7 ms·

>My personal believe is presently, for lack of data that I can digest, that the far right is probably focused around emotions Both sides have appeals to emotio

>My personal believe is presently, for lack of data that I can digest, that the far right is probably focused around emotions Both sides have appeals to emotion and appeals to logic in their platform. For instance, what basis is there for universal healthcare other than 'we should help each other'? You can't make the argument that it would 'save the government money' to the right, because, in their opinion, the government should be spending any money on it, other than maybe paying for employees' insurance. Every dollar the government spends on it now is just an example of how the government can't do anything right. I think it's common for people on opposite ends of the spectrum see the other side as 'not grounded in data'. After all, if they saw the reason in the opinions of the other side, they'd be in the middle instead of the end they're on. All that being said, I think more clarity in government spending would go a long way in creating more/less trust in government's handling of certain operations. Maybe the right sees less inefficiency than they imagined, maybe the left sees more, but we'd at least have some real data to compare.

jfrunyon 5y ago
> Both sides have appeals to emotion and appeals to logic in their platform. For instance, what basis is there for universal healthcare other than 'we should help each other'? You can't make the argument that it would 'save the government money' to the right ... You're right, you don't say it would save the government money. You make the argument that it would save everyone money. No one has any incentive to care about the price of healthcare, currently. Not the suppliers, not the providers, not the insurers. And the consumers simply have no choice.
- BobbyJo 5y ago
  >No one has any incentive to care about the price of healthcare, currently That's a problem that can be fixed without making the government the sole customer: Make people pay for their own healthcare. >Not the suppliers, not the providers, not the insurers That's simply not true. They all have profit motive. >And the consumers simply have no choice. That's only true in emergency medicine, which is the minority of care most people receive.
  - noodlesUK 5y ago
    > That’s only true in emergency medicine What would you do about emergency medicine in your ideal world though?
    - BobbyJo 5y ago
      I, personally, am pro universal healthcare to a degree.
  - jfrunyon 5y ago
    > That's a problem that can be fixed without making the government the sole customer: Make people pay for their own healthcare. People do pay for their own healthcare. That's our current system. Hello? > That's simply not true. They all have profit motive. Everyone has profit motive, but when your prices are arbitrary, that doesn't make you care about costs. > That's only true in emergency medicine, which is the minority of care most people receive. That's not even CLOSE to factual. Try getting your doctor to tell you how much any complex procedure or care will cost, before the fact, without insurance.
- nobodyandproud 5y ago
  > For instance, what basis is there for universal healthcare other than 'we should help each other'? You can't make the argument that it would 'save the government money' to the right ... Something else: It fosters a more competitive work environment, by allowing capable workers to choose the best firms. It also separates health cost, whose administration is expensive for businesses, from working capabilities of employees. It’s a major problem for small companies. Finally, anything more than essential coverage could and should still be privatized, and paid for by individuals. Much like today’s life insurance today. e.g., long cancer recovery and care.
  - BobbyJo 5y ago
    > Something else: It fosters a more competitive work environment, by allowing capable workers to choose the best firms. Do you have data showing that the gains in competitiveness offset productivity losses from higher unemployment? >Finally, anything more than essential coverage could and should still be privatized, and paid for by individuals. Much like today’s life insurance today. e.g., long cancer recovery and care. What is the difference between essential and not essential? I don't think there's a good objective basis for what is and isn't, it just comes down to the costs healthy people are willing to bear, which comes down to feelings again.
    - nobodyandproud 5y ago
      Do you have data showing that universal healthcare leads to higher unemployment? The difference between essential and non-essential? Why should I have to make that distinction in a forum? Both private healthcare AND even medicare do this today, to different degrees. Largely, routine check-ups and preventive care are covered. Emergency visits and triage care used to be covered (and still should be). Everything else is quite subjective, and cost is a factor.
      - BobbyJo 5y ago
        > Do you have data showing that universal healthcare leads to higher unemployment? More competitiveness necessarily implies more frictional unemployment. You can't have one without the other. > The difference between essential and non-essential? Why should I have to make that distinction in a forum? I'm not saying you should, I'm saying an argument that points to universal healthcare as an objective practice requires it. > to different degrees Exactly. There isn't an agreed upon objective basis for what qualifies as 'essential'.
teclordphrack2 5y ago
Except a lot on the left is driven by data.
- BobbyJo 5y ago
  Citation? Or is that just a data-free assertion? ;)
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  Banning plastic straws, asserting that men should compete against women in sports if they identify as women, and eliminating SAT scores doesn't seem like a science-driven approach, but more of a faith-based science-denialism.
  - whoooooo123 5y ago
    Genuine question: what's wrong with banning plastic straws? Edit: I know that paper straws are a pain to drink through, my question was more: why is banning plastic straws an example of "faith-based science denialism"?
    - Smilliam 5y ago
      Hypothetical answer: A ban on plastic straws can unintentionally make life more difficult for individuals with motor disabilities. Paper straws break down relatively quickly and can lose suction effectiveness as a result. Reusable metal straws can cause chipped teeth or gum damage if bitten down on by someone with poor fine motor control. No straws at all can leave an individual unable to ingest liquids entirely. Reusable soft plastic straws would be ideal, but the tradeoff is that now we've placed yet an extra burden on an impaired person (or their caretakers) in our society because now they'll need to maintain a supply of clean, reusable straws that they need to transport with them. Disposable plastic straws are "soft" enough to not damage someone's teeth or gums too severely when bitten down on, but are more durable than paper straws to ensure reliable suction over time, and they do not require any upkeep or maintenance for proper hygiene due to their disposable nature.
ABeeSea 5y ago
Republican Reagan signed EMTALA which makes it so hospitals can’t refuse service in emergencies due to ability to pay. It stopped people from dying in the street. They did not fund this new mandate and so we currently pay for this through higher insurance premiums and county/municipal emergency service budgets. Universal healthcare would be a more efficient way to pay for an already existing benefit. When uninsured chronic conditions have reached the point you are literally in the ER / close to death, you suddenly get tons of subsidized healthcare. Subsidized in a grossly inefficient manner. Universal healthcare would lower costs through prevention. I would have more respect for the right if they just admitted they are ok with people dying in the streets since they just ignore the economic effects of EMTALA.
- BobbyJo 5y ago
  Reagan is not 'the right'. He's a member of the Republican party who served 50 years ago. And again, universal health care only saves money if you start with the basis that the government will force private companies to take on customers that can't pay for service, something that is very much not a right wing ideology. I'm not saying it's a bad idea or a good idea, I'm just saying there is no basis for universal healthcare that doesn't start with 'we need to help people'. Same with social security. Same with many other left wing policies. A lot of the problems around market inefficiency in healthcare are perfectly solvable without helping the poor.
  - ABeeSea 5y ago
    > if you start with the basis that the government will force private companies to take on customers that can't pay for service, EMTALA already does this and I don’t see a push on the right to repeal EMTALA. Universal healthcare is a more efficient model of what is already happening.
    - BobbyJo 5y ago
      I also don't see a push from republicans to repeal social security. That doesn't mean it isn't a socialist policy.
la6471 5y ago
Yes they can vote to leave the state but they should also not get any of the tax dollars from the more densely populated counties that stay behind. Thank you , sayonara!
nwallin 5y ago
> what basis is there for universal healthcare other than 'we should help each other'? Uninsured, underinsured, or people with high deductibles are much, much more likely to let a health issue linger for much longer than someone who gets free (to them) healthcare. If an issue lingers, getting worse and worse, it may eventually reach the point where it forces them out of the workforce; they stop paying taxes, they stop purchasing commercial goods which drive the economy, they stop buying new cars, etc. (on an individual basis, this is rare, but compounded by 40 million or so people it adds up to a lot of people not performing economic activity who would otherwise be making and spending money) Free-for-me healthcare is better at providing preventative medicine than out-of-pocket healthcare. Preventative medicine is cheaper in absolute terms over the long term that remedial medicine, even if preventative medicine is much more common that remedial medicine. If remedial medicine removes a person from the work force, that costs the entire GDP a worker. It is better for all of us -- in purely economic terms -- to have a worker wearing a government issued back brace, taking government issued anti-inflammatory drugs, and participating in government sponsored physical therapy than having a non-worker have back surgery on an insurance plan that spreads the cost among all of that insurer's other customers instead of producing widgets in the factory. I might not speak for that many people on the left, but I personally support anti-poverty programs as a general rule not because I care about the plight of humanity or whatever, (fuck 'em) but because taxing people and spending those tax dollars on anti-poverty programs improve my overall quality of life more than just letting us keep the money. Every poor person, every homeless person, needs to have tax dollars devoted to them in terms of police and emergency services. Two years ago someone smashed my car's window, stole a $20 backpack with $40 worth of gym clothes, costing me a $500 deductible to replace the window and fix the e-brake. Pretty sure if that asshole had a better education, was given free tradeschool or college they wouldn't have smashed my window. We, as a society, have decided that we'd rather have a pound of cure than an ounce of prevention. In a dozen ways. And that's fucking stupid.
rsynnott 5y ago
> For instance, what basis is there for universal healthcare other than 'we should help each other'? Ask Bismarck. The first quasi-universal healthcare system wasn’t introduced because Bismarck was so nice; it was to increase productivity and discourage people from voting for the socialists.

jfrunyon 5y ago

> Both sides have appeals to emotion and appeals to logic in their platform. For instance, what basis is there for universal healthcare other than 'we should help each other'? You can't make the argument that it would 'save the government money' to the right ... You're right, you don't say it would save the government money. You make the argument that it would save everyone money. No one has any incentive to care about the price of healthcare, currently. Not the suppliers, not the providers, not the insurers. And the consumers simply have no choice.

BobbyJo 5y ago
>No one has any incentive to care about the price of healthcare, currently That's a problem that can be fixed without making the government the sole customer: Make people pay for their own healthcare. >Not the suppliers, not the providers, not the insurers That's simply not true. They all have profit motive. >And the consumers simply have no choice. That's only true in emergency medicine, which is the minority of care most people receive.
- noodlesUK 5y ago
  > That’s only true in emergency medicine What would you do about emergency medicine in your ideal world though?
  - BobbyJo 5y ago
    I, personally, am pro universal healthcare to a degree.
- jfrunyon 5y ago
  > That's a problem that can be fixed without making the government the sole customer: Make people pay for their own healthcare. People do pay for their own healthcare. That's our current system. Hello? > That's simply not true. They all have profit motive. Everyone has profit motive, but when your prices are arbitrary, that doesn't make you care about costs. > That's only true in emergency medicine, which is the minority of care most people receive. That's not even CLOSE to factual. Try getting your doctor to tell you how much any complex procedure or care will cost, before the fact, without insurance.
nobodyandproud 5y ago
> For instance, what basis is there for universal healthcare other than 'we should help each other'? You can't make the argument that it would 'save the government money' to the right ... Something else: It fosters a more competitive work environment, by allowing capable workers to choose the best firms. It also separates health cost, whose administration is expensive for businesses, from working capabilities of employees. It’s a major problem for small companies. Finally, anything more than essential coverage could and should still be privatized, and paid for by individuals. Much like today’s life insurance today. e.g., long cancer recovery and care.
- BobbyJo 5y ago
  > Something else: It fosters a more competitive work environment, by allowing capable workers to choose the best firms. Do you have data showing that the gains in competitiveness offset productivity losses from higher unemployment? >Finally, anything more than essential coverage could and should still be privatized, and paid for by individuals. Much like today’s life insurance today. e.g., long cancer recovery and care. What is the difference between essential and not essential? I don't think there's a good objective basis for what is and isn't, it just comes down to the costs healthy people are willing to bear, which comes down to feelings again.
  - nobodyandproud 5y ago
    Do you have data showing that universal healthcare leads to higher unemployment? The difference between essential and non-essential? Why should I have to make that distinction in a forum? Both private healthcare AND even medicare do this today, to different degrees. Largely, routine check-ups and preventive care are covered. Emergency visits and triage care used to be covered (and still should be). Everything else is quite subjective, and cost is a factor.
    - BobbyJo 5y ago
      > Do you have data showing that universal healthcare leads to higher unemployment? More competitiveness necessarily implies more frictional unemployment. You can't have one without the other. > The difference between essential and non-essential? Why should I have to make that distinction in a forum? I'm not saying you should, I'm saying an argument that points to universal healthcare as an objective practice requires it. > to different degrees Exactly. There isn't an agreed upon objective basis for what qualifies as 'essential'.

teclordphrack2 5y ago

Except a lot on the left is driven by data.

BobbyJo 5y ago
Citation? Or is that just a data-free assertion? ;)
rsj_hn 5y ago
Banning plastic straws, asserting that men should compete against women in sports if they identify as women, and eliminating SAT scores doesn't seem like a science-driven approach, but more of a faith-based science-denialism.
- whoooooo123 5y ago
  Genuine question: what's wrong with banning plastic straws? Edit: I know that paper straws are a pain to drink through, my question was more: why is banning plastic straws an example of "faith-based science denialism"?
  - Smilliam 5y ago
    Hypothetical answer: A ban on plastic straws can unintentionally make life more difficult for individuals with motor disabilities. Paper straws break down relatively quickly and can lose suction effectiveness as a result. Reusable metal straws can cause chipped teeth or gum damage if bitten down on by someone with poor fine motor control. No straws at all can leave an individual unable to ingest liquids entirely. Reusable soft plastic straws would be ideal, but the tradeoff is that now we've placed yet an extra burden on an impaired person (or their caretakers) in our society because now they'll need to maintain a supply of clean, reusable straws that they need to transport with them. Disposable plastic straws are "soft" enough to not damage someone's teeth or gums too severely when bitten down on, but are more durable than paper straws to ensure reliable suction over time, and they do not require any upkeep or maintenance for proper hygiene due to their disposable nature.

ABeeSea 5y ago

Republican Reagan signed EMTALA which makes it so hospitals can’t refuse service in emergencies due to ability to pay. It stopped people from dying in the street. They did not fund this new mandate and so we currently pay for this through higher insurance premiums and county/municipal emergency service budgets. Universal healthcare would be a more efficient way to pay for an already existing benefit. When uninsured chronic conditions have reached the point you are literally in the ER / close to death, you suddenly get tons of subsidized healthcare. Subsidized in a grossly inefficient manner. Universal healthcare would lower costs through prevention. I would have more respect for the right if they just admitted they are ok with people dying in the streets since they just ignore the economic effects of EMTALA.

BobbyJo 5y ago
Reagan is not 'the right'. He's a member of the Republican party who served 50 years ago. And again, universal health care only saves money if you start with the basis that the government will force private companies to take on customers that can't pay for service, something that is very much not a right wing ideology. I'm not saying it's a bad idea or a good idea, I'm just saying there is no basis for universal healthcare that doesn't start with 'we need to help people'. Same with social security. Same with many other left wing policies. A lot of the problems around market inefficiency in healthcare are perfectly solvable without helping the poor.
- ABeeSea 5y ago
  > if you start with the basis that the government will force private companies to take on customers that can't pay for service, EMTALA already does this and I don’t see a push on the right to repeal EMTALA. Universal healthcare is a more efficient model of what is already happening.
  - BobbyJo 5y ago
    I also don't see a push from republicans to repeal social security. That doesn't mean it isn't a socialist policy.

la6471 5y ago

Yes they can vote to leave the state but they should also not get any of the tax dollars from the more densely populated counties that stay behind. Thank you , sayonara!

nwallin 5y ago

> what basis is there for universal healthcare other than 'we should help each other'? Uninsured, underinsured, or people with high deductibles are much, much more likely to let a health issue linger for much longer than someone who gets free (to them) healthcare. If an issue lingers, getting worse and worse, it may eventually reach the point where it forces them out of the workforce; they stop paying taxes, they stop purchasing commercial goods which drive the economy, they stop buying new cars, etc. (on an individual basis, this is rare, but compounded by 40 million or so people it adds up to a lot of people not performing economic activity who would otherwise be making and spending money) Free-for-me healthcare is better at providing preventative medicine than out-of-pocket healthcare. Preventative medicine is cheaper in absolute terms over the long term that remedial medicine, even if preventative medicine is much more common that remedial medicine. If remedial medicine removes a person from the work force, that costs the entire GDP a worker. It is better for all of us -- in purely economic terms -- to have a worker wearing a government issued back brace, taking government issued anti-inflammatory drugs, and participating in government sponsored physical therapy than having a non-worker have back surgery on an insurance plan that spreads the cost among all of that insurer's other customers instead of producing widgets in the factory. I might not speak for that many people on the left, but I personally support anti-poverty programs as a general rule not because I care about the plight of humanity or whatever, (fuck 'em) but because taxing people and spending those tax dollars on anti-poverty programs improve my overall quality of life more than just letting us keep the money. Every poor person, every homeless person, needs to have tax dollars devoted to them in terms of police and emergency services. Two years ago someone smashed my car's window, stole a $20 backpack with $40 worth of gym clothes, costing me a $500 deductible to replace the window and fix the e-brake. Pretty sure if that asshole had a better education, was given free tradeschool or college they wouldn't have smashed my window. We, as a society, have decided that we'd rather have a pound of cure than an ounce of prevention. In a dozen ways. And that's fucking stupid.

rsynnott 5y ago

> For instance, what basis is there for universal healthcare other than 'we should help each other'? Ask Bismarck. The first quasi-universal healthcare system wasn’t introduced because Bismarck was so nice; it was to increase productivity and discourage people from voting for the socialists.