Friends of the Secular Café: Forums
Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain
Talk Freethought
Rational Skepticism Forum
EvC Forum: Evolution vs. Creation
Living Nonreligion Discussion Forum
The Round Table (RatPags)
Talk Rational!
Blogs
Blue Collar Atheist
Camels With Hammers
Ebonmuse: Daylight Atheism
Nontheist Nexus
The Re-Enlightenment
Rosa Rubicondior
The Skeptical Zone
Watching the Deniers
Others
Christianity Disproved
Count Me Out
Ebon Musings
Freethinker.co.uk
 
       

Go Back   Secular Café > Intellectual Debate and Discussion Forums > Politics & World Events

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11 Sep 2017, 12:48 AM   #676605 / #226
MattShizzle
Zombie for Satan
 
MattShizzle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Bernville, PA
Posts: 18,890
Default

Isn't it wrong though that .1% of people own almost as much as 90% of people? That's far from a fair distribution. A totally fair distribution would be everyone owning the same, but that's not doable. A better system would be the richest person owning maybe 100 times what the average person does and the poorest still making enough to live on - including a place to live.
MattShizzle is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 11 Sep 2017, 05:48 PM   #676630 / #227
Koyaanisqatsi
Semper oppugnant quod max
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 8,214
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MattShizzle View Post
Isn't it wrong though that .1% of people own almost as much as 90% of people?
They don't. That's the point.

Think in terms of 100 people in a room. 15 of those people don't have a dime and nothing of value in their pockets. They are the poor. As such and for the purposes of what S&Z were doing, we remove them from the room, so we now have 85 people in the room. Out of that 85, 35 have a dime and a few things of value in one pocket but they also have an IOU in their other pocket for the same amount, so the IOU cancels out the dime and valuable things in the other pocket. They are the lower income--not poor, but just barely scraping by month to month (and in some cases week to week)--but because their ledger balances out (even though we also didn't value certain things in their pockets in spite of the fact that they were still valuable), we remove them from the room too.

Now we have 50 people in the room. They are the middle to upper classes. These are the people S&Z are measuring because they have a positive net worth. Everyone empties their pockets and puts whatever they have in them on a table. What's on that table--including all the IOUs, but also discounting certain assets--is counted up and valued net of IOUs and is called "total net wealth of the room" (TNWR).

Then we assign percentages--"shares"--of that TNWR to each of the 50 people, such that it breaks down to:
40 people have a combined percentage of 22.8%.
9 people have a combined percentage of 55.2%
1 person has a total of 22%
From that you could then say that in regard to the total net wealth--not full value of all the assets, the net value of all the assets minus the debt-- on that table and of those 50 people in that room, 1 person has almost the same percentage share of net wealth as 40 other people combined.

Ok. And...? 50 people in that room are all doing well. Remember that the average gross worth for those 40 people (i.e., if you don't remove their debt) is $350,000. It's only when you remove their debt that the average lowers to $85,000 net wealth.

So the 50 people in that room are all doing pretty good to extraordinarily great. Aside from restructuring their tax burdens and closing some loopholes that shouldn't be there, etc., they don't really need any dire help from the government. Yes, there should be policies and regulations against predatory lending and financial frauds, etc., but they're actually doing well.

Then there are 35 people not in that room who are doing ok; they're surviving, but not thriving and they could use some sort of dire help from the government to alleviate their debt and get into a better job, etc.

And then there are an additional 15 people not in that room who are truly in dire straits and need the most dire, the most concentrated long-term help in a myriad of ways from the government.

To point to people who have $350,000 on average in gross worth and say the system is broken and the "establishment" is rigged against these people, however, is extremely misleading. That would be what is known as a first world problem at its most grotesque. To pretend that investments represent some mythical total wealth pie and that "ownership" shares of that finite pie that does not actually exist mean that one group "owns more" than another group is likewise extremely misleading. That is what Sanders (and Occupy) did. They took S&Z's numbers and concocted a highly miseading bumper-sticker slogan out of them for political purposes; a slogan that average voters such as yourself did not properly understand and keep getting wrong.

The REAL issue is that the bottom 35% of all people are in need of serious governmental intervention. They're in the ER and all focus should be on them. The other 75% (roughly) need to be properly taxed and have policies that are geared toward making sure they aren't being taken advantage of by predatory institutions, etc. and some need more help than others, but regardless, EVERYONE needs to have intelligent regulatory oversight. That's just a foundational given.

Republicans try to fuck that up; Democrats try to stop them from fucking that up. So to equate the two is the most grossly misleading bullshit of all and anyone who tries to do it should simply be jettisoned into the sun.

1% of Democrats/Independents tried to do exactly that with Sanders (and Russian and GOP) encouragement. They managed to fool another 5%. That was the full extent of the "Sanders revolution" that actually was started at the national level by Hillary Clinton almost a decade prior.

Quote:
That's far from a fair distribution.
And not accurate.

Quote:
A totally fair distribution would be everyone owning the same, but that's not doable.
No, it isn't, unless every person invested say $1,000 into the same S&P 500 Index mutual fund at the same time and never bought more shares.

Quote:
A better system would be the richest person owning maybe 100 times what the average person does
We should stop using the word "owning" because that, too is misleading. Yes, technically, when you invest you "own" a portion of whatever it is you invested in, but it's not like a car that is yours and you can do whatever you want with it whenever you want.

The better system would incorporate some sort of wage disparity laws, such that no one employee can have a salary (including bonus and stock options) that is more than 100 times that of the lowest paid employee of the company or the like. That would give incentive to any CEO to raise every employee's salaries in order to be able to raise their own to the highest level commensurate to profits.

