2016 USA Presidential election thread I: The warm-up

[Fiye]

Also that Vox opinion piece seemed very vague and used a lot of terms that republicans have liked to use in the past. Even so far as calling Bernie Sander's plan for health care a "Death Panel". Bernie Sanders is working because he has plans that we agree with and we want him in office so he can start hammering out his plans.

The number of what ifs about college tuition, the whole "Too big to fail" just being dismissed as a fantastic slogan. More or less this is just framework that republicans are going to use to attempt to dismantle Bernie Sanders campaign because they're now realizing Clinton isn't 100% guaranteed.

[archibaldcrane]

The point is, you have to have a governmental body that says "no" to certain treatments/devices/medications if you're going to be able to control costs. Sarah Palin would call that a death panel, because she's retarded. But that doesn't mean Bernie can avoid telling us how this gatekeeper will be constructed, who will staff it, are they elected officials? Appointed? By whom? What would cause them to say no to something? Are pseudo-treatments allowed? Accupunture? Chiropractic? Natural herbal crystal hippie cures?

There's just a billion questions that are unanswered, and it's irresponsible to promise "free health care for all!" without getting into how, precisely, the most difficult aspects of single-payer are handled.

It's good politics though - you don't want people questioning how it works.

[Gredival]

Seems like once you remove financial barriers, standards for college admission would necessarily go up as more students would be competing for the same spots.

Assuming that this will push out for-profit schools, and we get tougher on school's accreditation in order to qualify for government funds to cover your students, maybe. But I feel like there are still way too many undergraduate positions in America vs. positions that actually should require a BA.

[Blubbartron]

I like how all of you are making arguments as if education in general isn't important. Was it posted in this thread about how the principles of Democracy are effectively guaranteed to elect a mediocre leader, but never below average? If we want to fix this country, we need to raise up everyone. That's the only way the average will be increased in order to get us better leaders making better decisions. Hell, even Thomas Jefferson understood that a well-educated populace is the cornerstone of Democracy. Trade schools don't teach you history and how to think and read with context.

[Marootsoobutsu]

I like how all of you are making arguments as if education in general isn't important. Was it posted in this thread about how the principles of Democracy are effectively guaranteed to elect a mediocre leader, but never below average? If we want to fix this country, we need to raise up everyone. That's the only way the average will be increased in order to get us better leaders making better decisions. Hell, even Thomas Jefferson understood that a well-educated populace is the cornerstone of Democracy. Trade schools don't teach you history and how to think and read with context.

Neither does college, for most people who go. It should, but it doesn't. And that's the point.

[Waraji]

Trade schools don't teach you history and how to think and read with context.

Traditional Colleges also don't teach you Carpentry Craftmanship, or how to properly and safely install electrical systems in a new home or commercial building. The world needs educated labor, not some asshole with a Bachelors degree in Fine Arts telling you what painting you need in your Living rooms West Wall in order to Feng Shui your home.

I took World History in college, not because I wanted to learn World History; I had learned enough of that shit on my own and in Public Schools. I took World History because I needed to fill an elective, spending money on a class I didn't give 3 fucks about, and didn't learn a goddamn thing except for the new-found disgust for my professor at uttering the word "Irregardles" in an auditorium of 300 students.

I agree that learning about the world you live in is important, but Timmy isn't the brightest bulb in the Home Depot and he needs an adequate education to live a comfortable life, get married, and have children that could possibly win the genetic lottery and be naturally smarter then their parents.

We don't need a globe filled with Theoretical Physicists. Some people will have to repair the robots we create in the future. Trade schools after High Schools are just as important as Colleges & Universities.

[archibaldcrane]

You guys, come with me



Sarah Palin

Donald Trump

together at last

[Waraji]

Sarah Palin

Donald Trump

together at last

Link you shit, I was concerned...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/20/us...alin.html?_r=0

Worse things have happened, like, Sarah Palin as Vice President Nominee worse. Queue Maverick memes.

[archibaldcrane]

Stop acting like Sarah Palin getting involved in the Republican shitshow isn't the cherry to top it all off. We know you're lying.

[BaneTheBrawler]

disgust for my professor at uttering the word "Irregardles" in an auditorium of 300 students.

ugh

the worst

i hope you called them out on it and shit on their day

[Kurokikaze]

The point is, you have to have a governmental body that says "no" to certain treatments/devices/medications if you're going to be able to control costs. Sarah Palin would call that a death panel, because she's retarded. But that doesn't mean Bernie can avoid telling us how this gatekeeper will be constructed, who will staff it, are they elected officials? Appointed? By whom? What would cause them to say no to something? Are pseudo-treatments allowed? Accupunture? Chiropractic? Natural herbal crystal hippie cures?

There's just a billion questions that are unanswered, and it's irresponsible to promise "free health care for all!" without getting into how, precisely, the most difficult aspects of single-payer are handled.

It's good politics though - you don't want people questioning how it works.

All of those are valid points that I also would like to see answered. However, since when did elections get so specific in regards to policies? This is fairly par for the course in regards to an outline - I'd argue that Bernie has given us more details than the average candidate.

I would love to debate every single bit about a particular proposal - but during a debate you need quick bullet points that the average American isn't going to get gloss over.

Also, the whole idea about whether we should or shouldn't fund free college/public university tuition disregards the fact that it has been estimated to cost roughly 75 billion a year. That's a relatively small number in contrast to our annual budgets. We've got the money - it's just a matter of do people see educating their own fucking citizens as an investment. That said, I still see value in trade schools.

