Switch Theme:

The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in gb
Assassin with Black Lotus Poison





Bristol

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
 sebster wrote:

But the issue is if you're going to stand up and say you're for fiscal responsibility and effective money handling, well then your own financial management is decent test for that. And it's a test that Rubio has failed hard enough that Romney's team cited it as a major concern when they vetted him for VP.


Strangely, I've known a number of people who volunteered or were hired to work at various non-profit organizations in a major financial way. In some of these instances these folks were the sole handler of the group's money, and strangely some of these folks could handle other people's money extremely well, but were absolutely crap with their own funds.


Personally, while I think that personal finances can be an issue in politics, I'd much rather look at how they handle other people's money because again, some folks do better with another man's wages than their own.


Even if you go off of that assessment, Rubio is not great with money. He used campaign funds for personal purchases and got caught doing so. Either he's corrupt and trying to siphon funds to enrich himself but is too incompetent to do so without getting caught, or he's incompetent enough that he can't keep his personal and political finances suitably separate. Either way, it's not a great picture.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/11 12:26:32


The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.

Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

Agreed. This will impact my view. But I am realistic in that this is one factor, and not an uncommon one.

If it came down to Rubio vs. Clinton, he's an amateur swindler. She's a professional...


-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 dogma wrote:
 whembly wrote:

It's the truth and you know it. Why is it incumbant on the REpublican Congress to *fix* a law that they had no responsibility?


The fact that you believe Republicans had nothing to do with how ACA turned out marks you as a partisan hack. Their blatant refusal to cooperate, despite attempts at compromise most assuredly impacted the nature of the final bill.

In what alternate universe to you live?

Pelosi and Reid shut them out during the entire drafting. The relationship got so poisoned at the end, 'tis why none of the Republican voted for it.

 whembly wrote:

You seem to argue from the standpoint that the ACA is "as good as it's going to get" and anything else is just hackery.


I highly doubt that is his position.

Regardless, there is no reason to start by repealing ACA. The sensible thing to do is amend the existing legislation, while also working to develop a replacement system. This nonsense "all or nothing" approach to politics is what turned ACA into the mess that it is.

No. The sensible thing to do is temporarily grant subsidies from Federal Exchange on the current year, with a full repeal date at the end.

The "all or nothing" approach is common with all those "Comprehensive Plans on Everything" ordeal.

'Tis why I always advocated more piecemeal approach on things. But, alas, would never happen because then the congressional critters would have to "work more".

 whembly wrote:

Seb... I love you man... but, the following is nothing more than anti-Republican criticsm by "otherizing" him...


I don't think you know what othering is. Seriously, simply pointing out facts about a person is not to other that person. You also have to emphasize how those characteristics make the person separate from the mainstream. Hell, Sebster outright stated that Rubio's poor financial choices are farily typical of the nouveau riche, which is about as inclusive as it gets.

You're missing the point. It's an attempt by the NYT to do this... because, he's not a Democrat.

Frankly, his actual record has plenty of things to ding him on.... Some big ones too, like is antics with the Gang of Eight.

 whembly wrote:

Wow... it's like you (and the NYT!) is trying really hard to prove that Rubio is just like the common middle/upper-middle income class American.


I don't see how pointing out the Rubio's personal finances are a shambles makes him like "...common middle/upper-middle incomes class..." Americans, unless you believe that same category of people generally does a poor job of managing their finances.

Um... why exactly do you think they're in shambles?

I don't see it.

Oh... here's the Rubio response:

"But the biggest debt I have is to America"

Indeed... well played.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
EDIT: Jon Fething Stewart calls this BS:


“You bastard. Paying off law school loans? How dare you. At long last Senator, have you no sense of insolvency?” Stewart ribbed.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/11 15:51:26


Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 whembly wrote:
It's the truth and you know it. Why is it incumbant on the REpublican Congress to *fix* a law that they had no responsibility?
Please answer me that.


Because millions of people rely on the subisidies provided, as part of a system that gives millions healthcare who wouldn’t otherwise have it. You’re so lost in the politics you seem to have missed that this actually impacts on people’s lives. And that’s a little bit shameful, to be honest.


And you've conviently ignore multiple proposals.


But there isn’t a serious Republican alternative. There’s a thought bubble that’s a weird combination of ‘like ACA but with some stuff to make it pretend it isn’t’, that’s pretty much held together with a proposed tax for employees on plans. At least that’s the one I’ve read, and to call that a politically viable alternative is nonsense.