Quote:
and the poorest still making enough to live on - including a place to live.
Yes. The most dire should be the largest focus. But then, you are describing the Democratic Party. Again, all Sanders did was bid $101 to Hillary's $100. It was a slightly more radical version of the exact same policy positions, including certain things--like repeal and replace the ACA with "Medicare for all"--that we as a party already knew would not be passed. We already tried everything Sanders just doggedly demands to be enacted. Which is why he has never been able to get any of his legislation passed and instead had to rely on amendments to bills, but the dark side of slapping your proposals into amendments is that you are trading your vote for the bill in order to get what you want included.

Regardless, right now he is pushing the exact same failed agenda on the DNC and because we are basically the kids that were bullied in school and respond to bullies submissively, that failed agenda is right now alienating women and minorities, our two strongest components in favor of focusing on the white working class males.

The same ones that, by a tiny tiny percentage in just three states, gave us Trump primarily because they are racists and agreed with him on the non-existent boogeyman of immigration. So taking pro-choice off the platform and shifting focus to the white middle class won't do shit for the DNC in 2018 or 2020.

The problem I have always had with Sanders is it's all about his ego and nothing about practical implementation of policy. The proof of that statement is that he co-opted Hillary's 2007 platform for his own--in spite of knowing as he must that she had made wealth inequality among her four top economic policies--demonized Hillary as a "corporate whore" and shill to Wall Street (or words to that effect) when in fact their policies were almost identical and in at least one major area (breaking up the shadow banking and too big to fails) he was taking her approach (using Dodd-Frank) and refused to drop out of the primaries when it was impossible for him to win, thereby wasting precious resources and time dividing and destroying the DNC for no other reason but his own ego.

His loss was massive, decisive and incontrovertible, having only motivated 6% of all Democrats to bother voting for him. A loss that large within a party of like-minded people should have sent him and his sycophants packing and instead the zombie continues to kill and eat brains because Democrats are pussies who think taking a baseball bat to a zombie's head is icky.
__________________
Stupidity is not intellen

Last edited by Koyaanisqatsi; 11 Sep 2017 at 07:35 PM.
Koyaanisqatsi is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 11 Sep 2017, 10:58 PM   #676642 / #228
MattShizzle
Zombie for Satan
 
MattShizzle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Bernville, PA
Posts: 18,890
Default

I meant a perfectly fair system would be everyone MAKING the same, regardless of job or lack thereof and there being some way to prevent large inheritances, which create a permanent aristocracy. But best we can do is tax heavily those at the top to help those at the bottom AND make sure minimum wage is actually a living wage.
MattShizzle is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 11 Sep 2017, 11:36 PM   #676643 / #229
Koyaanisqatsi
Semper oppugnant quod max
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 8,214
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MattShizzle View Post
I meant a perfectly fair system would be everyone MAKING the same, regardless of job or lack thereof
I think what you mean is a day when money as a system of commerce is no longer required as there would be no way to just mandate a universal salary. Where would it come from?

Quote:
and there being some way to prevent large inheritances, which create a permanent aristocracy. But best we can do is tax heavily those at the top to help those at the bottom AND make sure minimum wage is actually a living wage.
Exactly. You've just described the DNC as it has always been in your lifetime.
Koyaanisqatsi is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 12 Sep 2017, 12:35 PM   #676662 / #230
sohy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 10,830
Default

Here's something that you guys might find interesting. While I'm not against single payer, I'd love to know how they plan on paying for it and doing it without causing chaos in the medical community. Maybe if done over a number of years, it's possible.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-single-payer/


Quote:
Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) became the fourth co-sponsor of Sen. Bernie Sanders's (I-Vt.) “Medicare for all” health-care bill Monday. In doing so, he joined Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.).

What do those four senators have in common? Well, they just happen to constitute four of the eight most likely 2020 Democratic presidential nominees, according to the handy list I put out Friday. And another senator in my top 8, Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), last month came out in favor of the idea of “Medicare for all” — though not this specific bill (yet).

This is about as far from a coincidence as you can get. And it suggests the dam is breaking when it comes to the Democratic Party embracing government-run health care, also known as single-payer.
sohy is online now   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 12 Sep 2017, 01:42 PM   #676663 / #231
Koyaanisqatsi
Semper oppugnant quod max
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 8,214
Default

And there's that same "no one but Bernie has ever done this before" nonsense (in spite of the fact that many have in the House right now). I wonder who Sanders will blame for when it fails. Only Clinton is not allowed to blame others.

It's worth noting that Clinton's approach--fixing and building upon something already in place, not repealing it and then trying to muster support for a whole new process--would have prevented precisely the risks outlined in the link above:

Quote:
They promise a system that covers everyone and is cheaper, simpler and less profit-oriented. But the details matter. While it is true, as advocates often mention, that much of the world has some form of universal health care, there is wide variation in how those systems work. Nearly any single-payer plan would require substantial disruptions in the current health care system, upending the insurance arrangements of the 156 million Americans who get their coverage from work, changing the way doctors, hospitals and drug companies are paid, and shifting more health care spending onto the government ledger. Such a proposal would reshuffle the winners and losers in our current system.
...
Their hesitance may reflect the challenging politics of the issue, despite the recent increase in support. The polls suggest that many voters may be more taken with the single-payer slogan than with the nuts and bolts. A recent survey by Kaiser found that initial support of 55 percent for single-payer dropped by about a third when supporters were told of criticisms that it might increase their taxes, give the government “too much control” over health care or eliminate the Affordable Care Act. Each of those critiques would probably be made prominently by Republican opponents of the policy.

Leaders of liberal states saw support for the idea erode as they confronted those political realities. In Vermont, the framework of a single-payer system passed the state legislature in 2011, only to be abandoned after experts estimated the system would require the state to double its tax revenue. A single-payer referendum in Colorado was voted down last year, 79 to 21. And a recent California single-payer bill was shelved after steep cost projections, though a commission is continuing to explore options.

Those results have some advocates of universal coverage worried that a push for single-payer could undermine efforts to make health coverage more expansive through smaller steps.

“Incrementalism is not a four-letter word,” said Ron Pollack, the chairman emeritus of Families USA, a group that pushed hard for the Affordable Care Act, who outlined his views in a recent essay on Vox.com.
This issue is an excellent demonstration of the problem of Sanders' ego (and, in general, his fraud). The piece concludes with a prescient warning:

Quote:
But some advocates who have worked in the trenches are less sanguine. Andy Slavitt, who ran the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in the Obama administration, has thrown himself into health care advocacy since the election. But he worries that the quick shift among his peers on single-payer could backfire. “That could be the Democrats’ version of the thing that they promised to do for seven years and couldn’t do,” he said.
Sanders has promised to do everything in his platform for forty years and never succeeded. Why? Because the things he promised he knew he could not ever achieve. That's not my opinion or assessment; that's almost a direct quote from Sanders early in his primary bid. He confessed he would not be able to achieve his goals unless he had 70% to 80% of ALL America behind him after he got elected, remember? Of course not. Nobody does:

Quote:
Midway through the 49-minute interview on "The Axe Files with David Axelrod," Sanders declared that although President Barack Obama ran a "brilliant campaign" to win the White House, he mistakenly thought he could easily work with congressional Republicans.
...
"I don't have any illusion that I'm going to walk in, and I certainly hope it is not the case but if there is a Republican House and a Republican Senate, that I'm going to walk in there and say 'Hey guys, listen. I'd like you to work with me on raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour,'" he said. "It ain't gonna happen, I have no illusion about that. The only way that I believe that change takes place … is that tens of millions of people are going to have to stand up and be involved in the political process the day after the election."

Sanders also argued with Axelrod's comparison of his strong liberal views to conservative Republicans like Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who say the GOP has been too compromising on principles.

"It sounds a little like the same argument which it is better to be pure than to be pragmatic," Axelrod said.

"No, you didn't hear me say that, that's not what I said," Sanders said. "What I said is that, if you are good at politics, and you have 70 to 80 percent of the people behind you in issues like raising the minimum wage or rebuilding our infrastructure or family and medical leave....You should win those fights and it's not good enough to sit down with Boehner and say 'no I can't support' — 'oh, okay, guess we're not going to do it.'"
It's the magic ponies promise. Of course we'd all love to have magic ponies and live in a world of hope for magic ponies and he knows this, of course, so he has discovered that he can maintain popularity by simply saying all the popular things knowing they won't ever come to fruition. He isn't selling policies or administrative acumen or leadership; he's selling dreams. Here's the most recent example (from the same piece above):

Quote:
“If you see more and more members of Congress saying, ‘I support single-payer,’ it is because now they know it is not as politically risky as it used to be,” Mr. Sanders said in an interview. “You’re not being an outcast. You’re not being a fringe member of Congress. If polling shows that a strong majority of Democrats support single-payer, what is the problem with coming on board?”
Yeah? So that's 80% of ALL Americans behind you, is it? The most idealistic polls I've seen have only 33% of the American people behind single payer. 33 fucking %.

He bids $101 to Hillary's $100. And I sincerely hope he's finally right for once, but I also know he isn't. Republicans will not ever vote for a fully tax payer funded healthcare system. Full stop. And we also know from the other times its been presented that a lot of Democrats won't either. This is just the same repackaged con game he ran in the primaries and he's been running his entire career. Only I am your savior and I accomplish it by hiding behind ideas that everyone (on the left) agrees with, but won't ever have a chance of being implemented. It's the easiest gig in the book (and one Clinton refused to play precisely because she wasn't runnning a con game).

I would also like to read his proposal, because my greatest fear is that it will still have in it the most reckless aspect; that it will require first repealing the ACA and then replacing it with his plan. If that's the case, then we're right back at the risk of Republicans voting for the repeal part but then never voting for the replace part. And Sanders is just egotistical enough to go along with whatever booby-trap Republicans might place into his bill for that very purpose (or one close enough) so that he can take short term credit for something that actually won't work long term.

ETA: And just to be crystal fucking clear, I am all in favor of single payer and would LOVE to see it implemented. That has nothing to do with whether or not it will be or we as a party should be trying to sell dreams instead of practicality. Dreams failed. Dreams got Sanders 6% among LIKE MINDED individuals. Practicality helped Clinton win by almost three million votes in a record breaking turnout.

The losers are taking over because of ego and idealism and the result is already turning disasterous in regard to women and minorities and soon, when this next round of single payer failure happens, 2018 Congressional seats and then 2020 WH. It is a profoundly stupid strategy being spearheaded by a populist bully that has already cost us dearly and will only continue to destroy the only viable party against Republican domination.

Last edited by Koyaanisqatsi; 12 Sep 2017 at 03:03 PM.
Koyaanisqatsi is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 12 Sep 2017, 05:01 PM   #676664 / #232
Koyaanisqatsi
Semper oppugnant quod max
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 8,214
Default

PTA: To clarify in case it wasn't clear, when this fails, Republicans in 2018 and 2020 will be able to point to it as the failure of the Democratic Party in general. Instead of what WE could have done--and now cannot--point to the Republican failure to repeal and replace the ACA (and their refusal to simply fix it) in order to take back Congress.

In short, we do not have the political clout to get single payer passed. We DO however have enough clout to get "fix the ACA" passed. This is a colossal strategic blunder due entirely to Sanders' ego. We should be concentrating on taking back Congress in 2018, NOT giving Republicans a free ride when this fails, thus taking focus off of their own failure!

We will lose this fight and thereby Congress (again) in 2018.
Koyaanisqatsi is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 13 Sep 2017, 11:47 AM   #676694 / #233
sohy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 10,830
Default

Bernie has an editorial in the NYTimes this morning. Yeah. He's delusional. He never explains how to make the transition from the mess we have now to the mess we'd have if we suddenly tried to go to single payer. He thinks it can be done in four years. OMG! As one who has worked as a nurse for over forty years, and has worked with Medicare requirements and billing, I can only say that poor Bernie doesn't really have a clue. And, he must know that Medicare isn't free and there are often expensive copays, especially when it comes to drugs and many outpatient procedures.
sohy is online now   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 13 Sep 2017, 01:02 PM   #676697 / #234
praxis
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,347
Default

Regarding single-payer healthcare, I think it's important to keep in mind that over the years the delaying of its hopeful eventuality is that both republicans and demoncrats are equally guilty of facilitating those delays so the various medical related industries could create and integrate systemic firewalls to any attempt of implementation.

That Sanders or anyone would need to portray a rosier scenario than reality might suggest is expected and I would probably do the same thing if I were in their shoes in order to get the ball finally rolling.

People would be better off to leave the NY Times to rot in their driveway as the shit publication it is, politically speaking.
praxis is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 13 Sep 2017, 01:38 PM   #676700 / #235
Koyaanisqatsi
Semper oppugnant quod max
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 8,214
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by praxis View Post
Regarding single-payer healthcare, I think it's important to keep in mind that over the years the delaying of its hopeful eventuality is that both republicans and demoncrats are equally guilty of facilitating those delays so the various medical related industries could create and integrate systemic firewalls to any attempt of implementation.

That Sanders or anyone would need to portray a rosier scenario than reality might suggest is expected and I would probably do the same thing if I were in their shoes in order to get the ball finally rolling.

People would be better off to leave the NY Times to rot in their driveway as the shit publication it is, politically speaking.
Nicely done Praxis! A whopping false equivalence and a NYT "fake news" in the same post.
Koyaanisqatsi is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 13 Sep 2017, 02:12 PM   #676701 / #236
Koyaanisqatsi
Semper oppugnant quod max
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 8,214
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sohy View Post
Bernie has an editorial in the NYTimes this morning. Yeah. He's delusional. He never explains how to make the transition from the mess we have now to the mess we'd have if we suddenly tried to go to single payer. He thinks it can be done in four years. OMG! As one who has worked as a nurse for over forty years, and has worked with Medicare requirements and billing, I can only say that poor Bernie doesn't really have a clue. And, he must know that Medicare isn't free and there are often expensive copays, especially when it comes to drugs and many outpatient procedures.
He's also significantly stretching the poll numbers. He claims:

Quote:
According to an April poll by The Economist/YouGov, 60 percent of the American people want to “expand Medicare to provide health insurance to every American,” including 75 percent of Democrats, 58 percent of independents and 46 percent of Republicans.
That question is number 81 on the above linked poll. If you scroll down to it you see that the total percentage of the 1500 people polled who want to "expand Medicare to provide health insurance to every American" is actually only 36%. He is combining those who "favor strongly" with those who "favor somewhat" to get at those numbers. That matters because in a fight against Republicans we can only leverage those percentages of voters we can solidly count on to back our play, not include percentages that are only "somewhat" in favor. Plus, even without that fact, including the "somewhat" still only gets us as high as 60% total, which is not nearly enough to coerce a majority of Republicans to commit career suicide and vote for a "Medicare-for-all" proposal. No fucking way.

Note also that apparently this poll includes a significant portion of people who are not registered to vote. Among registered voters, the total percentage who "favor strongly" is 37%, so whether one is registered or not, pretty much the same opinion, which is important because it means it's not something that can be breached with new registered voters coming into the system.

If you then scroll up to question 79, which asks respondents about having a "public option" which would allow individuals to purchase health insurance coverage from the government the total percentage of respondents who "favor strongly" is only 25% (27% registered).

What's more important about these numbers--in particular the "favor somewhat" and "not sure" percentages--is that they evidence a willingness (or at the very least an openness) pretty much across the ideological board for fixing the ACA exactly as I have been arguing!

ETA: Look at question 78: "Having the government contract with private insurers to set up a government-sponsored low cost insurance plan for people who don’t have any other health insurance." That only has a 31% "favor strongly."

Question 76: "Allowing people between 55 and 64 years old to buy into Medicare coverage if they don’t have any other health insurance." 39% "favor strongly."

Anyone seeing a pattern?

Now let's look at some numbers in regard to questions that are something we can do right now with the ACA. Such as Question 75: "Provide a subsidy to help people with incomes of between $22,000 and $44,000 per year (for a family of 4) afford insurance." That gets a whopping 62% "support" from Republicans and a total of 68% "support" across the board!

