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.
Also, he plans to repeal Obamacare and put a more capitalist system in place. I'm all for that! We don't need the government providing everything, as that encourages laziness and ultimately allows tyranny to take over. We don't need to trade our freedom for free stuff.
What exactly makes Obamacare "anti-capitalist"?
It's not anti-capitalist, it's a shoddy amalgam of socialost and capitalist.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/11 03:01:34
d-usa wrote: What exactly makes Obamacare "anti-capitalist"?
I never said Obamacare was "anti-capitalist", I just said Trump plans to put something more capitalist in its place. His words, not mine. Honestly, I have no idea what he has in mind.
So you don't know what he actually wants to do, but you support it?
Also, he plans to repeal Obamacare and put a more capitalist system in place. I'm all for that! We don't need the government providing everything, as that encourages laziness and ultimately allows tyranny to take over. We don't need to trade our freedom for free stuff.
What exactly makes Obamacare "anti-capitalist"?
It's not anti-capitalist, it's a shoddy amalgam of socialost and capitalist.
What parts of it are socialist and what makes them socialist?
What parts of it are capitalist, and what makes them capitalist?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/11 03:02:15
Lord_Inquisitor_Doge wrote: @ZergSmasher
Nothing is ever free. When it comes to stuff like "free" education or housing, the money comes out of the pocket of the tax payer, it's just more structured than a Capalist education would be. Also, I'd hardly call everyone here a Clinton disciple, many seem to understand the fact that both candidates are garbage, and either choice is just trying to divine which is the lesser evil.
Point taken, thanks!
My armies (re-counted and updated on 11/7/24, including modeled wargear options):
Dark Angels: ~16000 Astra Militarum: ~1200 | Imperial Knights: ~2300 | Leagues of Votann: ~1300 | Tyranids: ~3400 | Stormcast Eternals: ~5000 | Kruleboyz: ~3500 | Lumineth Realm-Lords: ~700
Check out my P&M Blogs: ZergSmasher's P&M Blog | Imperial Knights blog | Board Games blog | Total models painted in 2024: 40 | Total models painted in 2025: 29 | Current main painting project: Tomb Kings
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: You need your bumps felt. With a patented, Grotsnik Corp Bump Feelerer 9,000.
The Grotsnik Corp Bump Feelerer 9,000. It only looks like several bricks crudely gaffer taped to a cricket bat.
Grotsnik Corp. Sorry, No Refunds.
ZergSmasher wrote: Have an exalt, man! Nice to know everyone on Dakka isn't a HRC disciple.
You clearly haven't been following any of the numerous political threads we've had if that's your takeaway.
I, too, am not thrilled overwhelmingly with Trump, but I feel that he's better than Hillary in most respects.
No, he really isn't.
He doesn't plan on repealing the 2nd amendment, for example, whereas I'd swear I heard that Hillary said that she plans to do exactly that.
First of all, no one repealing the Second Amendment because it's practically impossible to do so. Second off, you've heard very, very wrong in that you've probably heard that from some clown on Twitter or Facebook or some "news" website you browse at work. Try again.
Also, he plans to repeal Obamacare and put a more capitalist system in place. I'm all for that! We don't need the government providing everything, as that encourages laziness and ultimately allows tyranny to take over. We don't need to trade our freedom for free stuff.
I see you're the target Trump supporter; you just regurgitate every far-right buzzword and talking point to make it seem like you understand what's going on. After all, when pressed about your comment, you followed up with this gem:
ZergSmasher wrote: I never said Obamacare was "anti-capitalist", I just said Trump plans to put something more capitalist in its place. His words, not mine. Honestly, I have no idea what he has in mind.
So you don't know what you're talking about, but you're sure as hell going to say it because it feels right to say.
I can see you're going to be a lot of fun.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/11 10:56:08
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
d-usa wrote: What exactly makes Obamacare "anti-capitalist"?
I never said Obamacare was "anti-capitalist", I just said Trump plans to put something more capitalist in its place. His words, not mine. Honestly, I have no idea what he has in mind.
So you don't know what he actually wants to do, but you support it?