And I like the idea of taxing employer provided healthcare – I wouldn’t even have the exemption for plans under the threshold. But the Republicans aren’t going to seriously replace ACA with something build around a tax hike.

You seem to argue from the standpoint that the ACA is "as good as it's going to get" and anything else is just hackery.


There’s lots of healthcare systems out there that are vastly superior to the American system. But the reality is that in your current political climate it took some really weird politics to even get the fairly minor reforms of the ACA in place. And the freak out about that is still going on. To think the Republicans are going to walk in to that and take the electoral hit the Democrats took over ACA is political naivety.

Wow... it's like you (and the NYT!) is trying really hard to prove that Rubio is just like the common middle/upper-middle income class American.


And now you’re just being reflexively argumentative. Read my post fully, please. You’ll find I dismissed the argument a few of you were making that the claims made about Rubio weren’t true, for the simple reason that he really does have a background of poor financial management. I then went on to say that while it is true, it’s a fairly trivial thing, and in some ways isn’t even a bad thing, as it reflects a common story among people who’ve moved up through the socio-economic classes.

I mean, if you want to argue and point score then I’m sure you can find someone who’s happy to go and copy paste the list of Democrat approved talking points at you, while you reply with the Republican approved talking points. I’m not interested in that, I attempted to give a fairly complete look at the Rubio money thing, and all you did was pick out that I raised one part that works in the Republican’s favour, and used that to point score against me.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Personally, while I think that personal finances can be an issue in politics, I'd much rather look at how they handle other people's money because again, some folks do better with another man's wages than their own.


I agree his personal finances are a side issue. I think the Democrats are way over-reaching on this, and also showing a little bit of hypocrisy. Plenty of times in the past they’ve been quick to point out, quite rightly, that the ability to build a large personal fortune doesn’t mean you have any skill at all in managing an economy. But now they’re forgetting that the two things are unrelated because it suits them.

Personally, I think the issue of far greater substance is the woeful performance of states that lowered taxes in the belief that it wouldn’t impact revenue because of Laffer curve insanity. Every one of them is now facing a fiscal blackhole.

But for lots of reasons actual fiscal analysis even on that simple level is ignored, because it’s easier and more fun to rip in to the guy who bought a boat he couldn’t afford. Such is politics.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/06/12 03:27:14


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges




United States

 whembly wrote:

Pelosi and Reid shut them out during the entire drafting. The relationship got so poisoned at the end, 'tis why none of the Republican voted for it.


At the end they did, but that's largely because it became apparent the Republicans weren't going to agree to anything the Democrats suggested. Rather foolish of them to wait that long, really.

 whembly wrote:

No. The sensible thing to do is temporarily grant subsidies from Federal Exchange on the current year, with a full repeal date at the end.


That isn't sensible at all, as it would never pass.

 whembly wrote:

The "all or nothing" approach is common with all those "Comprehensive Plans on Everything" ordeal.

'Tis why I always advocated more piecemeal approach on things. But, alas, would never happen because then the congressional critters would have to "work more".


It has nothing to do with Congress being unwilling to do work. It has everything to do with the fact that as more changes to the system are made, the more time consuming and complicated reform becomes.

Regardless, my point about "all or nothing" has as much to do with the present state of partisan politics as it did with the nature of ACA. We live in an age of slippery slope arguments and purity tests.

 whembly wrote:

You're missing the point. It's an attempt by the NYT to do this... because, he's not a Democrat.


If that was your point, you did a poor job of communicating it, particularly with your attempt to reference the concept of othering.

Either way the NYT leans left so it tends to pick up potential scandals related to the right, film at 11. But, really, who cares? There is no reason to dismiss information simply because it was provided by a source with a clear political bias. That way lies hackery.

 whembly wrote:

Um... why exactly do you think they're in shambles?

I don't see it.


He spent beyond his means, as the nouveau riche tend to do, and ended up in financial trouble due to a number of poor choices. The Tallahassee house he had to sell at a loss being the most obvious one. Then of course there's the issue of using Party and campaign funds for personal expenditures. This is normal, of course, but doesn't fit well with a fiscally conservative image.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 sebster wrote:

I agree his personal finances are a side issue. I think the Democrats are way over-reaching on this, and also showing a little bit of hypocrisy. Plenty of times in the past they’ve been quick to point out, quite rightly, that the ability to build a large personal fortune doesn’t mean you have any skill at all in managing an economy. But now they’re forgetting that the two things are unrelated because it suits them.


To the extent that Rubio's personal finances are an issue, I would think his biggest concern would be the fact that Scott Walker has a net worth well into the red; giving him a bit more cred as the common man who made it good.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/12 04:56:34


Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 dogma wrote:
At the end they did, but that's largely because it became apparent the Republicans weren't going to agree to anything the Democrats suggested. Rather foolish of them to wait that long, really.


Yeah, that’s really the piece of revisionism that still staggers me to this day, even with everything else that’s happened. The Republicans set out from the start to destroy the healthcare reform. We have the statements from party leaders, we have the campaign to put people in town hall meetings with the instruction to shout down discussion on the issue. And all throughout the process we had non-sensical attacks about socialism and other nonsense, on top of that we had straight up lies about what was in the bill (death panels anyone?).

And after all that, when the bill finally limps over the line, then Republicans start complaining they weren’t included in the process. It’s incredible, really.

“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 sebster wrote:
on top of that we had straight up lies about what was in the bill (death panels anyone?).



Honestly, I don't know what's worse, the lies coming from one party, or the "Well you'll have to pass it to find out what's in it" coming from the other party.


But, I suppose that such is apparently the new way of politicking in the US
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Honestly, I don't know what's worse, the lies coming from one party, or the "Well you'll have to pass it to find out what's in it" coming from the other party.


Except even that is only ever presented out of context. Pelosi was discussing the period before reconciliation, when the House had passed a bill but the Senate hadn’t. Her point was specifically that until the Senate passed their own version, then they couldn’t start reconciliation to decide what was going to be in the final version. So what she said basically was ‘The senate will have to pass a bill, so we can see what’s in their bill, and then we can talk about what will be in the final reconciled bill’.

It's not a particularly good way of writing legislation, an issue that's since shown up with the current case before the Supreme Court, but, well, we’ve had a million conversations about the reconciliation process before and why it happened, I don’t think we need another.

I really don’t want to end up a defender of the Democrats, but when it came to the ACA there was only one party acting in nothing but bad faith (the other party was semi-incompetently stumbling towards eventually having to do something useful for people, for once).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/12 06:00:39


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Blood Angel Captain Wracked with Visions






 whembly wrote:
Frankly, his actual record has plenty of things to ding him on.... Some big ones too, like is antics with the Gang of Eight.

Well earning the money is no guarantee that the media won't use it as a beating stick (Romney). Perhaps he should take a leaf out of a politician's book who's money is not often brought up to question his fitness for office; maybe he should have married money instead like John Kerry

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Honestly, I don't know what's worse, the lies coming from one party, or the "Well you'll have to pass it to find out what's in it" coming from the other party.

The only time that line should be acceptable is when it comes to stool samples.

 
   
Made in us
Fate-Controlling Farseer





Fort Campbell

 whembly wrote:
 dogma wrote:
 whembly wrote:

It's the truth and you know it. Why is it incumbant on the REpublican Congress to *fix* a law that they had no responsibility?


The fact that you believe Republicans had nothing to do with how ACA turned out marks you as a partisan hack. Their blatant refusal to cooperate, despite attempts at compromise most assuredly impacted the nature of the final bill.

In what alternate universe to you live?

Pelosi and Reid shut them out during the entire drafting. The relationship got so poisoned at the end, 'tis why none of the Republican voted for it.


The one where Politifacts lie of the year, wasn't a lie.

Full Frontal Nerdity 
   
Made in us
Did Fulgrim Just Behead Ferrus?





Fort Worth, TX

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The Rs knew exactly what they were doing. Working together to create a new golden age of healthcare in the US was not in the Rs best interest. You don't win votes by working with the other side to do something good for the nation. You win votes by making the other side look worse than you. A bad ACA has allowed many Rs to win recent elections, a good ACA wouldn't have done so. It's really as simple as that. If you don't think the Rs leadership didn't have advisors and strategists whispering these things in their ears ("psst, sabotage healthcare reform, blame the other side, and get re-elected, or help pass healthcare reform for the good of the nation, the other side gets the credit, and you don't get re-elected"), then it's time to wake up and smell the hummus.