[Marootsoobutsu]

All of those are valid points that I also would like to see answered. However, since when did elections get so specific in regards to policies? This is fairly par for the course in regards to an outline - I'd argue that Bernie has given us more details than the average candidate.

I would love to debate every single bit about a particular proposal - but during a debate you need quick bullet points that the average American isn't going to get gloss over.

Also, the whole idea about whether we should or shouldn't fund free college/public university tuition disregards the fact that it has been estimated to cost roughly 75 billion a year. That's a relatively small number in contrast to our annual budgets. We've got the money - it's just a matter of do people see educating their own fucking citizens as an investment. That said, I still see value in trade schools.

There's a saying that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Bernie's goals are outlandish in the current political atmosphere; he needs to have a more comprehensive plan in place for overhauling things than does someone who is either going to undo a government policy or only moderately tweak it. It's one thing to say, "This should be a thing," and an entirely other to say, "This is how will will make this a thing." Bernie has done the former, which sounds great; leadership requires the later. The biggest skeptics aren't saying that Bernies "This should be a thing" is wrong-- they are doubting the plausibility, and until Bernie has a comprehensive plan that answers that issue, it's a very legitimate question to ask of his extraordinary claims.

[zoobernut]

The point is, you have to have a governmental body that says "no" to certain treatments/devices/medications if you're going to be able to control costs. Sarah Palin would call that a death panel, because she's retarded. But that doesn't mean Bernie can avoid telling us how this gatekeeper will be constructed, who will staff it, are they elected officials? Appointed? By whom? What would cause them to say no to something? Are pseudo-treatments allowed? Accupunture? Chiropractic? Natural herbal crystal hippie cures?

There's just a billion questions that are unanswered, and it's irresponsible to promise "free health care for all!" without getting into how, precisely, the most difficult aspects of single-payer are handled.

It's good politics though - you don't want people questioning how it works.

The problem I see with it is calling them death panels servers only to scare people it doesn't really provide any information on how they function. Isn't this what already happens in the private insurance companies? Why would these panels operate any differently than how a private insurance company does. Someone somewhere in the process needs to make decisions on what is covered and what isn't.

[archibaldcrane]

Someone somewhere in the process needs to make decisions on what is covered and what isn't.

And Bernie needs to tell us who and where if he's going to seriously attempt to make this happen - and he needs to stop lying about everything being covered. You can't just yadda yadda crucial details (and this is one of the most crucial) away if you're expecting people to take you seriously.

[archibaldcrane]

All of those are valid points that I also would like to see answered. However, since when did elections get so specific in regards to policies? This is fairly par for the course in regards to an outline - I'd argue that Bernie has given us more details than the average candidate.

I would love to debate every single bit about a particular proposal - but during a debate you need quick bullet points that the average American isn't going to get gloss over.

He didn't have a problem getting detailed down to the tenth of a percentage point about the tax increases needed to pay for his plan (and I commend him for that) - there's no reason why we shouldn't expect the same transparency about other crucial details. If he's taking the decision making out of the hands of insurance companies, we need to know whose hands he's placing it into.

Understand that he's making GIGANTIC assumptions about the cost reductions that will have to occur for his funding the plan to match the cost of the plan - stuff that goes WAY beyond just reducing administrative expenses. That means there are a ton more affected parties than simply tweaking how insurance works, stakeholders all throughout the medical community, and change is hard, especially if that change is flat-out "you are all going to make significantly less money" - which is what will have to happen for his plan to work.

[Waraji]

They should have the same assholes on my insurances panel making the decisions. They don't let fucking anything thru, talk to me about death panels yo.

[zoobernut]

And Bernie needs to tell us who and where if he's going to seriously attempt to make this happen - and he needs to stop lying about everything being covered. You can't just yadda yadda crucial details (and this is one of the most crucial) away if you're expecting people to take you seriously.

You are missing my point about people pretending that this sort of panel making these decisions is any different than the ones that presumably exist in private insurance companies already.

[archibaldcrane]

You are missing my point about people pretending that this sort of panel making these decisions is any different than the ones that presumably exist in private insurance companies already.

I understand your point just fine. No insurance company would ever say "everything is covered" - that's the difference here.

[zoobernut]

I understand your point just fine. No insurance company would ever say "everything is covered" - that's the difference here.

We were talking about the Vox article and his use of the term "death panels" though. My point is relevant to that article and to anyone else who wants to cut down the idea of a single payer system with the scare tactic of talking about "death panels". I agree with you that Bernie needs to talk about how he would set up the system or governing body to decide what is covered and what isn't. It isn't practical to have everything covered and decisions do need to be made. For the purposes of a campaign though it is silly to expect him to break down what is covered and what is not covered though I do think it would be valuable to explain how the committee who would decide that would be put together.

[Byrthnoth]

IIRC Vox is one of the most blatantly liberally biased websites on the interwebs. I would give you pretty good odds that the author was using the term "Death Panels" sarcastically, but also because they were specifically talking about the necessary decision-making board that gave rise to the term and was a political football last time we tried to do this.

"The Bern" is mostly hot air so far, without realistic plans or any legitimate way to implement them. You ready for his single payer all-inclusive healthcare? Well, Trump's supporters are ready for a big ass wall on the border with Mexico.