6 ms·

58% of Americans would prefer a federally funded healthcare system[0], akin to healthcare in Canada. We only feel alone because both parties are bought and own

by trome 10y ago

58% of Americans would prefer a federally funded healthcare system[0], akin to healthcare in Canada. We only feel alone because both parties are bought and owned by multi-nationals, and don't give a shit about what most people want. First Past the Post ensures a 3rd party will cause carnage if it ever did rise, splitting the vote and not electing the candidate most voters would prefer. Look at Wolf PAC in Connecticut closing 26 points of a 36 point gap by beating the streets with 500 volunteers[1], or Bernie in West Virginia going to town hall after town hall and talking to people about the very real issues that affect their lives. We can convert the "unwinnable" "red" states if we only dare put in the effort to beat the streets and call people, have one on one interaction and talk about issues that matter. Jobs, healthcare, workers rights, when you connect to people, even if you disagree with a person about "divisive" issues, they can often feel you are out there fighting for a better future for them and their family. So get out there, go join Wolf PAC, Our Revolution/Woke, go to a Womens Day protest, a BLM protest and fight for a better future. If we take action, we can create change! 0 - http://www.gallup.com/poll/191504/majority-support-idea-fed-funded-healthcare-system.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/191504/majority-support-idea-fed-... 1 - http://www.mediaite.com/online/the-message-we-want-to-send-is-the-young-turkss-cenk-uygur-talks-to-mediaite-about-organizing-volunteers-in-local-elections/ http://www.mediaite.com/online/the-message-we-want-to-send-i...

oblio 10y ago
You badly need a multi party system. Your current system is too polarized. There's no way to represent nuances. What if I like guns but I want universal healthcare? What if I want a smaller government but I also want great environmental policies? The US system was ok in the 18th century but now it's a relic. Some things don't age well.
- bythckr 10y ago
  First, I have some good American friends. My grudge is not with the people of America but the American system, which the people of American has no say in. George Carlin puts it best, "America was founded by a group of Salve owners on the premise that all man are created equal." My observation is that America is the land of law & order as every illegal & unethical practice becomes law. Its owned by 1% and wages war for the 1% in the pretext of spreading the seeds of democracy. The thing that worried me the most as a non-American is that people around the world think that America is a democracy and all the "bad dudes"(corrupt self-interested 1%), gain power in America and try to impose their will on rest of the world by using Hollywood, CIA & US defence force.
- Ntrails 10y ago
  Do you retain first past the post, switch to AV, move to proportional representation? What are the consequences of each of these choices and who is the right person to make them? There is no perfect voting/political system - all of them have side effects.
  - oblio 10y ago
    The fact that there's no perfect __anything__ shouldn't stop us from trying to improve the status quo.
    - Ntrails 10y ago
      Agreed, so my question is why the OP is declaring 2 party system as "worse" when all current systems have drawbacks. Worse is subjective in this arena. So what are your metrics? What do you define as better? I'm not terribly keen on prop rep, for example - I think it actually gives too much power to extreme parties. Maybe you disagree. Maybe you think it would be better? If so, why?
      - oblio 10y ago
        I'm OP. I just said why the 2 party system is worse. Re-read my previous comment.
      - ZeroGravitas 10y ago
        This is a common argument. For example, many people in the UK's Labour party said this would be the case if the UK moved away from FPTP to AV. The conservatives wouldn't even allow the choice of real PR, limiting the vote to either what they wanted or a crap choice that no-one wanted in an attempt to get their policy choices rubber stamped with a false sense of public approval. This "worked" for that vote, and for Scottish Independence (not allowing further devolution as an option which would have won handily) and failed catastrophically with Brexit. Notably, Brexit was caused by the small party UKIP stealing votes from the Conservatives, and then by Lib-Dem voters fleeing to Labour because they previously teamed up with the Conservatives. So a leftward shift of voters, sent the result rightward, giving the Conservatives a clear victory which meant they had to deliver a referendum that they never thought they'd have to. Too late now to change it, but it seems likely the UK wouldn't be tearing itself apart at the moment with a better system.
- trome 10y ago