"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me."
- Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The Rs knew exactly what they were doing. Working together to create a new golden age of healthcare in the US was not in the Rs best interest. You don't win votes by working with the other side to do something good for the nation. You win votes by making the other side look worse than you. A bad ACA has allowed many Rs to win recent elections, a good ACA wouldn't have done so. It's really as simple as that. If you don't think the Rs leadership didn't have advisors and strategists whispering these things in their ears ("psst, sabotage healthcare reform, blame the other side, and get re-elected, or help pass healthcare reform for the good of the nation, the other side gets the credit, and you don't get re-elected"), then it's time to wake up and smell the hummus.

I'm sorry, but that's hogwash.

There's no two sides (Ds vs Rs) in the Healthcare reform debates. There's a multitudes of idea from both parties that could've be voted/implemented piecemeal.

The only fault the Democrats did was to try to do this 'comprehensibly'. That's where it becomes a bad law in that, every special interest group/politician would want their pet-idea.


Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

I'm going to drop any further ACA discussions, as it'll only be rehashing what we've beaten to death in other ACA threads.

Maybe we'll reconvene after the SC ruling at the end of this month...

 whembly wrote:

Um... why exactly do you think they're in shambles?

I don't see it.


He spent beyond his means, as the nouveau riche tend to do, and ended up in financial trouble due to a number of poor choices. The Tallahassee house he had to sell at a loss being the most obvious one. Then of course there's the issue of using Party and campaign funds for personal expenditures. This is normal, of course, but doesn't fit well with a fiscally conservative image.

Okay... that makes more sense and his inappropriate use of campaign funds is certainly fair game. (he's paid it back and it's not an uncommon thing with the political environment).

I don't think it'll hurt him in the primary... may even help him win. (which, tbh, I don't want him as President. I'm partial to governors).
Rubio the Average American

Marco Rubio bought a bunch of stuff he probably couldn’t afford. Welcome to America. So the New York Times has pulled together another hit piece — this one insinuating that Rubio, who the newspaper evidently believes is the GOP front-runner, is both a reckless spendthrift and a financial failure.

The story — either clumsily or, more likely, deliberately — confuses offshore fishing boats with “luxury speedboats” and pickup trucks with SUVs to render a distasteful account of Rubio’s financial life. But what we really learned is that though Rubio is not great with money, the senator from Florida has relatively modest desires, considering his fame. And his story features the kinds of struggles that middle-class voters often face when juggling bills, family, and their investments. Rubio, the Times tells us, made a series of decisions over the past 15 years “that experts called imprudent.” Rubio stacked up “significant” debts before his big payday. And he “splurged” on “extravagant” purchases after securing his $800,000 advance in a book deal. He has a “penchant” for spending heavily on “luxury items,” such as a boat in Florida, and he also leased a 2015 Audi Q7 — after receiving that sizable advance.

It didn’t end there. The Rubios went nuts with an “in-ground pool” — instead of a cheaper above-ground model — a “handsome” brick driveway, “meticulously manicured shrubs,” and “oversize windows.” At the same time, Rubio — one of the poorest senators, according to the Center for Responsive Politics — also carried a “strikingly low” savings rate, the newspaper points out. And his inattentive accounting methods lost him more money.

As far as the politics go, the New York Times could not have done Rubio a bigger favor. Convincing voters that you’re one of them typically takes millions, a fabulist tale about your upbringing, and maybe a Chipotle stop or two. Convincing them that you have empathy for their situation is an even more formidable task. But Rubio is now you. As Christopher Hayes tweeted, “starting to think Rubio has some plant in the NYT and these supposed ‘hit-jobs’ on him are false flags made to make him look sympathetic.” [whembly: heh, I'm stealing that]The question is: Does any of this really matter to voters? I’m typically uninspired by candidates who pretend to be like me or, even worse, are anything like me. I’m terrible. I wouldn’t trust me with anything too serious, and I probably wouldn’t trust you, either. So when I do vote, my decision is driven by the ideological outlook of a candidate or, as is far more often the case, how much I detest the ideological outlook of the rival candidate. Whether that candidate is a billionaire or spends spare time helping orphans with autism in inner cities or shovels his own snow does not matter. People with compelling ideas and the right temperament for the job can emerge from any facet of society.

But I realize many Americans disagree. They distrust elites. They desire candidates who understand them. Rubio certainly has something that neither Mitt Romney nor George W. Bush could muster: a non-theoretical grasp of how a child of working-class parents can find success in America. So there really is nothing inherently inappropriate about the media’s scrutinizing the fiscal lives of candidates. If you’re going to run for president, there’s no reason voters shouldn’t be curious about your past conduct and choices — especially in an age when politicians have few qualms about involving themselves in your personal choices. The problem with the New York Times investigation is not so much that it’s a transparent attempt to paint Rubio as an unfit candidate but that the paper exhibits an ugly double standard in coverage.

