Reply With Quote
Shocking. Republican columnist writes something criticizing Democrats.
Lockdown the website, we got a winner here.
The only thing is who is on the Board of Directors?
(yawn)
lol gentry Breitbart writer
Shocking. Republican columnist writes something criticizing Democrats.
Lockdown the website, we got a winner here.
The only thing is who is on the Board of Directors?
(yawn)
Yeah, center-left journalist Tim Pool aka right-wing propagandist talks about this regularly because "whataboutism". It's the talking points not the blatant racism I'm see regularly from the left that makes me discuss it. Don't be ridiculous. This isn't talking points. It's becoming very clear.
Journalists wouldn't be openly racist if it weren't true. New York Times offering cushy jobs to open racists probably wouldn't happen either tbh.
This open racism is just what is seen. Logically it makes sense that it goes much deeper than that. Some morons are open about it.
the emotional connection thing.
also, Dems are afraid to offer anything people actually want (cheaper education, job training, and health care come to mind) for fear of being called socialistic.
So that was simply a restatement of your original assertion, not really getting at the underlying logic, or what must be true for your assertion to be true and valid.
Example:
Socrates is a man
All men are mortal
Therefore Socrates is mortal.
So again, see if you can find the underlying premises of your statement.
A good example would be to say clearly what "open acceptance" is, and who "the left" is, or might be defined, or even what you mean by "racism".There is open acceptance of racism against whites on the left.
Do you understand what I am asking for?
Define your terms, and see if you can deconstruct your statement.
I think that will change. The right will call us socialists no matter what.
Why parse or try to appeal at this point? Better to go for actual ideas.
It's not like the Republican party has any to compete with at this point. "cut taxes for the wealthy, and say anything insulting you can about liberals" seems to be the sum total of what passes for conservatism these days.
A “lifelong Republican” just blindsided his own party with an unprecedented midterm election demand
“NeverTrump” neocon and unashamed Iraq War apologist Max Boot joined his fellow conservative “Morning” Joe Scarborough to discuss the fallout of the weekend’s events and President Trump’s increasing authoritarianism —
and he didn’t beat around the bush with his solution for a modern-day Republican Party consumed wholly by Trumpism: burn it to the ground:
“I think, essentially, the Republican Party, as currently cons uted,
needs to be razed to the ground,
it needs to be destroyed —
and maybe, maybe, maybe out of the ashes
we can build up a more reasonable center-right party which is something this country needs.”
Boot was on the show to promote
his new book, “The Corrosion of Conservatism: Why I Left the Right,”
and highlighted how the Trumpian embrace of full-on white nationalism and xenophobia as one of the primary reasons he, an immigrant, was alienated from the party in the first place:https://washingtonpress.com/2018/10/...ection-demand/
“I came here at age 6, I learned to speak English — I think I speak it reasonably well.
I try to fit in, blend in — I thought I achieved that.
I thought of myself as an ordinary American, not as a hyphenated American.
Donald Trump is making me to think in those terms, he’s making me think there’s something less American than me.
I wasn’t born here, I’m Jewish.
I’m not the kind of American that Donald Trump celebrates.
It’s a tragedy for me and heartbreaking for me.”
That's the sad part. Even I have said numerous times that I'm not philosophically opposed to universal healthcare, just show me a plan first. A real plan, what it will provide, how it will work, and how it will be funded. Even Bernie won't actually do that. Just, it's going to be great and I'll tell you the details if you elect me.
Now I need to define racism
Now you will run from the discussion.Now I need to define racism
Universal health insurance, closely modeled on that of Canada.
It doesn't have to be overly complicated. Everybody gets taxed at payroll at the same rate, with 100% of the risk pooled, and everybody gets insurance.
It will make coding and billing vastly simpler, and suck the profit margins out of the process on the insurance side, while driving down the administrative duplications at the provider side.
Require any health care provider to accept the insurance, so the portability is guaranteed.
Employers will not have to worry about negotiating with health insurers for a tiny pool of six people, and we will get a vastly better idea as to the real costs of health care.
"Everybody gets taxed at payroll at the same rate,"
SS and medicare-for-all contributions should be applied to ALL income, earned and unearned.
It's that easy and yet not a single Democrat politician will say it.
I said it was merely an example. I would note that the same word can mean slightly different things to people. You don't need to define the term, but if you can't reasonably say what you mean, then it becomes clear that your position is not one that any reasonable person should accept.Now I need to define racism
If you don't understand what I am asking for, simply say so, and I will try to help you to get to your underlying assumptions. My underlying assumption is that you value the truth, and want your beliefs to be rational.
Do you understand what your underlying assumptions are, or would you like my help?
You mean other than Ocasio-Cortez?
Please tell me how this plan will get medical personnel to accept less pay while carrying burdensome college/med school loans and at the same time reduce the lawsuits. That's the medical, educational and legal systems - good luck with tackling all that. Not to mention the drug industry and the drop in people who would want to go into the medical field - so much studying for so little pay? A pharmacist, physical therapist and audiologist all currently need doctorates. Primary care docs - at least 11? years - more for specialties and surgery.
grad schools basically have a blank check to charge whatever they want because they know every student is going to qualify for a loan. it's a bull predatory system. grad schools SHOULD be less expensive. as for cost of health services, doctor pay isn't the big issue, its the profit motive of the industry.
another problem is how litigious the US is. hospitals pay through the roof for malpractice insurance, and that cost isn't absorbed. it's passed on to consumers
The main drawback of overpromising in detail is disappointing your supporters after you get elected. The main drawback of underpromising and hedging your bets in technocratic vagueness is not getting elected at all.
Seems a risk worth taking, if you have an idea you really believe in. The Dems have no such ideas.
Honestly, we've gone through this a million times. The fact that almost every other country, rich or poor, already figured out the whole healthcare conundrum a long time ago, and we're still pretty much the only suckers on the planet, tells you this is just a dogma problem at this point, not a practical problem.
So how do you get all these systems under control to do a universal health-care system like so many of you dream of? Let's hear how this is gonna work other than taxing us to death.
How do you tell a newly graduated orthopedic surgeon that he's gonna have to accept $x pay and his medical school debt will be forgiven? You think he'll accept that? And if he has to accept $x after 14 years of studying, how LITTLE would an engineer with 4 years' study get or a cashier with no training. Funny how a $15 minimum wage for a cashier with no training will be explained compared with European physician pay to American doctors.
The US already spends more per capita in Healthcare than any other country, including those with universal and/or mixed healthcare, so it's not an economic problem. The actual problem is the US being unwilling to cap prices on medical goods, something other (capitalist) countries already do (and thus, the US becomes a subsidizer to other systems). Again, this topic has been re-hashed ad nauseum here, it certainly goes beyond a couple of political soundbites.
This goes to another problem too, which is the scam of government-backed student loans. I don't think I have to go too deep into it, it's a well known problem, as spurraider already mentioned.
How do I tell a grad student that they have to accept X? I don't. That's what the market pays. If he wants to start his own practice and charge more (because he thinks he's better or because he thinks he can offer a better service), then he isn't precluded from doing that. Obviously, he'll limit his market, but that's his call. He could double-dip, and work X hours on a given salary and X hours on his private salary. That's how mixed systems work around the world, and though it might sound shocking, doctors actually make a good, decent living there too.
You're right, the US healthcare system is too complex to reinvent in one fell swoop. One idea was that you start a public health insurance option and build upon it over time. Neither party supported the idea though.
I agree with this. In the sense there's too many prongs to tackle (we touched upon two: college loan costs and price capping), but that's why I said it's a practical problem at this point. There has to be a political will to at least tackle one problem at a time.
ie: Student loans are an issue in and of itself at this point.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions