State.

21. The State has the duty to help raise the standard of national health by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor, by increasing physical fitness through the introduction of compulsory games and gymnastics, and by the greatest possible encouragement of associations concerned with the physical education of the young.

22. We demand the abolition of the regular army and the creation of a national (folk) army.

23. We demand that there be a legal campaign against those who propagate deliberate political lies and disseminate them through the press. In order to make possible the creation of a German press, we demand:

(a) All editors and their assistants on newspapers published in the German language shall be German citizens.

(b) Non-German newspapers shall only be published with the express permission of the State. They must not be published in the German language.

© All financial interests in or in any way affecting German newspapers shall be forbidden to non-Germans by law, and we demand that the punishment for transgressing this law be the immediate suppression of the newspaper and the expulsion of the non-Germans from the Reich.

Newspapers transgressing against the common welfare shall be suppressed. We demand legal action against those tendencies in art and literature that have a disruptive influence upon the life of our folk, and that any organizations that offend against the foregoing demands shall be dissolved.

24. We demand freedom for all religious faiths in the state, insofar as they do not endanger its existence or offend the moral and ethical sense of the Germanic race.

The party as such represents the point of view of a positive Christianity without binding itself to any one particular confession. It fights against the Jewish materialist spirit within and without, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our folk can only come about from within on the pinciple:

COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD

25. In order to carry out this program we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the State, the unconditional authority by the political central parliament of the whole State and all its organizations.

The formation of professional committees and of committees representing the several estates of the realm, to ensure that the laws promulgated by the central authority shall be carried out by the federal states.

The leaders of the party undertake to promote the execution of the foregoing points at all costs, if necessary at the sacrifice of their own lives.

 

 

 

 

That's more on the socialism side I'd argue. Which was what my point was earlier. Those values don't represent individual liberty, it demands state control. Those are two very different ideologies.

It's not, though. Socialism and capitalism aren't defined by the amount of state intervention in the economy. Capitalism is a mode of production, not a question of management. At its core is generalized commodity production with all that it entails--private property, the division of labor, wage labor and so on; whether the economy is entirely state-managed, entirely composed of cooperatives, mixed, entirely handled by the private sector etc., it's still capitalist and all the characteristics I mentioned still exist. Socialism is the abolition of commodity production and therefore capitalism. It doesn't make sense to think of things as 'more or less' socialist. The Nazi Party's program was absolutely capitalist, just a specific composition of capital (corporatism).

[El Dildo]

I worry about universal healthcare coming since the repeal wasn't handled. i worry that that's the only thing Congress can agree on, rather than the free market. Pretty sad.

there's nothing sad about it.

the rest of the world has already reached this obvious conclusion.

 

unless you just arrived on Earth yesterday, maybe you've noticed that the free market has utterly failed to address public health care in a responsible manner.

they've had their chance. the free market is great but it's not the solution to everything.

[Creed Bratton]

 

I worry about universal healthcare coming since the repeal wasn't handled. i worry that that's the only thing Congress can agree on, rather than the free market. Pretty sad.

there's nothing sad about it.

the rest of the world has already reached this obvious conclusion.

 

unless you just arrived on Earth yesterday, maybe you've noticed that the free market has utterly failed to address public health care in a responsible manner.

they've had their chance. the free market is great but it's not the solution to everything.

BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY SAY ON FOX NEWS AND BREITBART SO IT CAN'T BE TRUE!

[ṼirulenⱦEqừinox]

John Kelly is the twitter hero of the day even he couldn't look at Trump during the "Rocket Man" speech at the UN

 

https://imgur.com/a/ASgae

Edited September 20, 2017 by Ai®aCob®a

[Chiarii]

I wonder if people realize there's already a vast number of free clinics, nonprofit hospitals, and charity based medical centers.

[Argonaut]

..All of whose existence is a tantamount admission to the need for a higher authority to universally care for them when choice in the market has failed.

Edited September 20, 2017 by Argonaut

[Chiarii]

Are you for all monopolies, or just government sponsored ones?

[Argonaut]

If substituting charity for healthcare coverage consistent across a country for those who have been shafted by market choice (most vulnerable if charity support is needed) is a monopoly then so be it, but it is not deserving of a pejorative connotation. Such is the wank idea of rights but no responsibilities.