Listen, some folks make $100,000 trading cattle futures their first time out of the gate, and others have to take on mortgages and wait years for any profit. Which reminds me. Watching fans of Hillary Clinton’s attacking Rubio for his fiscal failings should be a comic experience. That’s not because Clinton is preposterously wealthy for someone who has accomplished so little. It’s because Clinton got her hands on gobs of cash in a truly detestable manner. Not only has she peddled her influence but also that influence was bought with the success of someone else’s name. If 2016 pits Rubio against Clinton, it won’t pit a guy who has trouble balancing a checkbook against a prosperous and talented woman. It’ll be a race that pits a person whose greed and corruption go back decades against a guy whose dream, according to the New York Times, is a fishing boat and a nice car — the kind of items that even average Americans regularly covet.

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Tannhauser42 wrote:
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The Rs knew exactly what they were doing. Working together to create a new golden age of healthcare in the US was not in the Rs best interest. You don't win votes by working with the other side to do something good for the nation.


Yep. The position is pretty simple.

1) In 2008 the position of the Republican party was absolutely dire. The Republican brand was so bad that a Republican actually ran his campaign without putting Republican on his campaign material, and his Democrat opponent sued him to try to make him put it on.

2) The Democrat win was almost absolute. If it wasn't anyone other than the Democrats it would have been absolute, but those guys are a herd of cats and managed to screw up control of the presidency and both houses, with a non-filibuster majority in the senate. This gave Democrats both the power and the momentum for major reform, and the issue that it had to be was healthcare.

3) If the Republicans just meekly surrendered to this and accepted a junior seat and the negotiating table on healthcare, they're looking at probably a generation in the wilderness. Republicans had been out of power for long periods before, it only makes sense they'll do what they can to fight that.

4) Instead, the Republicans played on what everyone knew (or should have known) - healthcare is an issue that freaks people out. If they could increase and focus that freak out against the Democrats, then it could recover their base and return the party to legitimacy much faster.

5) So as the Democrats started their public discussion of possible reform, the Republicans were already underway, starting faux grassroots groups to shout nonsense and get as many people as possible scared about the bill, and inventing all sorts of complaints against the proposed reforms that could only be described as some combination of lies and total insanity. As the debate and bill developed, Republicans never let up on that campaign, and for good reason - it was working - their numbers were up, they'd already scored a remarkable win in Ted Kennedy's old seat, and they'd built a wave to take them to big wins in the 2010 elections.

6) While the plan worked brilliantly for the Republicans electorally, it probably almost worked too well in terms of the bill itself. Previously healthcare scare campaigns had worked well enough to score political points and kill the reform, but this time the bill was so vilified Democrats were actually left with no choice but to pass the thing (it was so unpopular the only way out was to pass the thing and then point out it didn't actually involve putting Hitler's brain in a shark).

7) This meant the Republicans ended up with an electoral victory, but a massive legislative defeat - here was the most significant piece of reform in years, and they shut themselves out of it entirely. Not a good look when you next want to trade legislative influence for campaign contributions. So Republicans then invented a new narrative - that they wanted to be involved all along, but the Democrats weren't letting them.


Honestly, having had a lot of time to think about it, I'm actually not that annoyed about the Republican strategy. There were some individual actions that were terrible, but the overall strategy is really want any political party would do in their position - it's simply not sensible to insist a political party should play nice and just accept a decade or two in the wilderness.

Its really the Republican faithful who bought in to each lie that I really just can't fathom. I have no problem with people who hold Republican values and accept the above manipulation and deceit as part of the game, but the people who still pretend the Republicans acted in good faith... well the only way I can understand it is to believe those people must kind of enjoy being lied to on some level, because they can't possibly honestly believe any of it at this point.

“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Discriminating Deathmark Assassin




Roswell, GA

I just hope we don't get to a point to where we will see the Presidency and Both houses controlled by one party. I also feel there is way more religious baiting going on in the recent years, something that should absolutely have no room in politics.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/12 16:06:31


 
   
Made in gb
Courageous Grand Master




-

 sebster wrote:
 Tannhauser42 wrote:
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The Rs knew exactly what they were doing. Working together to create a new golden age of healthcare in the US was not in the Rs best interest. You don't win votes by working with the other side to do something good for the nation.


Yep. The position is pretty simple.

1) In 2008 the position of the Republican party was absolutely dire. The Republican brand was so bad that a Republican actually ran his campaign without putting Republican on his campaign material, and his Democrat opponent sued him to try to make him put it on.

2) The Democrat win was almost absolute. If it wasn't anyone other than the Democrats it would have been absolute, but those guys are a herd of cats and managed to screw up control of the presidency and both houses, with a non-filibuster majority in the senate. This gave Democrats both the power and the momentum for major reform, and the issue that it had to be was healthcare.

3) If the Republicans just meekly surrendered to this and accepted a junior seat and the negotiating table on healthcare, they're looking at probably a generation in the wilderness. Republicans had been out of power for long periods before, it only makes sense they'll do what they can to fight that.

4) Instead, the Republicans played on what everyone knew (or should have known) - healthcare is an issue that freaks people out. If they could increase and focus that freak out against the Democrats, then it could recover their base and return the party to legitimacy much faster.

5) So as the Democrats started their public discussion of possible reform, the Republicans were already underway, starting faux grassroots groups to shout nonsense and get as many people as possible scared about the bill, and inventing all sorts of complaints against the proposed reforms that could only be described as some combination of lies and total insanity. As the debate and bill developed, Republicans never let up on that campaign, and for good reason - it was working - their numbers were up, they'd already scored a remarkable win in Ted Kennedy's old seat, and they'd built a wave to take them to big wins in the 2010 elections.

6) While the plan worked brilliantly for the Republicans electorally, it probably almost worked too well in terms of the bill itself. Previously healthcare scare campaigns had worked well enough to score political points and kill the reform, but this time the bill was so vilified Democrats were actually left with no choice but to pass the thing (it was so unpopular the only way out was to pass the thing and then point out it didn't actually involve putting Hitler's brain in a shark).

7) This meant the Republicans ended up with an electoral victory, but a massive legislative defeat - here was the most significant piece of reform in years, and they shut themselves out of it entirely. Not a good look when you next want to trade legislative influence for campaign contributions. So Republicans then invented a new narrative - that they wanted to be involved all along, but the Democrats weren't letting them.


Honestly, having had a lot of time to think about it, I'm actually not that annoyed about the Republican strategy. There were some individual actions that were terrible, but the overall strategy is really want any political party would do in their position - it's simply not sensible to insist a political party should play nice and just accept a decade or two in the wilderness.

Its really the Republican faithful who bought in to each lie that I really just can't fathom. I have no problem with people who hold Republican values and accept the above manipulation and deceit as part of the game, but the people who still pretend the Republicans acted in good faith... well the only way I can understand it is to believe those people must kind of enjoy being lied to on some level, because they can't possibly honestly believe any of it at this point.



I remember some of the lies and scare stories that the Republicans peddled about healthcare in the UK. God, that made my blood boil, and made me want to fly over there and put my boot up some Republican backsides!

"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

 Vash108 wrote:
I just hope we don't get to a point to where we will see the Presidency and Both houses controlled by one party. I also feel there is way more religious baiting going on in the recent years, something that should absolutely have no room in politics.


Its typically unusual and typical only lasts one election cycle.

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I remember some of the lies and scare stories that the Republicans peddled about healthcare in the UK. God, that made my blood boil, and made me want to fly over there and put my boot up some Republican backsides!


Oh yeah, I almost forgot about the extraordinary things claimed about the UK and Canadian healthcare systems. And France to a lesser extent.

Poor Australia, we always get missed when people in the US make up weird political claims. Unless its gun control, then we get some awesome nonsense

“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 sebster wrote:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I remember some of the lies and scare stories that the Republicans peddled about healthcare in the UK. God, that made my blood boil, and made me want to fly over there and put my boot up some Republican backsides!


Oh yeah, I almost forgot about the extraordinary things claimed about the UK and Canadian healthcare systems. And France to a lesser extent.

Poor Australia, we always get missed when people in the US make up weird political claims. Unless its gun control, then we get some awesome nonsense

<way past your bedtime? 3am in Perth?>


I want the German model. (not to familiar with Australia's)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/12 19:13:37


Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in gb
Courageous Grand Master




-

 sebster wrote:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I remember some of the lies and scare stories that the Republicans peddled about healthcare in the UK. God, that made my blood boil, and made me want to fly over there and put my boot up some Republican backsides!


Oh yeah, I almost forgot about the extraordinary things claimed about the UK and Canadian healthcare systems. And France to a lesser extent.

Poor Australia, we always get missed when people in the US make up weird political claims. Unless its gun control, then we get some awesome nonsense


Some of the more lunatic fringe of the American right were claiming that Stephen Hawking would have been killed by the UK style health service in the USA, until Hawking himself dismissed it as nonsense and defended the UK health service for saving his life.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Whembley, there's a reason why I don't criticise gun owners in the USA anymore, and it's not because I'm scared of getting a hail of lead my way

but because I respect the cultural aspect and of course, your country your rules. I take this viewpoint because the ignorance of some Americans towards health care in the UK, made me see things differently. The UK health service is a major cultural thing in our society, just like your guns. We don't like foreigners attacking it, and I emphasise with Americans who resent being lectured by foreigners on gun control.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/12 19:20:48


"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Whembley, there's a reason why I don't criticise gun owners in the USA anymore, and it's not because I'm scared of getting a hail of lead my way

but because I respect the cultural aspect and of course, your country your rules. I take this viewpoint because the ignorance of some Americans towards health care in the UK, made me see things differently. The UK health service is a major cultural thing in our society, just like your guns. We don't like foreigners attacking it, and I emphasise with Americans who resent being lectured by foreigners on gun control.

I do understand that.

FWIW... I know of two... (TWO) British expats living here in Missouri. After living here for years, they came to hate what the NHS became home.
:shrugs:

It's a worthless anecdote, I'm sure, but it's all I have to go by.

Someone from dakka needs to *use* the NHS or Australia's System... then, move to the US for a bit and try ours out and give a good report.

Just like our gunz. Come visit... we can show you a good time.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/12 19:33:13


Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in gb
Courageous Grand Master




-

 whembly wrote:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Whembley, there's a reason why I don't criticise gun owners in the USA anymore, and it's not because I'm scared of getting a hail of lead my way

but because I respect the cultural aspect and of course, your country your rules. I take this viewpoint because the ignorance of some Americans towards health care in the UK, made me see things differently. The UK health service is a major cultural thing in our society, just like your guns. We don't like foreigners attacking it, and I emphasise with Americans who resent being lectured by foreigners on gun control.

I do understand that.

FWIW... I know of two... (TWO) British expats living here in Missouri. After living here for years, they came to hate what the NHS became home.
:shrugs:

It's a worthless anecdote, I'm sure, but it's all I have to go by.

Someone from dakka needs to *use* the NHS or Australia's System... then, move to the US for a bit and try ours out and give a good report.

Just like our gunz. Come visit... we can show you a good time.



I am planning on moving to North America one day...but it's Canada for me

Sorry

"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd 
   
Made in us
Hangin' with Gork & Mork






I think we may have found our next motto.

Dakka OT: It's a worthless anecdote, I'm sure, but it's all I have to go by.

Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 Ahtman wrote:
I think we may have found our next motto.

Dakka OT: It's a worthless anecdote, I'm sure, but it's all I have to go by.



Heh.

The point I was trying to drive at is that it's hard to truly compare and contrast things like healthcare between countries.

That's why sebster drives me bonkers.... he talks from a well reasoned, rational standpoint regarding our healthcare debates... but, it's acedemic. Why? Because just like it's unfair to trash the NHS or AU's Healthcare system... it's just as unfair to trash the US' without having experienced both.

Sorta akin to our famous gun violence debates here.

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in gb
Foolproof Falcon Pilot





Livingston, United Kingdom

http://uk.businessinsider.com/an-american-uses-britain-nhs-2015-1?r=US

An article, which I first came across a few months back, with an anecdotal comparison of the two services. I can say that, having repeatedly escorted my wife to the hospital for an ongoing health concern, that it sounds correct to me for the British side.
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 Charles Rampant wrote:
http://uk.businessinsider.com/an-american-uses-britain-nhs-2015-1?r=US

An article, which I first came across a few months back, with an anecdotal comparison of the two services. I can say that, having repeatedly escorted my wife to the hospital for an ongoing health concern, that it sounds correct to me for the British side.

Not bad...

How is the NHS paid for? Is that spelled out on your paystubs?

For frame of reference: I paid effective federal tax rate of 27%. (state about 11% from memory). Part of those funds the Medicare (over 64 yo) "single-payor lite system" and Medicaid (State insurance for the needy). I don't use those systems.