Question 74: "Require all insurance policies to provide a minimum package of benefits." 66% Republican support; 68% total! (Independents don't like that one as much as the Republicans do).

Question 73: "Prevent insurers from imposing lifetime limits on benefits." 54% Republican support; 58% total. Not as popular, but still well over the majority of Republicans support it!

Are you seeing a pattern here?

Btw, and alarmingly, only 46% of Democrats and only 29% total support a requirement for all U.S. citizens and legal residents to have health insurance, or pay a tax penalty. That blows. That should definitely be higher among Dems at the very least.

Is Sanders had any real balls--and wasn't just out to once again get the glory for fighting the good fight (that he knows won't actually win), he'd convince Trump to back his plan in exchange for all the love Trump's fragile ego can stand from Democrats.

And if Trump had any brains at all, he would come up with that exact same plan and publicly endorse Sanders.

See how detrimental is magical thinking?

Last edited by Koyaanisqatsi; 13 Sep 2017 at 04:10 PM.
Koyaanisqatsi is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 13 Sep 2017, 04:25 PM   #676703 / #237
Koyaanisqatsi
Semper oppugnant quod max
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 8,214
Default

PTA: So Sanders has once again fucked us all in reckless pursuit of his own ego. Too harsh? Then ask yourself a simple question. Why now? Why is Sanders doing this now with a Republican controlled Congress (and WH) ffs? Even with a 60% somewhat favor wobble, that still isn't enough--by his own reckoning from back in 2015--to force a majority of Republicans to do jackshit.

So, why the fuck now?

Last edited by Koyaanisqatsi; 13 Sep 2017 at 05:31 PM.
Koyaanisqatsi is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 13 Sep 2017, 08:00 PM   #676707 / #238
Koyaanisqatsi
Semper oppugnant quod max
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 8,214
Default

Aaaand "Medicare-for-all" just died. Exactly what I feared would happen did happen and now Republicans have taken back control of the healthcare narrative:

Quote:
Meanwhile, Republicans have begun crafting their own answer to the high price of health insurance. Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina; Bill Cassidy, R-Louisiana; Dean Heller, R-Nevada; and Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, introduced their plan after the GOP's failed attempts at repealing and replacing Obamacare over the summer.

"We refuse to quit, we have been working on a bill that should've been our first approach to repealing Obamacare, not our last," said Graham at a press conference introducing the plan Wednesday.

"If you want a single-payer system, this is your worst nightmare. Bernie, this ends your dream of a single-payer health care system for America," he said.

Neither Sanders' bill nor the GOP-sponsored bill, each representing opposing sides of the health care debate, is likely to pass in the Senate.
Thanks Bernie! You fucked us again!
Koyaanisqatsi is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 13 Sep 2017, 10:05 PM   #676715 / #239
praxis
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,347
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by praxis View Post
Regarding single-payer healthcare, I think it's important to keep in mind that over the years the delaying of its hopeful eventuality is that both republicans and demoncrats are equally guilty of facilitating those delays so the various medical related industries could create and integrate systemic firewalls to any attempt of implementation.

That Sanders or anyone would need to portray a rosier scenario than reality might suggest is expected and I would probably do the same thing if I were in their shoes in order to get the ball finally rolling.

People would be better off to leave the NY Times to rot in their driveway as the shit publication it is, politically speaking.
Nicely done Praxis! A whopping false equivalence and a NYT "fake news" in the same post.
Why, thank you!

I don't expect members of group-think to like what I post.
praxis is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 14 Sep 2017, 03:08 AM   #676724 / #240
Copernicus
Industrial Linguist
Admin; Mod: Miscellaneous Discussions, Philosophy & Morality, Politics & World Events
 
Copernicus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Bellevue, WA
Posts: 7,461
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
Aaaand "Medicare-for-all" just died. Exactly what I feared would happen did happen and now Republicans have taken back control of the healthcare narrative:

Quote:
Meanwhile, Republicans have begun crafting their own answer to the high price of health insurance. Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina; Bill Cassidy, R-Louisiana; Dean Heller, R-Nevada; and Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, introduced their plan after the GOP's failed attempts at repealing and replacing Obamacare over the summer.

"We refuse to quit, we have been working on a bill that should've been our first approach to repealing Obamacare, not our last," said Graham at a press conference introducing the plan Wednesday.

"If you want a single-payer system, this is your worst nightmare. Bernie, this ends your dream of a single-payer health care system for America," he said.

Neither Sanders' bill nor the GOP-sponsored bill, each representing opposing sides of the health care debate, is likely to pass in the Senate.
Thanks Bernie! You fucked us again!
I am no strong supporter of Bernie Sanders, but he does seem to have built some momentum for this bill. He knows that it has no chance of passage now, but it sets a marker for Democrats to start to rally around. Most of us do want a single-payer system, and "Medicare for All" works as a rallying cry. What bothers me most about it are two questions: 1) How to fund it, and 2) How to get from here to there. Sanders is very weak on these two points. He's an issues guy, not a details guy.

In my opinion, it is pointless to beat up each other over who lost the 2016 election to an insane narcissist. Democrats did that collectively, and Sanders was as guilty as Clinton of making mistakes. Actually, I personally think that he was more to blame, but who cares? The question is where we go from here. Sanders wants to lead a charge at the single-payer windmill. Works for me. Let's cheer him on. Meanwhile, either something more practical will emerge or we'll continue plodding along toward that goal.
Copernicus is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 14 Sep 2017, 08:42 AM   #676734 / #241
MattShizzle
Zombie for Satan
 
MattShizzle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Bernville, PA
Posts: 18,890
Default

I personally would outlaw capitalism under penalty of death, but why should we not have what every civilized country has? Not having universal health care is extreme right wing and one of many problems the US has - due to extreme right wing ideas.
MattShizzle is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 14 Sep 2017, 12:52 PM   #676736 / #242
sohy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 10,830
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by praxis View Post
Regarding single-payer healthcare, I think it's important to keep in mind that over the years the delaying of its hopeful eventuality is that both republicans and demoncrats are equally guilty of facilitating those delays so the various medical related industries could create and integrate systemic firewalls to any attempt of implementation.

That Sanders or anyone would need to portray a rosier scenario than reality might suggest is expected and I would probably do the same thing if I were in their shoes in order to get the ball finally rolling.

People would be better off to leave the NY Times to rot in their driveway as the shit publication it is, politically speaking.
Strange that you should criticize what is likely the best source of news in the country, especially when your hero Sanders is often given the opportunity to write editorials in that very publication.

Leave it in the driveway? Do you not realize that the majority of subscribers read the paper online?

I totally agree with Copernicus that the problems regarding single payer are twofold. How will single payer be funded and exactly how should the transition be made? Nobody seems to have a suitable answer to those two questions.
sohy is online now   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 14 Sep 2017, 01:14 PM   #676737 / #243
Koyaanisqatsi
Semper oppugnant quod max
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 8,214
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
I am no strong supporter of Bernie Sanders, but he does seem to have built some momentum for this bill.
It's no great feat to build momentum among like-minded people for magical ponies, especially when you misstate the findings of a comprehensive poll like the YouGov (just as he did the S&Z report). Just look at the "revolution" that swept the primaries only to then finally be revealed for nothing more than a 6% Dem turnout.

Quote:
He knows that it has no chance of passage now, but it sets a marker for Democrats to start to rally around.
Meaningless, particularly since there was already a bill in the House for Dems to "rally around," but worse it also sets a marker for Republicans to rally against, which is exactly what I feared and exactly what just happened. Plus, the time to set a marker is when we actually have some inkling of control in Congress, not when we're still way behind the eight ball and are just beginning the election cycle.

The timing of this was stupidly premature and purely the result of Sanders' unhinged ego thinking he's still leading a revolution. This is Cortez sinking his ships, but the problem--once again--is that it was backed by numbers Sanders misrepresented and don't exist. The ships were already sunk! He's trying to force anyone running in 2018 to wear his purity rings, but ultimately of course, this is just fodder for his 2020 bid.

Quote:
Most of us do want a single-payer system
No, actually, "most of us" do not! At least not according to the same source Sanders used to assert we do. I urge you to read the same numbers I read. What those numbers show is a strong desire--across the aisle--to fix the ACA and an even stronger desire not to have any kind of single payer system.

It isn't just Democratic voters he has to convince; it's Independent and Republican voters as well in order to have any kind of constituent backing strong enough to coerce Repubicans in Congress to ignore their .1% masters.

But even among Democrats, the numbers show about half support some form of single payer and we've been talking about single payer for twenty fucking years. The problem (as you noted) isn't the idea as it is the price tag and who pays for it. Most Dems are smart enough to know that whenever there's a big price tag--and converting to a Medicare-for-all approach over four years as Sanders has proposed would be trillions of dollars--it's almost always going to fall on the middle class.

Quote:
and "Medicare for All" works as a rallying cry.
That is now dead in the water and can no longer be used as a rallying cry. It could have been used as a negotiation tactic, as I had argued way back in 2008 with regard to a public option when Obama first made healthcare his bitch (you keep the public option as something to jettison during negotiations to get a better deal), but those days are long past and we have the ACA, so all Republicans need to do is exaclty what they just did, declare single payer dead and its dead. Why? Because Sanders gave them the opportunity and the "other" to do so.

But Sanders doesn't care about actually getting a better deal or, again, he would have seen those numbers and immediately realized what they mean; that we can simply fix the ACA WITH Republican support. They were beaten and broken by their nearly decade long attempt to destroy the ACA AND Medicare, but could not do it due to their constituents en mass wanting to keep Medicare for the old and some form of the ACA for everyone else, just not as strict, which means we had all the leverage we needed.

Sanders, however, is driven by ego and even though there was already a Medicare-for-all type bill in the House to rally around, he had to be Ahab. His bill, however, does not give us leverage to negotiate--we already had that. His bill destroys our leverage to negotiate and gave Republicans a fucking mulligan instead. Now they have their boogeyman back; a tax and spend commie Jew who has painted himself as the ground zero for the "new" Democrats. Cut off the head and the body will die and he just gave them a goddamned gold-plated guillotine and took his hat off!

Quote:
Sanders wants to lead a charge at the single-payer windmill.
Which already and instantly backfired. Single payer is dead. That's a direct quote from Graham representing all the leading Republicans. Much more so in fact that it was prior to this stupidity. And worse, now the ACA is being retargeted only with a clear other as the poster child for Republican action.

Sanders shot our wad and now it's a matter of how badly the Republicans are able to scrape away at the ACA. We'll be lucky--lucky--to save anything beyond basic (read: substandard), non-mandatory coverage and a partially gutted Medicare. But, look at the bright side. We might be able to work in a bone like lowered prescription drug prices for a short time window.

Worse is that Sanders is clearly doing this now so that there is enough time for it to all run its course before 2020. He uses what happens--good or ill--as his punching bag for another presidential run. It's funny, because all of the things people accused Clinton of--crafting bills around subjects for optics but not for actually helping anyone and being a corporate/Wall Street shill even though she was a millionaire many times over and therefore never needed to be anyone's slave--Sanders is actually revealing. He's cloaking himself in righteousness and using the resources of the "evil" DNC that was out to destroy him and rigged against him just like he did four decades ago with the socialist party of Vermont so that he can make yet another righteous STAND (that he knows will fail) as a means to build a 2020 platform. "We failed to get Medicare-for-all in 2017 because of a corruption in the Republican Party AND the DNC. It is now a time for radical action!" Or some such equally vapid nonsense.

Iow, there's nothing to rally around but a 2020 Sanders presidential bid. He blew it and I believe it was on purpose, because no one could be that stupid to see how wrong the timing was (especially, again, since we already have a rallying point in the House).

Now we have to pick up the pieces while Sanders gets to mount that high horse and take all the credit or avoid all the blame in the interim. It's a brilliant strategy, I'll give him that, but it's also clearly one borne out of anger and frustration at having been hidden in the basement ranting at the wall for forty fucking years. He's the Milton of our political generation and he's setting the building on fire. But not to ultimately save anything; just out of a misguided retribution that we will all have to pay dearly for, just like we did with Trump.

That's why it's important to properly affix blame. Whatever else Clinton may be, she won the election, but lost the WH. There are many reasons why she lost the electoral, but one prominent reason was the entirety of the Sanders campaign and how it negatively impacted the much larger and far more important "movement" against Trump.

Anything else is tu quoque. It doesn't matter what other avenues or influences there were, the primary (pun intended) impact of the Sanders zombie was itself a fatal blow and as I pointed out previously that too was all a result of Sanders' ego. Had he done the proper strategic move, he would have bowed out in May at the latest and then joined the real fight. He chose not to do that because of ego and that fucked us.

He is doing the exact same thing now and it likewise has fucked us. That is why it's important not to rehash the election, but to do a post-mortem on what were positive influences and what were negative ones. Sanders--by any objective measure (alienating women with pro-life; alienating minorities with an unnecessary focus on white working class; fucking up single payer for the foreseeable future and now likely gutting the ACA and Medicare when we have the upper hand)--is a very clearly negative influence that too many people keep insisting is the only positive one.

It's a cult. And it's a cancer. And it's growing.

Last edited by Koyaanisqatsi; 14 Sep 2017 at 02:20 PM.
Koyaanisqatsi is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 14 Sep 2017, 01:46 PM   #676738 / #244
praxis
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,347
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sohy View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by praxis View Post
Regarding single-payer healthcare, I think it's important to keep in mind that over the years the delaying of its hopeful eventuality is that both republicans and demoncrats are equally guilty of facilitating those delays so the various medical related industries could create and integrate systemic firewalls to any attempt of implementation.

That Sanders or anyone would need to portray a rosier scenario than reality might suggest is expected and I would probably do the same thing if I were in their shoes in order to get the ball finally rolling.

People would be better off to leave the NY Times to rot in their driveway as the shit publication it is, politically speaking.
Strange that you should criticize what is likely the best source of news in the country, especially when your hero Sanders is often given the opportunity to write editorials in that very publication.

Leave it in the driveway? Do you not realize that the majority of subscribers read the paper online?

I totally agree with Copernicus that the problems regarding single payer are twofold. How will single payer be funded and exactly how should the transition be made? Nobody seems to have a suitable answer to those two questions.
First, I don't know how many times I need to clarify that I am not a Sanders supporter. Secondly, The NY Times has become a corporate and intelligence agency whore. You obviously haven't noticed how biased the articles are and how often they have to issue retractions. For example, The NY Times went on for months telling its readers that all 17 intelligence agencies were in agreement on the so called Russian hacking bullshit (One of Koy's favorite misleading arguments until I showed him the retraction), when in fact, all along it was only three of the agencies. The NY Times had to finally print a retraction, which I posted in one of these threads. Another example of The NY Times misinforming their readership is this constant reporting (and piling on) that the DNC emails were hacked when the evidence has been known for months now (and I started a thread on the subject) that the emails were leaked, not hacked. Has The Times reported the evidence? NOPE! I've been looking forward to that retraction by The Times also.
praxis is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 14 Sep 2017, 02:37 PM   #676740 / #245
BWE
twisting truth since 1957
 
BWE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: one of the unnamed sidestreets of happiness
Posts: 9,617
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattShizzle View Post
Isn't it wrong though that .1% of people own almost as much as 90% of people?
They don't. That's the point.



Quote:
That's far from a fair distribution.
And not accurate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
Ok, I'll do it again. From Saez & Zucman's 2014 report:


Bottom 90%--aka, the middle class--owns 22.8% of "total wealth" as defined by S&Z. The top 0.1%--aka the ruling elite--owns only 22% of "total wealth" as defined by S&Z.

Thus the middle class owns more wealth than the ruling elite.
Hmm.
BWE is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 14 Sep 2017, 02:47 PM   #676741 / #246
Koyaanisqatsi
Semper oppugnant quod max
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 8,214
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by praxis View Post
You obviously haven't noticed how biased the articles are and how often they have to issue retractions.
The fact that they issue retractions proves they are not biased. That's why only reputable agencies have that policy; to correct the record when something slips by that should not have.

Quote:
For example, The NY Times went on for months telling its readers that all 17 intelligence agencies were in agreement on the so called Russian hacking bullshit (One of Koy's favorite misleading arguments until I showed him the retraction), when in fact, all along it was only three of the agencies.
Wrong again (on multiple fronts) as was mansplained to you previously.

Quote:
Another example of The NY Times misinforming their readership is this constant reporting (and piling on) that the DNC emails were hacked when the evidence has been known for months now (and I started a thread on the subject) that the emails were leaked, not hacked.
Likewise false.

Last edited by Koyaanisqatsi; 14 Sep 2017 at 03:01 PM.
Koyaanisqatsi is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 14 Sep 2017, 02:49 PM   #676742 / #247
Koyaanisqatsi
Semper oppugnant quod max
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 8,214
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BWE View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattShizzle View Post
Isn't it wrong though that .1% of people own almost as much as 90% of people?
They don't. That's the point.



Quote:
That's far from a fair distribution.
And not accurate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
Ok, I'll do it again. From Saez & Zucman's 2014 report:


Bottom 90%--aka, the middle class--owns 22.8% of "total wealth" as defined by S&Z. The top 0.1%--aka the ruling elite--owns only 22% of "total wealth" as defined by S&Z.

Thus the middle class owns more wealth than the ruling elite.
Hmm.
Yes? The point is that neither Sanders' (and Occupy's) version nor mine are accurate; they are equally misleading, yet equally supported by the S&Z numbers.
Koyaanisqatsi is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 14 Sep 2017, 04:02 PM   #676744 / #248
Roo St. Gallus
Loose Contact
 
Roo St. Gallus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Cascadia
Posts: 7,975
Default

Can somebody tell me how it is that Koy has decided that the bottom 90% of the American economy is 'middle class'? Sure...It might _include_ the 'middle class', but it includes a whole lot more, as well. Koy does this a lot...revising the terms to fit his needs.

Koy has now spent I don't know how much time and energy quibbling over .8% difference in old, dubious figures, and fudging definitions as he goes, in an ongoing futile attempt to smear Sanders. Indeed, his whole purpose here seems to be dedicated to smearing Sanders. I think Koy needs to get a life and stop stalking Bernie.

I don't accept Koy's assumptions and interpretations at face value. I don't trust Koy's assertions. And, his ability to accurately interpret events is quite sadly perverse and misguided due to his jaundiced vision. He is a false prophet.
__________________
IF YOU'RE NOT OUTRAGED, YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION!

Last edited by Roo St. Gallus; 14 Sep 2017 at 04:57 PM.
Roo St. Gallus is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 14 Sep 2017, 04:46 PM   #676745 / #249
Koyaanisqatsi
Semper oppugnant quod max
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 8,214
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roo St. Gallus View Post
Can somebody tell me how it is that Koy has decided that the bottom 90% of the American economy is 'middle class'?
Can someone tell me why Roo won't stop beating his wife?

Here it is again from S&Z:

Quote:
Quote:
The average net wealth per family is close to $350,000, but this average masks a great deal of heterogeneity. For the bottom 90%, average [net] wealth is $84,000, which corresponds to a share of total wealth of 22.8%. The next 9% (top 10% minus top 1%), families with net worth between $660,000 and $4 million, hold 35.4% of total wealth. The top 1%—1.6 million families with net assets above $4 million—owns close to 42% of total wealth and the top 0.1%—160,700 families with net assets above $20 million—owns 22% of total wealth, about as much as the bottom 90%.
Using those exact same numbers, I could equally state that the bottom 90% owns more total wealth (22.8%) than the top 0.1% (22%) and it would be just as misleading.

And here, btw, is where they clarify that by bottom 90% they are actually referring to the 50%-90%:

Quote:
The second key result of our analysis involves the dynamics of the bottom 90% wealth share. The bottom half of the distribution always owns close to zero wealth on net.36 Hence, the bottom 90% wealth share is the same as the share of wealth owned by top 50-90% families— what can be described as the middle class.
As I pointed out several times itt alone, S&Z were measuring net wealth. If your debt matched your equity or superseded it, then obviously you have no net wealth so you were not included in their subsequent analysis.

Quote:
Koy does this a lot...revising the terms to fit his needs.
Go fuck yourself. I very clearly do no such thing. It is all laid bare for everyone to see always and for precisely that reason; because of morons like you taking ad hom cheap shots from the bleachers instead of ever providing substantive counter-argument.
Koyaanisqatsi is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 14 Sep 2017, 05:31 PM   #676746 / #250
praxis
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,347
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by praxis View Post
You obviously haven't noticed how biased the articles are and how often they have to issue retractions.
The fact that they issue retractions proves they are not biased. That's why only reputable agencies have that policy; to correct the record when something slips by that should not have.
In this case it had already done the damage and convinced its readers of the misleading information. The retraction itself was not written in an outright language and was buried in an article.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
Quote:
For example, The NY Times went on for months telling its readers that all 17 intelligence agencies were in agreement on the so called Russian hacking bullshit (One of Koy's favorite misleading arguments until I showed him the retraction), when in fact, all along it was only three of the agencies.
Wrong again (on multiple fronts) as was mansplained to you previously.
Because you found it on the internet and said it yourself means very little - no, allow me to rephrase that - that you said it means absolutely nothing!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
Quote:
Another example of The NY Times misinforming their readership is this constant reporting (and piling on) that the DNC emails were hacked when the evidence has been known for months now (and I started a thread on the subject) that the emails were leaked, not hacked.
Likewise false.
Joke!
praxis is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   Secular Café > Intellectual Debate and Discussion Forums > Politics & World Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
 
Ocean Zero by vBSkins.com | Customised by Antechinus