Edited September 20, 2017 by Argonaut

[Eutyphro]

The government also has a monopoly on tapped water.

[El Dildo]

I wonder if people realize there's already a vast number of free clinics, nonprofit hospitals, and charity based medical centers.

I wonder if you realize how grossly unprepared these institutions are to handle the bulk of American health care needs...

[Clem Fandango]

Are you for all monopolies, or just government sponsored ones?

Just government sponsored ones, yeah.

[Triple Vacuum Seal]

Are you for all monopolies, or just government sponsored ones?

I guess it depends. Governments have a monopoly on many things, and it's not too controversial in mainstream politics.

 

A government monopoly on health insurance is a bit different than a monopoly on providing healthcare services, even though Republicans like to conflate the two. Even under "single payer", private health insurance wouldn't necessarily be illegal to sell because not all healthcare services would need to be covered and certain wealthy individuals might not mind paying more through a private provider for better coverage. "Single payer" is actually more of a colloquial term for "minimizing the extent to which patients get f*cked"

Edited September 21, 2017 by Triple Vacuum Seal

[Shaundi.]

I worry about universal healthcare coming since the repeal wasn't handled. i worry that that's the only thing Congress can agree on, rather than the free market. Pretty sad.

 

LOL, you worry about that? You're worried that people actually getting basic level health care paid for by the government through taxes? What's wrong with that? That's not sad. What planet are you from?

 

Speaking as an Australian, we have universal health care, implemented in the early 1970s by the Australian patriot who goes by the name of Gough Whitlam who many believe was ousted by the CIA in '73, that means a mix of public health care and private insurance. People who have extra money can pay to choose their own hospital, hospital room and doctor.

 

As an Australian I love my universal health care nearly a decade ago my mum had a stroke and was in hospital for a little over a week and the service was good in, you guessed it, a guv'ment PUBLIC HOSPITAL and how much did my parents fork out? A little over $70 for numerous medications. And to top it off, they received a reimbursement.

 

Shockingly, contrary to what Americans have been fed by Republic*nt congressmen and women about universal health care, the government doesn't kill you. That claim is pure, fine, major league big time bullsh*t. 100%. And contrary to what Rand Paul and his ilk believes and fed American citizens, doctors and nurses are not slaves under a universal system, our doctors are highly paid. SHOCKING RIGHT! I've seen some Americans on social media spew out MUH CONSTITUTIONAL RITES! MUH PERSONAL LIBERTY when this subject is brought up. BULL sh*t. Universal health care and personal liberty have no connection whatsoever.

 

Australian citizens of many ages and many ideologies, Libertarians, conservatives, socialists, communists, nationalists would do anything to keep universal health care. The current government however... Abolishing it would be an act of treason. Access to health care is a right.

[Spaghetti Cat]

Speaking as an American, you guys might have free healthcare, but your education system needs a bit a work because you're about as dumb as a box of rocks. What you've totally missed is the context in a rush to make an insult.

 

I was responding to a pretty good point from diablo. Even though I don't agree with his position I am agreeing with free healthcare becoming a possibility here in the States. I also lamented the terrible process that the Republicans took on healthcare. They could have done some sort of free-market reforms, but screwed it up. That's why I'm distressed at both sides.

 

instead of seeing nuance or even ask a simple question, SHOUT REALLY LOUDLY BECAUSE IT REALLY HELPS MAKE YOUR POSITION THAT MUCH BETTER YA KNOW, HERP A DERP THAT OTHER GUY AMIRITE?

 

Australia has about the same population size of California. If California wants to go single-payer, like they have plans to do, they should be able to. However they shouldn't be allowed to come crying to the rest of the states when single-payer comes crashing down. (I believe the estimates for California single-payer are twice the size of the current state budget.) I do support the current proposal to allow the states to decide what type of system that works for their citizens. I'm not in favor of a one-size-fits-all solution of 300 million people.

 

The Free-market system does just fine. Look at all of the treatments, medicines, vaccines, etc. that has come from the free-market. To put another way, can anyone name a new medicine or vaccine that came from a socialist/communist country? Anything in the past 50 years from the old USSR? Communist China? Cuba? Venezuela? North Korea? Heck al those countries had free healthcare, maybe we should ask the citizens there how well things are working out? No? That's ok.

 

I don't think, as an American, it's too much to ask my government that I don't want to be finned for not purchasing a product. It's not too much to ask that I should be able to purchase a product without having to purchase other things I don't need. It's not to much to ask that I should be able to save and spend my own money on my own healthcare rather than paying for poor people who aren't even citizens of this country. (How does Australia deal with illegal immigration? Yeah that's what I thought.) And it shouldn't be too much to ask that I might be able to look after my own health rather than be a subject in a nanny state. If you're too weak-minded to think for yourself, then maybe the nanny state is the way to go. But I don't need a government bureaucrat to tell me how to live my life, thank you very much.

 

 

Diablo to answer you other question: let's fix Medicare, Medicaid, SS disability, the VA, and other failing federal programs before we add another entitlement. Is that really too much to ask? And that's before getting into the 20trillion in debt we now owe. If the goal isn't to crash the system, how about we fix those first, eh?

[sivispacem]

To put another way, can anyone name a new medicine or vaccine that came from a socialist/communist country?

Well much of our early understanding of genetics came from the Soviet Union. They were responsible for the discovery of stem cells and the concept of the gene pool, developed the first non-sterile genetic hybrid created through crossbreeding, plus a variety of other medical advancements including blood banks and postmortem blood transfusion, human kidney transplants, the first functioning artificial heart, the first heart-lung transplant and lung transplant and surgical techniques for correcting shortsightedness.

[Creed Bratton]

 

To put another way, can anyone name a new medicine or vaccine that came from a socialist/communist country?

Well much of our early understanding of genetics came from the Soviet Union. They were responsible for the discovery of stem cells and the concept of the gene pool, developed the first non-sterile genetic hybrid created through crossbreeding, plus a variety of other medical advancements including blood banks and postmortem blood transfusion, human kidney transplants, the first functioning artificial heart, the first heart-lung transplant and lung transplant and surgical techniques for correcting shortsightedness.

Don't forget Cuba. They're really good when it comes to healthcare: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/cuba-medical-innovations_us_56ddfacfe4b03a4056799015

https://www.fastcompany.com/3048147/cuba-proves-once-again-it-has-one-of-the-best-healthcare-systems-in-the-world

 

They really take this stuff seriously.

[Spaghetti Cat]

My understanding of the old USSR's healthcare system revolved around prevention rather than treatments, different outlooks I guess. I don't quibble with those points listed, but I'm more asking about medicines/drugs/etc that improve quality of life. With heart decease being one of the leading killers there have been a number of heart medicines that have come from good ol' capitalistic companies. What heart drugs has the federal government created? That was my point, and why the free-market system still works.

 

 

If I may, I would argue that reducing the cost of treatments, drugs, stay times, etc would go a longer way than trying to provide free insurance to everyone. We have a cost issue, not an insurance issue. Adding in the government as a middleman in the healthcare system is almost guaranteed to raise costs. Especially with this government in charge.

[sivispacem]

I'm more asking about medicines/drugs/etc that improve quality of life.

 

I'm wondering why you chose this specific example if you're acknowledging that the primary focus of medical policy in the Soviet Union was preventative? Seems to me like you're trying to cherry pick a specific area of policy and use it as representative of general healthcare when it isn't.

 

What heart drugs has the federal government created? That was my point, and why the free-market system still works.

I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding on your part here. Yes, many drugs are created through private research by pharmaceutical companies. Nobody is disputing that fact. But this is far from universal. A significant proportion of new discoveries stem from academic research. And throughout most of the West, academic institutions are public, not private. The inference that pharmaceutical research and development is conducted universally by corporate bodies operating in a free market is categorically wrong. In fact, between 1971 and 2011, 153 new FDA approved drugs or vaccines were discovered by US public sector research institutions.

 

If I may, I would argue that reducing the cost of treatments, drugs, stay times, etc would go a longer way than trying to provide free insurance to everyone. We have a cost issue, not an insurance issue.

As, I think, would just about anyone else, but literally nobody thinks the messy compromise the US has reached is actually a coherent response to healthcare issues. It exists solely because of an incomprehensible pathological aversion to the notion of universal healthcare on the part of the American right.