Modify existing law that inhibits the sale of health insurance across state lines. As long as the plan purchased complies with state requirements, any vendor ought to be able to offer insurance in any state. By allowing full competition in this market, insurance costs will go down and consumer satisfaction will go up. Allow individuals to fully deduct health insurance premium payments from their tax returns under the current tax system. Businesses are allowed to take these deductions so why wouldn’t Congress allow individuals the same exemptions? As we allow the free market to provide insurance coverage opportunities to companies and individuals, we must also make sure that no one slips through the cracks simply because they cannot afford insurance. We must review basic options for Medicaid and work with states to ensure that those who want healthcare coverage can have it. Allow individuals to use Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). Contributions into HSAs should be tax-free and should be allowed to accumulate. These accounts would become part of the estate of the individual and could be passed on to heirs without fear of any death penalty. These plans should be particularly attractive to young people who are healthy and can afford high-deductible insurance plans. These funds can be used by any member of a family without penalty. The flexibility and security provided by HSAs will be of great benefit to all who participate. Require price transparency from all healthcare providers, especially doctors and healthcare organizations like clinics and hospitals. Individuals should be able to shop to find the best prices for procedures, exams or any other medical-related procedure. Block-grant Medicaid to the states. Nearly every state already offers benefits beyond what is required in the current Medicaid structure. The state governments know their people best and can manage the administration of Medicaid far better without federal overhead. States will have the incentives to seek out and eliminate fraud, waste and abuse to preserve our precious resources. Remove barriers to entry into free markets for drug providers that offer safe, reliable and cheaper products. Congress will need the courage to step away from the special interests and do what is right for America. Though the pharmaceutical industry is in the private sector, drug companies provide a public service. Allowing consumers access to imported, safe and dependable drugs from overseas will bring more options to consumers.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/11 03:15:51
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform Modify existing law that inhibits the sale of health insurance across state lines. As long as the plan purchased complies with state requirements, any vendor ought to be able to offer insurance in any state. By allowing full competition in this market, insurance costs will go down and consumer satisfaction will go up. Allow individuals to fully deduct health insurance premium payments from their tax returns under the current tax system. Businesses are allowed to take these deductions so why wouldn’t Congress allow individuals the same exemptions? As we allow the free market to provide insurance coverage opportunities to companies and individuals, we must also make sure that no one slips through the cracks simply because they cannot afford insurance. We must review basic options for Medicaid and work with states to ensure that those who want healthcare coverage can have it. Allow individuals to use Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). Contributions into HSAs should be tax-free and should be allowed to accumulate. These accounts would become part of the estate of the individual and could be passed on to heirs without fear of any death penalty. These plans should be particularly attractive to young people who are healthy and can afford high-deductible insurance plans. These funds can be used by any member of a family without penalty. The flexibility and security provided by HSAs will be of great benefit to all who participate. Require price transparency from all healthcare providers, especially doctors and healthcare organizations like clinics and hospitals. Individuals should be able to shop to find the best prices for procedures, exams or any other medical-related procedure. Block-grant Medicaid to the states. Nearly every state already offers benefits beyond what is required in the current Medicaid structure. The state governments know their people best and can manage the administration of Medicaid far better without federal overhead. States will have the incentives to seek out and eliminate fraud, waste and abuse to preserve our precious resources. Remove barriers to entry into free markets for drug providers that offer safe, reliable and cheaper products. Congress will need the courage to step away from the special interests and do what is right for America. Though the pharmaceutical industry is in the private sector, drug companies provide a public service. Allowing consumers access to imported, safe and dependable drugs from overseas will bring more options to consumers.
"Socialist/Anti-Capitalist stances" of Trump highlighted in orange. Text that doesn't really change anything highlighted in green. Stuff that actually changes anything and doesn't maintain or expand "socialist/anti-capitalist stances" left in the original colors.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/11 03:16:55
What the feth happened to the OT? I know its been progressively getting worse (and when I drink and post I definitely feed into it) but feth, I feel like I'm on reddit right now but with swear blockers.
@d-usa
Obamacare is somewhat Socialist in that the government interferes in the market of healthcare at all, which is directly contrary to Laissez-faire economics. Additionally, it is Socialist in the sense that it makes it illegal to not have health care - essentially FORCING americans to partake in the product of Health Insurance.
It is also somewhat Capitalist in that it provides Americans with choices of which Health Insurance companies to use (to a certain extent), as well as which programs the citizens want to run with. Additionally, it is Capitalist in that Americans are still required to pay for their own Health Care, rather than it just being a Health Care tax payed directly to the government.
Lord_Inquisitor_Doge wrote: Obamacare is somewhat Socialist in that the government interferes in the market of healthcare at all, which is directly contrary to Laissez-faire economics.
Ok, but that definition makes virtually everything "socialist". Laissez-faire economics is a policy that doesn't exist in the real world, and would be really horrible if it did. Outside of libertarian fantasy world the government does and must interfere in the market for the good of society, so calling any area that the government is involved in "socialist" doesn't meaningfully divide things into "socialist" and "not socialist".
Additionally, it is Socialist in the sense that it makes it illegal to not have health care - essentially FORCING americans to partake in the product of Health Insurance.
Much like seatbelt laws take away your "freedom" to be an idiot and die from easily avoidable injuries in an accident. Going without insurance (assuming you can afford it) is a really, really stupid thing to do, so I'm really not feeling any sympathy for the people who are "forced" to buy it.
And mandatory insurance is the necessary counter to a different part of Obamacare: the rules requiring coverage even for pre-existing conditions. If you're going to require insurers to cover everything (which is a very good policy that was long overdue) then you can't allow people to go without insurance and only buy it when they need something covered.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/11 03:25:35
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
BigWaaagh wrote: You're so off the point of my post that you're ridiculous.
Is your point that GJ should have known about Aleppo and had a response ready because it would be a discussion topic for any presidential candidate? I can understand that take but I also think that presupposes that every candidate and every campaign has the same priorities regarding the same issues. Outside of this thread I can't think of any discussion I've had with friends, family or coworkers wherein Aleppo came up and I can't recall the last time it was a predominate headline in any of the local papers. GJ is probably targeting voters with opinions and priorities similar to his own and if that means Aleppo doesn't get mentioned much on his campaign stops it's no wonder he didn't have much knowledge on it. I doubt GJ's campaign has much of a budget to work with so his staff may not be that good and he's certainly not used to a lot of media attention and sure doesn't shine in the spotlight. I can think of plenty of issues that would be a higher priority for voters and likely Libertarian voters than Aleppo so I don't see the value in being upset that GJ isnt the polished politician policy wonk that nobody ever claimed he was.