  > You badly need a multi party system. Your current system is too polarized. Definitely we need to get rid of First Past the Post, but while our parties are polarized, they are both far to the right of the vast majority of voters. > What if I like guns but I want universal healthcare? That is actually fairly common. Gun control can be done in a nuanced way, and we can have more guns with few instances of gun violence esque Switzerland if we train our populace to properly secure and disarm their guns when not being actively used. Comparatively, people like my great grandfather thought it was fine to leave a dozen or more loaded guns of varying types all throughout the house. Not great when a shotgun falls out from behind the stove and nearly gets ya. > What if I want a smaller government but I also want great environmental policies? Hard to do, small gov't = small town corruption if you look at areas that take this approach. > The US system was ok in the 18th century but now it's a relic. Some things don't age well. Definitely, we need to update our antiquated political system.
  - alkonaut 10y ago
    > we can have more guns with few instances of gun violence esque Switzerland if we train our populace to properly secure and disarm their guns when not being actively used. Would a law requiring guns to be safely stored (i.e. in a safe) be acceptable? I assume the gun lobby would scream at the thought, but what would the majority think? Likewise, would a national register and limits (i.e. every serial number is bound to a person in a national registry, the number of registered weapons to an individual is limited, and carrying a weapon not in the registry is a felony) - would that be acceptable? I think all these countries with tons of guns e.g. Switzerland, Nordics, Canada, the key is they are to a large part hunting weapons. Hunters are usually completely fine with keeping their guns, or in some cases just vital parts of each gun, in a safe. This however means you can't keep a handgun in your bedside drawer, for example. But that's no problem - no one is using guns for "protection" anyway. I think the difference to the US is that in the US people still believe in using weapons for personal protection. Not being able to carry guns outside or have them lying around the house then sort of removes the ability to use them for protection.
    - tracker1 10y ago
supremesaboteur 10y ago
Doesn't federally funded healthcare system have problems like lower quality of healthcare, increased government spending, increased chances of corruption and creating a moral hazard of not working to earn what is consumed ?
- Kristine1975 10y ago
  No, it doesn't.
- Ntrails 10y ago
  I'm gonna address these point by point with opinions. lower quality of healthcare Not overall, but arguably yes for people with perfect healthcare plans at the moment. I think that everyone having 90% "rated" healthcare is better than a split of 0%/50%/100% by wealth bracket. Increased government spending Yes. Absolutely - you have to tax people the money that would otherwise go to insurers and spend it as an insurer. Since the US currently spends the highest proportion of GDP on healthcare for incredibly unequal healthcare you can decide for yourself whether even big government could manage to be less efficient. Increased chances of corruption No. Creating a moral hazard of not working to earn what is consumed Sure. It's a problem when there's zero cost involved in healthcare - something many systems struggle with. Often in european countries you'll see some kind of excess/copay so people have a little "skin in the game" before using the system. The UK uses waiting lists and gateway doctors (GPs) to assess need. Rationing of healthcare on a basis of need, rather than wealth seems smarter to me from a population basis. There are many healthcare systems, all have trade offs. Most of the first world is unconvinced that the current American system is optimal
- pikzen 10y ago
  >lower quality of healthcare On the very top end of healthcare? Maybe, but countries with public healthcare aren't doing too bad on that side either. On average? The quality is insanely higher. Until budget gets cut because some dimwit thought it would be a good idea to stretch their resources thin. >increased government spending Covering everyone costs money, yes. But considering the amount of money that is already being invested by the US govt. into health care and the abysmally poor results it gives, it can't really be worse. >increased chances of corruption Very little. And it solves lobbying, doctors being paid by companies, etc. It's usually a net positive. >creating a moral hazard of not working to earn what is consumed Screw that. People have a right to live decently, even without earning it. That's why we made societies. That's why we keep elders alive, and not immediately send them off to the glue factory as soon as they retire, that's why we keep children and feed them and teach them until they're able to be a useful member of that society. In most sensible systems, their education is largely free too.

by trome 10y ago

oblio 10y ago

You badly need a multi party system. Your current system is too polarized. There's no way to represent nuances. What if I like guns but I want universal healthcare? What if I want a smaller government but I also want great environmental policies? The US system was ok in the 18th century but now it's a relic. Some things don't age well.

bythckr 10y ago
First, I have some good American friends. My grudge is not with the people of America but the American system, which the people of American has no say in. George Carlin puts it best, "America was founded by a group of Salve owners on the premise that all man are created equal." My observation is that America is the land of law & order as every illegal & unethical practice becomes law. Its owned by 1% and wages war for the 1% in the pretext of spreading the seeds of democracy. The thing that worried me the most as a non-American is that people around the world think that America is a democracy and all the "bad dudes"(corrupt self-interested 1%), gain power in America and try to impose their will on rest of the world by using Hollywood, CIA & US defence force.
Ntrails 10y ago
Do you retain first past the post, switch to AV, move to proportional representation? What are the consequences of each of these choices and who is the right person to make them? There is no perfect voting/political system - all of them have side effects.
- oblio 10y ago
  The fact that there's no perfect __anything__ shouldn't stop us from trying to improve the status quo.
  - Ntrails 10y ago
    Agreed, so my question is why the OP is declaring 2 party system as "worse" when all current systems have drawbacks. Worse is subjective in this arena. So what are your metrics? What do you define as better? I'm not terribly keen on prop rep, for example - I think it actually gives too much power to extreme parties. Maybe you disagree. Maybe you think it would be better? If so, why?
    - oblio 10y ago
      I'm OP. I just said why the 2 party system is worse. Re-read my previous comment.
    - ZeroGravitas 10y ago
      This is a common argument. For example, many people in the UK's Labour party said this would be the case if the UK moved away from FPTP to AV. The conservatives wouldn't even allow the choice of real PR, limiting the vote to either what they wanted or a crap choice that no-one wanted in an attempt to get their policy choices rubber stamped with a false sense of public approval. This "worked" for that vote, and for Scottish Independence (not allowing further devolution as an option which would have won handily) and failed catastrophically with Brexit. Notably, Brexit was caused by the small party UKIP stealing votes from the Conservatives, and then by Lib-Dem voters fleeing to Labour because they previously teamed up with the Conservatives. So a leftward shift of voters, sent the result rightward, giving the Conservatives a clear victory which meant they had to deliver a referendum that they never thought they'd have to. Too late now to change it, but it seems likely the UK wouldn't be tearing itself apart at the moment with a better system.
trome 10y ago
> You badly need a multi party system. Your current system is too polarized. Definitely we need to get rid of First Past the Post, but while our parties are polarized, they are both far to the right of the vast majority of voters. > What if I like guns but I want universal healthcare? That is actually fairly common. Gun control can be done in a nuanced way, and we can have more guns with few instances of gun violence esque Switzerland if we train our populace to properly secure and disarm their guns when not being actively used. Comparatively, people like my great grandfather thought it was fine to leave a dozen or more loaded guns of varying types all throughout the house. Not great when a shotgun falls out from behind the stove and nearly gets ya. > What if I want a smaller government but I also want great environmental policies? Hard to do, small gov't = small town corruption if you look at areas that take this approach. > The US system was ok in the 18th century but now it's a relic. Some things don't age well. Definitely, we need to update our antiquated political system.
- alkonaut 10y ago
  > we can have more guns with few instances of gun violence esque Switzerland if we train our populace to properly secure and disarm their guns when not being actively used. Would a law requiring guns to be safely stored (i.e. in a safe) be acceptable? I assume the gun lobby would scream at the thought, but what would the majority think? Likewise, would a national register and limits (i.e. every serial number is bound to a person in a national registry, the number of registered weapons to an individual is limited, and carrying a weapon not in the registry is a felony) - would that be acceptable? I think all these countries with tons of guns e.g. Switzerland, Nordics, Canada, the key is they are to a large part hunting weapons. Hunters are usually completely fine with keeping their guns, or in some cases just vital parts of each gun, in a safe. This however means you can't keep a handgun in your bedside drawer, for example. But that's no problem - no one is using guns for "protection" anyway. I think the difference to the US is that in the US people still believe in using weapons for personal protection. Not being able to carry guns outside or have them lying around the house then sort of removes the ability to use them for protection.
  - tracker1 10y ago

supremesaboteur 10y ago

Doesn't federally funded healthcare system have problems like lower quality of healthcare, increased government spending, increased chances of corruption and creating a moral hazard of not working to earn what is consumed ?

Kristine1975 10y ago
No, it doesn't.
Ntrails 10y ago
I'm gonna address these point by point with opinions. lower quality of healthcare Not overall, but arguably yes for people with perfect healthcare plans at the moment. I think that everyone having 90% "rated" healthcare is better than a split of 0%/50%/100% by wealth bracket. Increased government spending Yes. Absolutely - you have to tax people the money that would otherwise go to insurers and spend it as an insurer. Since the US currently spends the highest proportion of GDP on healthcare for incredibly unequal healthcare you can decide for yourself whether even big government could manage to be less efficient. Increased chances of corruption No. Creating a moral hazard of not working to earn what is consumed Sure. It's a problem when there's zero cost involved in healthcare - something many systems struggle with. Often in european countries you'll see some kind of excess/copay so people have a little "skin in the game" before using the system. The UK uses waiting lists and gateway doctors (GPs) to assess need. Rationing of healthcare on a basis of need, rather than wealth seems smarter to me from a population basis. There are many healthcare systems, all have trade offs. Most of the first world is unconvinced that the current American system is optimal
pikzen 10y ago
>lower quality of healthcare On the very top end of healthcare? Maybe, but countries with public healthcare aren't doing too bad on that side either. On average? The quality is insanely higher. Until budget gets cut because some dimwit thought it would be a good idea to stretch their resources thin. >increased government spending Covering everyone costs money, yes. But considering the amount of money that is already being invested by the US govt. into health care and the abysmally poor results it gives, it can't really be worse. >increased chances of corruption Very little. And it solves lobbying, doctors being paid by companies, etc. It's usually a net positive. >creating a moral hazard of not working to earn what is consumed Screw that. People have a right to live decently, even without earning it. That's why we made societies. That's why we keep elders alive, and not immediately send them off to the glue factory as soon as they retire, that's why we keep children and feed them and teach them until they're able to be a useful member of that society. In most sensible systems, their education is largely free too.