 

The fact is, even before the ACA, the US was spending more per capita than most Western European countries on healthcare. That's just public sector spend, not private. The US healthcare system has had some huge wins. Like cancer. US cancer survival rates are world beating. But things like heart disease mortality and general life expectancy are significant below many Western European nations.

 

I don't understand why you think a free market results in lower drug prices than hybrid systems or state monopolies. It's not as if there aren't plenty of recent examples of private speculators buying the patents of drugs developed decades ago (and therefore incurring no development costs) and then jacking up prices by thousands or even tens of thousands of percent.

[Eutyphro]

Well much of our early understanding of genetics came from the Soviet Union. They were responsible for the discovery of stem cells and the concept of the gene pool, developed the first non-sterile genetic hybrid created through crossbreeding, plus a variety of other medical advancements including blood banks and postmortem blood transfusion, human kidney transplants, the first functioning artificial heart, the first heart-lung transplant and lung transplant and surgical techniques for correcting shortsightedness.

Can you source any of this? I checked some of it. Stem cells didn't seem to be discovered in the Soviet union. I was unable to find Soviet research in early genetic research. It was true that they performed the firs kidney transplant, which was a failure. They weren't the first to successfully transplanted kidneys. The first succesful lung transplantation was also not done in the Soviet union. They did do the first transplants on animals, seemingly.

 

All in all, I think it's probably true private incentives are useful for innovation. What seems effective is a combination of public investment and private incentives. Entrepeneurs are generally hesitant to invest in something completely unproven. So the tendency historically is that the basic research is done through public funding. A communist country where all enterprise is state owned and private incentives are non existent could perfectly be effective at basic research. But innovation and implementation is hampered if all private incentives are removed, I think.

[sivispacem]

Can you source any of this? I checked some of it. Stem cells didn't seem to be discovered in the Soviet union.

Alexander Maximow developed the theory of hematopoiesis and identified a common precursor cell to blood cells; the stem cell wasn't isolated until much later but could reasonably be argued to have been discovered at this point, in much the same way that elements are treated as "discovered" when their existence is demonstrated even if they are not successfully isolated.

 

 

I was unable to find Soviet research in early genetic research.

Aleksandr Serebrovski first hypothesised the structure of a gene, did much of the early work developing genetic replication theory and developed the term "gene pool"; this was imported into the US by Theodosius Dobzhansky when he emigrated. Incidently, Dobzhansky is regarded one of the fathers of modern evolutionary biology and contributed to the development of the theory of modern synthesis which underpins our current understanding of evolutionary biology and genetics. Brassicoraphanus, a hybrid between radish and cabbage, was the first non-sterile genetic hybrid, and was created by Georgi Karpechenko in 1928.

 

 

It was true that they performed the firs kidney transplant, which was a failure. They weren't the first to successfully transplanted kidneys. The first succesful lung transplantation was also not done in the Soviet union. They did do the first transplants on animals, seemingly.

That depends how you define "failure"- whether death from rejection is failure, or whether a transplant which results in the resumption of function is successful even if rejection kills the patient. Vladimir Demikhov achieved the first pretty-much-everything transplant with recorded resumption of function, but yes, most of his patients- human or animal- died within days due to immune system rejection.

[ṼirulenⱦEqừinox]

We should take up a collection and send trump to the wonderful nonexistent country of Nambia and hope he never finds out it's just a deserted island in the middle of the ocean.

 

I'll just leave this here - https://investigaterussia.org/

Edited September 21, 2017 by Ai®aCob®a

[Svip]

I also find Spaghetti Cat's requirement a bit weird. Why is it only 'socialist' and 'communist' countries he wants examples from? How about countries with universal healthcare in general?

 

What I remember, when I was in the US, was I kept seeing ads for drugs from Novo Nordisk, and that - I know - is a Danish firm. Having universal healthcare does not mean private and public research in medicine suddenly stops. Although, there is a lesser focus on prevention in the US than in Europe, because they don't pay as well in final product form. But I don't mind the focus on prevention, to suggest that doesn't really count towards increasing the quality of life is odd.

Edited September 22, 2017 by Svip