Had a response ready? He had a response ready and it was "What is Aleppo?" There's simply no issue here. For a POTUS candidate of any ilk, that is an unacceptable answer. Don't know? Get out of the race. Want to focus on other more constituent relevant issues? Go back to being a governor and leave the big leagues, that have big issues to grapple with, to the big boys.
Also, he's a POTUS candidate, not you, your family or your buddies, so that's an absurd comment. If you and the water cooler gang don't talk about Federal Reserve monetary policy, totally fine, but if you're being nominated for President of the Federal Reserve, I'd expect something more on the subject than "What is...?" Unacceptable, regardless of party affiliation. The Syrian Civil War, of which Aleppo is the face, touches on just about every point of debate in this POTUS election. Sorry, once again, but that level of cluelessness at this level of politics is unacceptable and frankly, dangerous. Quit making excuses for his lack of qualification.
The fate of Aleppo isn't going to have an impact on the election at all. It literally doesn't have the ability to alter the election in any meaningful way. If the entire population of Aleppo died overnight or got airlifted and resettled in Detroit tomorrow it wouldn't stop the war or depose Assad. Your ascribing a leve of importance to the city that is hyperbolic. It's a trending hashtag of the moment. In a few weeks/months people will forget about it but Syria will still be one giant humanitarian crisis we'll just be too distracted by the latest shiny object in the 24 hour news cycle spotlight to care anymore.
Again with the predictable deflection from point. Your response of absolutely nothing but futuristic conjecture is your presentation of what, exactly? Is this the fall back when excuses have dried up? Have you truly no other means to draw away criticism from the factual ineptitude demonstrated by the Libertarian POTUS candidate when he was asked a very straight forward question on a very topical matter? So weak and redundant your sauce is...
This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2016/09/11 13:10:05
As long as the plan purchased complies with state requirements, any vendor ought to be able to offer insurance in any state. By allowing full competition in this market, insurance costs will go down and consumer satisfaction will go up
this is practically the definition of Capitalist Health Insurance. Let the free market decide who is successful or not - how is that Socialist?
Allow individuals to fully deduct health insurance premium payments from their tax returns under the current tax system. Businesses are allowed to take these deductions so why wouldn’t Congress allow individuals the same exemptions? As we allow the free market to provide insurance coverage opportunities to companies and individuals, we must also make sure that no one slips through the cracks simply because they cannot afford insurance. We must review basic options for Medicaid and work with states to ensure that those who want healthcare coverage can have it.
This, I do agree, is somewhat Socialist. But, like I stated previously, the US does not have a purely laissez-faire economy, and his plan is MORE Capitalist than what we have now, not completely Capitalist.
Require price transparency from all healthcare providers, especially doctors and healthcare organizations like clinics and hospitals. Individuals should be able to shop to find the best prices for procedures, exams or any other medical-related procedure.
Again, I fail to see how this is even remotely Socialist. This is simply requiring healthcare providers to maintain price tags on their services so that people can shop for healthcare just like they shop for any other service.
Block-grant Medicaid to the states. Nearly every state already offers benefits beyond what is required in the current Medicaid structure. The state governments know their people best and can manage the administration of Medicaid far better without federal overhead. States will have the incentives to seek out and eliminate fraud, waste and abuse to preserve our precious resources.
This is, again, not Socialist, unless you count eliminating needless waste of government resources as Socialist.
Though the pharmaceutical industry is in the private sector, drug companies provide a public service
This is irrelevant to the question at hand, as it is simply a statement of fact - at worst, it is a viewpoint of a specific product, not a Socialist belief.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote:
Lord_Inquisitor_Doge wrote: Obamacare is somewhat Socialist in that the government interferes in the market of healthcare at all, which is directly contrary to Laissez-faire economics.
Ok, but that definition makes virtually everything "socialist". Laissez-faire economics is a policy that doesn't exist in the real world, and would be really horrible if it did. Outside of libertarian fantasy world the government does and must interfere in the market for the good of society, so calling any area that the government is involved in "socialist" doesn't meaningfully divide things into "socialist" and "not socialist".
Additionally, it is Socialist in the sense that it makes it illegal to not have health care - essentially FORCING americans to partake in the product of Health Insurance.
Much like seatbelt laws take away your "freedom" to be an idiot and die from easily avoidable injuries in an accident. Going without insurance (assuming you can afford it) is a really, really stupid thing to do, so I'm really not feeling any sympathy for the people who are "forced" to buy it.
And mandatory insurance is the necessary counter to a different part of Obamacare: the rules requiring coverage even for pre-existing conditions. If you're going to require insurers to cover everything (which is a very good policy that was long overdue) then you can't allow people to go without insurance and only buy it when they need something covered.
If a person is wealthy enough to go without Health Insurance, then there should be no government mandate to force them to acquire it, thereby forcing said person to basically burn his money, since he can already afford to pay for his own medical expenses. Additionally, I do not believe that pure Capitalism should be practiced, I simply think that increasing the people's reliance upon the State makes it easier for a government to become tyrannical, which is why I believe that no more Socialism should be practiced than is absolutely necessary to protect the free market from the worst excesses of Corporatism (ie trust-busting), not that the US is not in an at least semi-Corporatist economy at the moment. Government mandates that say "wear a seatbelt" are a matter of public safety. Government mandates that say "buy Health Insurance" are not.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/11 03:39:45
So "no plan can be sold unless it meets our regulations" isn't socialist, and taking money from taxpayers and giving it to the states to administer government run healthcare plans isn't socialist?
I can't say that I agree with your definition of what socialism means, nor your inconsistent application of your own definition.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Edit: letting taxpayers fully deduct health insurance premiums is actually more socialist than what we have now, because the state would be fully subsidizing health insurance premiums.
Edit 2: I'm going to stop trying to use the socialist tag, since it makes no sense IMO.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/11 03:50:22
Lord_Inquisitor_Doge wrote: If a person is wealthy enough to go without Health Insurance, then there should be no government mandate to force them to acquire it, thereby forcing said person to basically burn his money, since he can already afford to pay for his own medical expenses.
It's still a stupid act, and there's no point in making laws for weird "what if" scenarios that could only ever possibly involve the richest 0.0000001%. If you're wealthy enough to just pay all of your medical expenses, including unexpected medical expenses like "you were just paralyzed in a car wreck and will need expensive care for the rest of your life" or "you have cancer and will die if you don't pay $lots for treatment", you're wealthy enough that the insurance payment is a negligible expense. Complaining about being forced to "burn his money" makes about as much sense as starting a huge fight with your local grocery store because one of your by-weight items was 0.01lb off and you had to pay an extra cent or two for it.
Additionally, I do not believe that pure Capitalism should be practiced, I simply think that increasing the people's reliance upon the State makes it easier for a government to become tyrannical, which is why I believe that no more Socialism should be practiced than is absolutely necessary to protect the free market from the worst excesses of Corporatism (ie trust-busting), not that the US is not in an at least semi-Corporatist economy at the moment.
This makes no sense at all. What does tyranny have to do with legitimate state services? Having government-provided health care doesn't have any connection to, say, the government making membership in the republican party illegal. Nor does paying for your own health care without any government involvement help you at all if the government decides to ban gun ownership and come confiscate all of yours.
Government mandates that say "wear a seatbelt" are a matter of public safety. Government mandates that say "buy Health Insurance" are not.
A government mandate to buy health insurance absolutely is a public safety issue when the consequences of not buying health insurance include things like "you die because you can't afford the necessary treatment".
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
d-usa wrote: So "no plan can be sold unless it meets our regulations" isn't socialist, and taking money from taxpayers and giving it to the states to administer government run healthcare plans isn't socialist?
Trump is saying "state requirements," which is to say, "not Federal requirements." Insurance providers would have to live up to State government regulations, which is no more than would be expected of any good or service. Also, he was calling for an end of the Federal government giving grants to States just for upholding Medicaid, since most States already surpass the National standard, and said grants are basically a waste of money - that is to say, NOT taking money from taxpayers and giving it to the states to administer government run healthcare plans.
I can't say that I agree with your definition of what socialism means, nor your inconsistent application of your own definition.
People relying on the state to provide goods and services they could otherwise acquire for themselves. For example, state-run housing programs, or Welfare.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Edit: letting taxpayers fully deduct health insurance premiums is actually more socialist than what we have now, because the state would be fully subsidizing health insurance premiums.
Edit 2: I'm going to stop trying to use the socialist tag, since it makes no sense IMO.
On this point, I do agree, but, in most other areas, the Federal government would be relinquishing a fair amount of control.
Also, a tag only makes sense if both parties agree to a definition beforehand, so, my bad for not getting that out of the way in my first post.
Don't forget Whembly, there are plenty here who are going to agree with her.
Edit: Nevermind... someone beat me to it...
But half? That's just dumb.
It's obvious to me that the overwhelming majority of the people who plan to vote for Trump in this country, simply can’t stand HRC. Many of those people supported other candidates in the primary. They have simply decided that what they’re left with is better than HRC.
No, it's rhetoric.
It's awful.
The fact it's obvious to you that people are voting for Trump because they hate Hillary simply reinforces the idea that a lot of Trump supporters can't stand the idea of a woman getting above her station and running for president.
Jesus KK... that's insulting. It's tactics like this where you're attempting to shut down the converstaion.
I mean, you might as well as use the old Obama playbook and just twist it: Any criticisms against Clinton is simply sexist and misogyny.
Trump is a massive US Prime Grade gak bag of lies, narcissism, cheating his taxes, cheating charities, cheating contractors, cheating desperate people wanting a degree from Trump University. Ultimately he is cheating his own supporters. The T shirts and baseball caps they eagerly buy are made in China. He won't build a wall. He won't provide jobs.
He is racist, misogynist, a serial adulterer, ignorant, arrogant, a failure in business, and fundamentally unpopular except with a group of people who for some reason find resonance in his "ideal" of racism, bigotry and xenophobia.
BigWaaagh wrote: You're so off the point of my post that you're ridiculous.
Is your point that GJ should have known about Aleppo and had a response ready because it would be a discussion topic for any presidential candidate? I can understand that take but I also think that presupposes that every candidate and every campaign has the same priorities regarding the same issues. Outside of this thread I can't think of any discussion I've had with friends, family or coworkers wherein Aleppo came up and I can't recall the last time it was a predominate headline in any of the local papers. GJ is probably targeting voters with opinions and priorities similar to his own and if that means Aleppo doesn't get mentioned much on his campaign stops it's no wonder he didn't have much knowledge on it. I doubt GJ's campaign has much of a budget to work with so his staff may not be that good and he's certainly not used to a lot of media attention and sure doesn't shine in the spotlight. I can think of plenty of issues that would be a higher priority for voters and likely Libertarian voters than Aleppo so I don't see the value in being upset that GJ isnt the polished politician policy wonk that nobody ever claimed he was.
You aren't candinate for a job in which foreign policy is involved in tke job description though...for those basic idea of current world events should be expected. Nobody expects ready solution but "city in syria currently in midst of heavy combat and human catastrophe" isn't too hard to know.
He basically revealed he doesn't care about foreign policy which is pretty bad for president candinate...how he can do well that part of the job?
Lord_Inquisitor_Doge wrote: If a person is wealthy enough to go without Health Insurance, then there should be no government mandate to force them to acquire it, thereby forcing said person to basically burn his money, since he can already afford to pay for his own medical expenses.
It's still a stupid act, and there's no point in making laws for weird "what if" scenarios that could only ever possibly involve the richest 0.0000001%. If you're wealthy enough to just pay all of your medical expenses, including unexpected medical expenses like "you were just paralyzed in a car wreck and will need expensive care for the rest of your life" or "you have cancer and will die if you don't pay $lots for treatment", you're wealthy enough that the insurance payment is a negligible expense. Complaining about being forced to "burn his money" makes about as much sense as starting a huge fight with your local grocery store because one of your by-weight items was 0.01lb off and you had to pay an extra cent or two for it.
This causes for people to lose control of their money. There are undoubtedly millions of people with ample money to pay for the costs of, say, broken arms, antibiotics,etc. It only makes sense to allow people to only acquire health insurance for things that they would not be able to pay for under normal circumstances (ie surgery, or life support). Forcing somebody to pay extra for the whole nine yards is somewhat unreasonable, imo.
Additionally, I do not believe that pure Capitalism should be practiced, I simply think that increasing the people's reliance upon the State makes it easier for a government to become tyrannical, which is why I believe that no more Socialism should be practiced than is absolutely necessary to protect the free market from the worst excesses of Corporatism (ie trust-busting), not that the US is not in an at least semi-Corporatist economy at the moment.
This makes no sense at all. What does tyranny have to do with legitimate state services? Having government-provided health care doesn't have any connection to, say, the government making membership in the republican party illegal. Nor does paying for your own health care without any government involvement help you at all if the government decides to ban gun ownership and come confiscate all of yours.
When people are getting what they consider "free" stuff from the government, they will naturally oppose anybody who wants to take their free stuff away from them, and support anybody who wants to let them have their free stuff. It's the same argument as creating a Welfare state, as the constituency is reliant upon the government for goods and services. If the Republican party opposes big government and wants less government spending, then the people will feel threatened and immediately vote against the Republican Party for no other reason than the fact that the Republican party doesn't want to hand out free stuff, since it isn't really free; somebody else is paying for it. The more people rely upon the state, the less independant they are, the easier it will be to strip them of their freedoms in the name of giving them something for free. Safe spaces and speech codes on college campuses are an example of this; people feel that the College is providing them with the service of comfort in exchange for the elimination of their freedom of speech, and are therefore opposed to intellectually free discourse or any kind of offensive language.
Government mandates that say "wear a seatbelt" are a matter of public safety. Government mandates that say "buy Health Insurance" are not.
A government mandate to buy health insurance absolutely is a public safety issue when the consequences of not buying health insurance include things like "you die because you can't afford the necessary treatment".
Alternatively, you can have people who don't have health insurance receive debt for the necessary treatment that they must then pay off as they continue through their lives. This would likely cost more than actual Health Insurance, incentivizing buying health insurance, while also allowing people the opportunity to go without what may be an unnecessary expense, depending upon circumstance.
Will you acknowledge that Hillary has her own racist past?
You mean this sort of thing? The article leads with "liberal media", goes on a conservative diatribe, and all its links proc my pop-up blockers and anti-malware software.
And the Breitbart story isn't any better. Indeed, Breibart itself procs my pop-up blockers and anti-malware software.
I mean, you might as well as use the old Obama playbook and just twist it: Any criticisms against Clinton is simply sexist and misogyny.
That's the (incorrect) conservative take on the Obama playbook, largely advanced by conservative media outlets. The "You only like him because he's black!" line has been turned into "You're just a white knight!" Both were wrong, and both were desperate.
No... the Obama playbook was that any criticisms on Obama was racist.
d-usa wrote:So are you pro-government regulations as long as it's a different government doing the regulating?
No, I am pro government regulations that are absolutely necessary. It is absolutely necessary to regulate food and drugs in the modern world, as failure to do so results in harmful drugs and food being consumed without knowledge that said food/drugs are harmful. Imo, excessive regulation is harmful, and should thus be avoided. If I'm incorrect, then provide a valid argument that proves increased regulation of healthcare is absolutely necessary. I quite enjoy being proven wrong, and won't disregard an argument out of hand. I hold the words of Aristotle quite highly, where this is concerned," it is the mark of an educated mind to entertain a thought without accepting it." I will entertain your position if it is well supported, and accept it if the evidence is strong enough.
Getting ready to go to bed, so probably my last reply for tonight.
Regarding health insurance regulations and letting policies be sold in more markets than just s single state like Trump is proposing: letting states regulate and define their own plans actually makes it less likely that a plan could ever be sold in more than one state. States are horrible at coming up with rules that have shared requirements with other states, so having federal regulations (or having states form compacts to make their own de-facto federal regulations) usually ends up as a requirement to establish a multi-state anything.
Some examples of areas where individual state regulations make things more complicated: professional licensure, gun licensure, education, IDs. Some examples where states decided to come up with shared standards that they would all agree on to make it easier for people to move between these stages: concealed carry reciprocity, nursing compact licensure, common core (yes, it's a state developed set of standards).
Now Trump wants insurance companies to be able to sell plans in more than one state as long as they meet the requirements, but he also wants the states to be able to set their own requirements for letting insurance companies sell plans in their state.
So insurance companies can either try to come up with some crazy plans that meet multiple requirements at once, or states can work together to develop a shared set of rules that they all agree to adopt. They can develop their own federated organization to do that, or they can use the federal organization that already exists. You can either end up with 50 individual standards that may or may not work together, or you can come up with one standard. But you cannot have a policy that says something should be able to exist in more than one state while also saying that states should be able to individually regulate they thing. That's just a contradiction in ideas.
Also: are there actually any federal laws or regulations that prevent insurance companies from selling in multiple states. Is there something at the federal level that prevents any vendor from selling in any state as long as they meet the requirements? I honestly don't know.
Edit: phone-posting, so I expect typos and such.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/11 04:47:18
Also: are there actually any federal laws or regulations that prevent insurance companies from selling in multiple states. Is there something at the federal level that prevents any vendor from selling in any state as long as they meet the requirements? I honestly don't know.
There are several Federal laws the prohibits selling insurance across state lines. (many healthcare organizations are trying to push that to get changed, as the it'll allow the risk pools to increase).
But, the biggest hurdles ARE state regulations. That's the hardest part...
This isn't Trump's plan, or I don't think it is, but hypothetically you could remove any Federal regulation so that states *could* band together to allow policies across state lines.
Lord_Inquisitor_Doge wrote: This causes for people to lose control of their money. There are undoubtedly millions of people with ample money to pay for the costs of, say, broken arms, antibiotics,etc. It only makes sense to allow people to only acquire health insurance for things that they would not be able to pay for under normal circumstances (ie surgery, or life support). Forcing somebody to pay extra for the whole nine yards is somewhat unreasonable, imo.
I don't think you understand how insurance works. The insurance company isn't going to stay in business if they only get money from people who sign up for insurance the day before major surgery. The whole point of insurance is that you have a lot of people paying for insurance that they don't have to use so that you can afford to hand the ones who do have major expenses a huge check to cover it.
And, again, if you're rich enough that you can afford to write the hospital a check for a broken arm you're rich enough that mandatory insurance isn't a significant burden. Your entire argument is lacking in practical applications, it's all about some abstract "right" to full control of your money just for the sake of having control over it.
When people are getting what they consider "free" stuff from the government, they will naturally oppose anybody who wants to take their free stuff away from them, and support anybody who wants to let them have their free stuff. It's the same argument as creating a Welfare state, as the constituency is reliant upon the government for goods and services. If the Republican party opposes big government and wants less government spending, then the people will feel threatened and immediately vote against the Republican Party for no other reason than the fact that the Republican party doesn't want to hand out free stuff, since it isn't really free; somebody else is paying for it. The more people rely upon the state, the less independant they are, the easier it will be to strip them of their freedoms in the name of giving them something for free.
This has nothing to do with tyranny as it is conventionally defined. Your reliance on the government or lack thereof does not change anything if/when the government decides to, say, ban all guns and come confiscate yours. Nor does opposition to welfare programs inherently go along with opposition to tyranny. For example, a party could run on a promise to abolish all welfare programs while at the same time banning gun ownership/limiting freedom of speech/etc.
Safe spaces and speech codes on college campuses are an example of this; people feel that the College is providing them with the service of comfort in exchange for the elimination of their freedom of speech, and are therefore opposed to intellectually free discourse or any kind of offensive language.
They aren't an example of it at all. Safe spaces and speech codes enforced by colleges are not a violation of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech guarantees that the government can't prevent you from speaking, it doesn't guarantee you the right to have a private organization let you come say whatever you want on their property. In fact, this is a textbook example of the free market at work. The free market has determined that there is significant demand for educational services that include various restrictions on on-campus speech, and so sellers of educational services provide the desired product. If you feel that there is demand for educational services that do not include any restrictions on on-campus speech you are entirely free to start your own business, enter the market, and sell your services to the people who want them.
Alternatively, you can have people who don't have health insurance receive debt for the necessary treatment that they must then pay off as they continue through their lives. This would likely cost more than actual Health Insurance, incentivizing buying health insurance, while also allowing people the opportunity to go without what may be an unnecessary expense, depending upon circumstance.
Which translates to "be crippled by debt for the rest of your life". That is, if a hospital/doctor/whatever who knows you have no hope of ever paying your debt allows you to pay on credit in the first place.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lord_Inquisitor_Doge wrote: If I'm incorrect, then provide a valid argument that proves increased regulation of healthcare is absolutely necessary.
Define "absolutely". You don't seem to have a consistent definition yourself, since it is not absolutely necessary to regulate food and drugs (especially at the level the US does). It is entirely possible to go without those regulations and accept the occasional cases of people dying because of unsafe food as the cost of having a free market. It is desirable to avoid that scenario, of course, but that's not the same as being absolutely necessary.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/11 05:10:22
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
d-usa wrote:Getting ready to go to bed, so probably my last reply for tonight.
Regarding health insurance regulations and letting policies be sold in more markets than just s single state like Trump is proposing: letting states regulate and define their own plans actually makes it less likely that a plan could ever be sold in more than one state. States are horrible at coming up with rules that have shared requirements with other states, so having federal regulations (or having states form compacts to make their own de-facto federal regulations) usually ends up as a requirement to establish a multi-state anything.
Some examples of areas where individual state regulations make things more complicated: professional licensure, gun licensure, education, IDs. Some examples where states decided to come up with shared standards that they would all agree on to make it easier for people to move between these stages: concealed carry reciprocity, nursing compact licensure, common core (yes, it's a state developed set of standards).
Now Trump wants insurance companies to be able to sell plans in more than one state as long as they meet the requirements, but he also wants the states to be able to set their own requirements for letting insurance companies sell plans in their state.
So insurance companies can either try to come up with some crazy plans that meet multiple requirements at once, or states can work together to develop a shared set of rules that they all agree to adopt. They can develop their own federated organization to do that, or they can use the federal organization that already exists. You can either end up with 50 individual standards that may or may not work together, or you can come up with one standard. But you cannot have a policy that says something should be able to exist in more than one state while also saying that states should be able to individually regulate they thing. That's just a contradiction in ideas.
Also: are there actually any federal laws or regulations that prevent insurance companies from selling in multiple states. Is there something at the federal level that prevents any vendor from selling in any state as long as they meet the requirements? I honestly don't know.
Edit: phone-posting, so I expect typos and such.
Touche. This would likely result in insurance agencies being unable to sell the same policy in more than one state, depending on state regulations. It seems to me, however, that insurance companies would simply need to draft up different insurance policies for different states, however, in order to meet individual State regulation, though I could be mistaken in this.
Peregrine wrote:
Lord_Inquisitor_Doge wrote: This causes for people to lose control of their money. There are undoubtedly millions of people with ample money to pay for the costs of, say, broken arms, antibiotics,etc. It only makes sense to allow people to only acquire health insurance for things that they would not be able to pay for under normal circumstances (ie surgery, or life support). Forcing somebody to pay extra for the whole nine yards is somewhat unreasonable, imo.
I don't think you understand how insurance works. The insurance company isn't going to stay in business if they only get money from people who sign up for insurance the day before major surgery. The whole point of insurance is that you have a lot of people paying for insurance that they don't have to use so that you can afford to hand the ones who do have major expenses a huge check to cover it.
I must have not been particularly clear. What I meant to say was that a person should be able to choose what their Insurance Policy covers, and, thus, if they don't need a policy to cover comparatively small things such as antibiotics or pain killers, then they should have the choice to have a policy that only covers major health issues that they can't afford to cover under normal circumstances, such as surgery. Basically, different amounts of coverage can be chosen to ensure that an insurance Policy can be tailored to the person.
And, again, if you're rich enough that you can afford to write the hospital a check for a broken arm you're rich enough that mandatory insurance isn't a significant burden. Your entire argument is lacking in practical applications, it's all about some abstract "right" to full control of your money just for the sake of having control over it.
If you work for something, should you not have the right to control the fruits of your labors? It's more a matter of principle than practicality, as failing to acknowledge your right to control your own capital makes policies such as wealth redistribution seem less revolting.
When people are getting what they consider "free" stuff from the government, they will naturally oppose anybody who wants to take their free stuff away from them, and support anybody who wants to let them have their free stuff. It's the same argument as creating a Welfare state, as the constituency is reliant upon the government for goods and services. If the Republican party opposes big government and wants less government spending, then the people will feel threatened and immediately vote against the Republican Party for no other reason than the fact that the Republican party doesn't want to hand out free stuff, since it isn't really free; somebody else is paying for it. The more people rely upon the state, the less independant they are, the easier it will be to strip them of their freedoms in the name of giving them something for free.
This has nothing to do with tyranny as it is conventionally defined. Your reliance on the government or lack thereof does not change anything if/when the government decides to, say, ban all guns and come confiscate yours. Nor does opposition to welfare programs inherently go along with opposition to tyranny. For example, a party could run on a promise to abolish all welfare programs while at the same time banning gun ownership/limiting freedom of speech/etc.
Relying upon the government gives the government power over you. Everyone relies upon the government to a certain extent for things such as protection from foreign powers, criminals, etc. as well as regulation and the like, but relying on the government to provide you with goods, services, or capital rather than acquiring it from the free market is what constitutes an essentially planned economy. Obviously, opposition to welfare does not automaticlaly go hand-in-hand with opposition to tyranny, it is simply opposition to a specific policy.
Safe spaces and speech codes on college campuses are an example of this; people feel that the College is providing them with the service of comfort in exchange for the elimination of their freedom of speech, and are therefore opposed to intellectually free discourse or any kind of offensive language.
They aren't an example of it at all. Safe spaces and speech codes enforced by colleges are not a violation of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech guarantees that the government can't prevent you from speaking, it doesn't guarantee you the right to have a private organization let you come say whatever you want on their property. In fact, this is a textbook example of the free market at work. The free market has determined that there is significant demand for educational services that include various restrictions on on-campus speech, and so sellers of educational services provide the desired product. If you feel that there is demand for educational services that do not include any restrictions on on-campus speech you are entirely free to start your own business, enter the market, and sell your services to the people who want them.
Apologies for not properly articulating my point. The college authority is giving unto students comfort and safety in excuse for the students giving up their freedom of speech in the confines of the college. Not that colleges that resort to speech codes actually get more students than colleges that don't, in fact, afaik, they've been beginning to get subtle decreases in student enrollment, though I could be mistaken. The college authority is an analogy for the government. The Federal government can provide for us goods and services in exchange for us giving them more power via a certain degree of a planned economy and increased governmental power.
Alternatively, you can have people who don't have health insurance receive debt for the necessary treatment that they must then pay off as they continue through their lives. This would likely cost more than actual Health Insurance, incentivizing buying health insurance, while also allowing people the opportunity to go without what may be an unnecessary expense, depending upon circumstance.
Which translates to "be crippled by debt for the rest of your life". That is, if a hospital/doctor/whatever who knows you have no hope of ever paying your debt allows you to pay on credit in the first place
Honestly, I was just spitballing with that one.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lord_Inquisitor_Doge wrote: If I'm incorrect, then provide a valid argument that proves increased regulation of healthcare is absolutely necessary.
Define "absolutely". You don't seem to have a consistent definition yourself, since it is not absolutely necessary to regulate food and drugs (especially at the level the US does). It is entirely possible to go without those regulations and accept the occasional cases of people dying because of unsafe food as the cost of having a free market. It is desirable to avoid that scenario, of course, but that's not the same as being absolutely necessary.
I believe it is absolutely necessary because failing to regulate food and drugs would result in excessive death, and would result in a major detriment to the society in question.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/11 05:52:08
Lord_Inquisitor_Doge wrote: I must have not been particularly clear. What I meant to say was that a person should be able to choose what their Insurance Policy covers, and, thus, if they don't need a policy to cover comparatively small things such as antibiotics or pain killers, then they should have the choice to have a policy that only covers major health issues that they can't afford to cover under normal circumstances, such as surgery. Basically, different amounts of coverage can be chosen to ensure that an insurance Policy can be tailored to the person.
No, I got what you meant to say, but you're wrong about how insurance works. The reason you can get coverage for major things like months of cancer treatment is that the insurance company has a lot of people paying the monthly fees and only using it for an occasional bottle of antibiotics or similar. And the reason Obamacare was able to include the new requirement to cover pre-existing conditions (instead of people being completely screwed if they're diagnosed with something during a gap in insurance coverage) is that you're no longer allowed to go without insurance and only buy it when you have a major expense coming up. Your proposed system is likely to cost almost as much as full coverage would, and the potential savings is negligible if you're rich enough to be able to write a check for anything short of major surgery.
You're also neglecting the fact that people are stupid and short-sighted. If insurance is optional you get people saying "I'm healthy, I don't need this" and being completely screwed when it turns out that yes, they do need it. And then you have a choice between denying treatment and leaving that person to suffer and possibly die, or treating them even though you know you're not going to recover the debt they're taking on to pay for treatment.
If you work for something, should you not have the right to control the fruits of your labors? It's more a matter of principle than practicality, as failing to acknowledge your right to control your own capital makes policies such as wealth redistribution seem less revolting.
You should have some control over your money, but my point is that this is control that only matters if you insist on control for the sake of ideological purity. It's like arguing about the "right" to go without a seatbelt. Even if you manage to win the argument and demonstrate that you have a right to do it why would you ever want to do something so incredibly stupid?
Relying upon the government gives the government power over you. Everyone relies upon the government to a certain extent for things such as protection from foreign powers, criminals, etc. as well as regulation and the like, but relying on the government to provide you with goods, services, or capital rather than acquiring it from the free market is what constitutes an essentially planned economy. Obviously, opposition to welfare does not automaticlaly go hand-in-hand with opposition to tyranny, it is simply opposition to a specific policy.
Having a planned economy has nothing to do with tyranny. And not receiving welfare doesn't remove the government's power over you in the context of tyranny. If the government decides to outlaw your religion whether or not you receive welfare support has nothing to do with your ability to resist when the secret police come to disappear you in the middle of the night.
The college authority is giving unto students comfort and safety in excuse for the students giving up their freedom of speech in the confines of the college.
No they don't, because you never had any freedom of speech there in the first place. This is why your example is bad, you are completely misunderstanding what "freedom of speech" does and does not mean.
I believe it is absolutely necessary because failing to regulate food and drugs would result in excessive death, and would result in a major detriment to the society in question.
But that's not what "absolutely necessary" means. What you're describing is something more like "really desirable from my ethical point of view". And that's fine, if you want to use "desirable" as the standard for justifying a government policy rather than "absolutely necessary". But when you ask for justification of government regulation of health care you need to use the same "desirable" standard instead of the "absolutely necessary" one you originally demanded.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Libertarians are fiscally conservative and socially liberal so if they gain membership by attracting conservative defectors from the Republican Party it puts more conservatives on the right side ( ugh sorry no pun intended) of social issues like gay marriage and public bathrooms which is a good thing.
The conservatives the Party attracts probably aren't going to stop being conservative and will likely drag the Party towards social conservatism. Gary Johnson himself is a hair's breadth away from being a stereotypical pro-life candidate. Rand Paul, a Tea Party darling, is very much socially conservative and Ron isn't far off.
~16000 Astra Militarum: 
~1200 | Imperial Knights: 
~2300 | Leagues of Votann: 
~1300 | Tyranids: 
~3400 | Stormcast Eternals: 
~5000 | Kruleboyz: 
~3500 | Lumineth Realm-Lords: 
~700