But I pay for part of my insurance premiums... here's a breakdown out of my bi-weekly paycheck
I pay Medical: $117, my employer pays $363
I pay Dental: $18, my employer pays $13
I pay Vision: $6

So, per pay check, I pay $141 for my various insurances (and my employer pays $376).

The insurance plan is solid, in that it's covers just about every non-elective things.

What gets pricey for me are the elective stuff.

:shrugs:

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/06/12 20:31:35


Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges




United States

 djones520 wrote:

The one where Politifacts lie of the year, wasn't a lie.


I don't see how the "If you like your plan, you keep it." fiasco has anything to do with the circumstances surrounding the drafting and passage of ACA.

 whembly wrote:
Because just like it's unfair to trash the NHS or AU's Healthcare system... it's just as unfair to trash the US' without having experienced both.


Sure, if you consider any sort of criticism to be an attempt to "trash" a system.

If you want anecdotes: it was much easier for me to obtain care for my knee (chronic issues related to ACL reconstruction) during my 5 month stay in the UK than it was for me to obtain it out of network in the US; despite the fact that my US insurance was being leveraged in both cases.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/06/13 07:24:03


Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. 
   
Made in us
Did Fulgrim Just Behead Ferrus?





Fort Worth, TX

 whembly wrote:
 Charles Rampant wrote:
http://uk.businessinsider.com/an-american-uses-britain-nhs-2015-1?r=US

An article, which I first came across a few months back, with an anecdotal comparison of the two services. I can say that, having repeatedly escorted my wife to the hospital for an ongoing health concern, that it sounds correct to me for the British side.

Not bad...

How is the NHS paid for? Is that spelled out on your paystubs?

For frame of reference: I paid effective federal tax rate of 27%. (state about 11% from memory). Part of those funds the Medicare (over 64 yo) "single-payor lite system" and Medicaid (State insurance for the needy). I don't use those systems.

But I pay for part of my insurance premiums... here's a breakdown out of my bi-weekly paycheck
I pay Medical: $117, my employer pays $363
I pay Dental: $18, my employer pays $13
I pay Vision: $6

So, per pay check, I pay $141 for my various insurances (and my employer pays $376).

The insurance plan is solid, in that it's covers just about every non-elective things.

What gets pricey for me are the elective stuff.

:shrugs:


Keep in mind, though, that your insurance plan is essentially chosen by your employer. They may offer you more than one choice, but if you want your employer to chip in on it, then you gotta go with what they have decided on. Sure, good employers will offer good plans, but not all of them would. I pay about the same as you do for a very good plan, but my wife didn't get anywhere near as good options in her job as a schoolteacher.

"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me."
- Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 Tannhauser42 wrote:

Keep in mind, though, that your insurance plan is essentially chosen by your employer. They may offer you more than one choice, but if you want your employer to chip in on it, then you gotta go with what they have decided on. Sure, good employers will offer good plans, but not all of them would. I pay about the same as you do for a very good plan, but my wife didn't get anywhere near as good options in her job as a schoolteacher.



And as the old addage goes, you get what you pay for.... the "free" healthcare that I got in the army was what ultimately put me out of the army


One of the few upsides to army medicine that I've seen over some civilian medical systems, is that the army doesn't particularly care about costs, and so the "good" doctors will see your ankle swollen and say, "hmm, I think we need an MRI of this... Go get an X-ray today, then once I've looked at it, we'll get the MRI scheduled"
   
Made in gb
Assassin with Black Lotus Poison





Bristol

 whembly wrote:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Whembley, there's a reason why I don't criticise gun owners in the USA anymore, and it's not because I'm scared of getting a hail of lead my way

but because I respect the cultural aspect and of course, your country your rules. I take this viewpoint because the ignorance of some Americans towards health care in the UK, made me see things differently. The UK health service is a major cultural thing in our society, just like your guns. We don't like foreigners attacking it, and I emphasise with Americans who resent being lectured by foreigners on gun control.

I do understand that.

FWIW... I know of two... (TWO) British expats living here in Missouri. After living here for years, they came to hate what the NHS became home.
:shrugs:

It's a worthless anecdote, I'm sure, but it's all I have to go by.

Someone from dakka needs to *use* the NHS or Australia's System... then, move to the US for a bit and try ours out and give a good report.

Just like our gunz. Come visit... we can show you a good time.



Well I would, but without PPACA I wouldn't be able to get insurance

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/13 16:52:40


The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.

Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: