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.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I'd also argue that a lot of people who call themselves conservative actually are reactionary. There is nothing conservative about wanting to overturn Roe v. Wade, for instance. It's been 45 years since 1973.
That's absurdly false.
No it isn't. I know you want it to be, because "reactionary" carries much harsher connotations than "conservative", but reality doesn't conform to your opinions. 45 years is more than half a lifetime. By any reasonable definition, you're not conserving anything by arguing for a change to something that's been the law for longer than a majority of your population has been alive.
Merriam-Webster defines "reactionary" as:
Definition of reactionary
: relating to, marked by, or favoring reaction; especially : ultraconservative in politics
where "reaction" is defined as
Definition of reaction
1 a : the act or process or an instance of reacting
b : resistance or opposition to a force, influence, or movement; especially : tendency toward a former and usually outmoded political or social order or policy
whereas the Oxford Dictionaries defines it as
adjective
Opposing political or social progress or reform.
.
This certainly applies to opposition to Roe v. Wade. In other words, whembly once again doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. Quelle surprise.
It is *you* who don't know what you're talking about.
The conservative movement in the US is largely pro-life and been remarkably consistent in opposition to Roe v. Wade (and Casey v. PP).
A crime would be taking donations from the Russian Government to run your campaign and trying to hide it. Money going into political campaigns is strictly limited. Thought we all know that foreign interest groups get money into US campaigns anyways by donating to certain foundations . IMO the whole system needs to be overhauled. It's a huge waste of money.
For the life of me. Are there actually people ITT that think it's a crime to speak to a Russian? Just in case you didn't know. It's not. It's not a crime for a Russian to tell you they are going to run adds on Facebook smashing Hillary...
"Oh cool you are going to put an add on Facebook? Let me call the authorities."
You know - even if it happens like that it's not a crime or even immoral.
Just watched a CNN special on Putin called "The Most Powerful Man In the World". It was surprisingly good and actually made me like Putin even more surprisingly. The special put forth a really good theory - Putin hated Hillary because she tried hard to make him lose his Last Election. So he paid her back. Revenge...Now that is the oldest motive in the book. Perfectly believable.
Just ask yourself - why would Russia need to collude with Trump in order to do anything they supposedly did during the election? The answer is simple...THEY WOULDN'T. Why would they tell anyone what they were doing?
Plus - even if they did - It's NOT EVEN A CRIME! LOL.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
President Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani on Monday dismissed the investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, saying that collusion is “not a crime.”
“I have been sitting here looking in the federal code trying to find collusion as a crime,” Giuliani said on “Fox & Friends.”
“Collusion is not a crime.”
The president’s attorney maintained that his client is “absolutely innocent” and said that the recently released tapes of conversations between Trump and his former lawyer Michael Cohen prove that the president “didn’t do anything wrong.”
Share to Google+
President Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani on Monday dismissed the investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, saying that collusion is “not a crime.”
“I have been sitting here looking in the federal code trying to find collusion as a crime,” Giuliani said on “Fox & Friends.”
“Collusion is not a crime.”
The president’s attorney maintained that his client is “absolutely innocent” and said that the recently released tapes of conversations between Trump and his former lawyer Michael Cohen prove that the president “didn’t do anything wrong.”
Trump, who has not been formally accused of anything in special counsel Robert Mueller’s wide-ranging investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, has repeatedly dismissed the probe as a “witch hunt.”
He has also maintained that there was “no collusion.”
In a separate appearance Monday on CNN, Giuliani doubled down on his assertion that collusion is not a “crime.”
“I don't even know if that's a crime, colluding about Russians,” Giuliani said. “You start analyzing the crime — the hacking is the crime. The president didn't hack. He didn’t pay them for hacking.”
Mueller has indicted a number of Russian nationals and organizations on charges of conspiring to hack into U.S. systems and wage social media campaigns intended to boost Trump’s presidential campaign and sow discord.
Mueller is reportedly investigating whether Trump obstructed justice and has looked at the president’s tweets as a focus of that investigation.
Multiple former Trump campaign officials have been indicted in the investigation. Former campaign chairman Paul Manafort has been hit with charges of money laundering, fraud and conspiracy against the United States and others in relation to work he did before joining the Trump campaign. His trial is set to begin this week.
Cohen himself is under criminal investigation in New York for alleged financial crimes and campaign finance violations. Prosecutors are also looking at the $130,000 payment Cohen arranged for adult-film star Stormy Daniels, who claims she had an affair with Trump.
Giuliani on “Fox & Friends” focused his conversation on recently released tapes between Cohen and Trump and between Cohen and CNN host Chris Cuomo, which Cohen secretly recorded.
Share to Google+
President Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani on Monday dismissed the investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, saying that collusion is “not a crime.”
“I have been sitting here looking in the federal code trying to find collusion as a crime,” Giuliani said on “Fox & Friends.”
“Collusion is not a crime.”
The president’s attorney maintained that his client is “absolutely innocent” and said that the recently released tapes of conversations between Trump and his former lawyer Michael Cohen prove that the president “didn’t do anything wrong.”
Trump, who has not been formally accused of anything in special counsel Robert Mueller’s wide-ranging investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, has repeatedly dismissed the probe as a “witch hunt.”
He has also maintained that there was “no collusion.”
In a separate appearance Monday on CNN, Giuliani doubled down on his assertion that collusion is not a “crime.”
“I don't even know if that's a crime, colluding about Russians,” Giuliani said. “You start analyzing the crime — the hacking is the crime. The president didn't hack. He didn’t pay them for hacking.”
Mueller has indicted a number of Russian nationals and organizations on charges of conspiring to hack into U.S. systems and wage social media campaigns intended to boost Trump’s presidential campaign and sow discord.
Mueller is reportedly investigating whether Trump obstructed justice and has looked at the president’s tweets as a focus of that investigation.
Multiple former Trump campaign officials have been indicted in the investigation. Former campaign chairman Paul Manafort has been hit with charges of money laundering, fraud and conspiracy against the United States and others in relation to work he did before joining the Trump campaign. His trial is set to begin this week.
Cohen himself is under criminal investigation in New York for alleged financial crimes and campaign finance violations. Prosecutors are also looking at the $130,000 payment Cohen arranged for adult-film star Stormy Daniels, who claims she had an affair with Trump.
Giuliani on “Fox & Friends” focused his conversation on recently released tapes between Cohen and Trump and between Cohen and CNN host Chris Cuomo, which Cohen secretly recorded.
Sponsored Content
An Incredible $200 Intro Bonus Just For Using This Card
Sponsored By NextAdvisor
“That might be a punishable offense, for all those morons out there,” Giuliani said, referring to members of the media who have reported on the tapes.
Cohen reportedly has more than 150 recorded conversations. Giuliani said Sunday that Trump is discussed at any length in about a dozen of them.
Cohen has reportedly claimed that Trump knew in advance about the 2016 meeting between Trump campaign officials and a Russian lawyer, despite the president's repeated claims that he did not know about the get together at Trump Tower.
Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., who was present at the meeting, testified before Congress that his father was not aware of the meeting in advance.
Oh okay so colluding with a foreign power to help you win an election is not bad. Got it thank you Giulianai
So the increasingly dishonest sell-out Giuliani once again roll out the low-IQ talking points that fit amazingly with the low-IQ brains of Trump supporters.
Saying that collusion (as in, colluding with a foreign government to influence a supposedly democratic election) isn't a crime, is like saying that exterminating another person isn't a crime - you see, I have been sitting here looking in the federal code trying to find exterminating another person as a crime. Exterminating another person is not a crime.
.
-------------------------------------------------------
"He died because he had no honor. He had no honor and the Emperor was watching."
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I'd also argue that a lot of people who call themselves conservative actually are reactionary. There is nothing conservative about wanting to overturn Roe v. Wade, for instance. It's been 45 years since 1973.
That's absurdly false.
No it isn't. I know you want it to be, because "reactionary" carries much harsher connotations than "conservative", but reality doesn't conform to your opinions. 45 years is more than half a lifetime. By any reasonable definition, you're not conserving anything by arguing for a change to something that's been the law for longer than a majority of your population has been alive.
Merriam-Webster defines "reactionary" as:
Definition of reactionary
: relating to, marked by, or favoring reaction; especially : ultraconservative in politics
where "reaction" is defined as
Definition of reaction
1 a : the act or process or an instance of reacting
b : resistance or opposition to a force, influence, or movement; especially : tendency toward a former and usually outmoded political or social order or policy
whereas the Oxford Dictionaries defines it as
adjective
Opposing political or social progress or reform.
.
This certainly applies to opposition to Roe v. Wade. In other words, whembly once again doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. Quelle surprise.
It is *you* who don't know what you're talking about.
The conservative movement in the US is largely pro-life and been remarkably consistent in opposition to Roe v. Wade (and Casey v. PP).
And the Ku Klux Klan has been remarkably consistent in opposition to black people. Does that mean that the opinion that segregation should be re-enforced isn't reactionary? What was conservative 45 years ago is reactionary today. Contexts change. If I called for Åland to be part of Sweden in 1920 I'd have been conservative. If I did the same today I'd be reactionary.
What are you "conserving" by overturning half a century of precedence? How is making a wide, sweeping change with broad effects on society in a short amount of time conservative? It's the antithesis of conservatism, but entirely consistent with reactionaries.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
The conservative movement in the US is largely pro-life and been remarkably consistent in opposition to Roe v. Wade (and Casey v. PP).
Let's not forget views about climate change (which is appropriate with the temperatures rising all around the world).
TBH, as far as I seeit, it's not about being "cautious", it's about not losing your privileges. Which is understandable, of course, but I think that change will inevitably come, even if you try hard to close your eyes to reality.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/30 15:53:45
If you have a problem with getting dirt on an election opponents from foreigners.... why is it OK for Hillary Clinton Campaign and the DNC to hire a former foreign spy to get dirt on her opponents from Kremlin officials?
Proof? Or is that conjecture?
Because Devin Nunes is not a trustworthy source
“The truth is that they [Democrats] are covering up that Hillary Clinton colluded with the Russians to get dirt on Trump to feed it to the FBI to open up an investigation into the other campaign.”
—Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, in an interview on the Hugh Hewitt Show, Feb. 7, 2018
During the probe of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election — and possible collusion by members of the Trump campaign — defenders of the president have often sought to turn the tables on Democrats. A perfect summing-up of this approach can be found in the statement above by Nunes, who described it as “a massive coverup of a major scandal that reached the highest levels of our government.”
It’s worth recalling that in June 2016, key players in the Trump campaign — Donald Trump Jr., campaign manager Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner, the husband of Ivanka Trump — agreed to meet with Russians after an intermediary offered “very high-level and sensitive information” that could “incriminate Hillary” and is part of “Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”
But as the saying goes, just because you are paranoid does not mean that people are not out to get you. Republican investigators have turned up information that raises interesting questions. Let’s explore whether there is a basis for Nunes’s claim that Clinton is the ultimate villain in the Russia saga.
The Facts
There are many strands to the Russia probe. Let’s focus first on the role of a “dossier” of information on possible Trump-Russia ties compiled by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer with ties to the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community. Steele had been tapped by Fusion GPS, a research and intelligence firm under contract to investigate Trump by Perkins Coie, a law firm working for the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
The dossier is actually a series of memos, apparently based on conversations with Russian sources, that were written between June and December 2016. A version was published by BuzzFeed shortly before Trump’s inauguration, after FBI Director James B. Comey had briefed Trump on its existence.
On Feb. 2, President Trump declassified a memo written by GOP staff members of the House Intelligence Committee led by Nunes. Much of the GOP memo is about the FBI seeking a secret court order to monitor a former Trump campaign adviser, Carter Page. The order was obtained on Oct. 21, 2016, about a month after Page said he had resigned from the campaign, and was renewed at least three more times over the course of a year.
The Nunes memo alleges that Steele had a bias against Trump and that the FBI did not fully inform the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court that some of the information in the filing stemmed from Steele’s “dossier” reports. The FBI, in a rare unsigned statement, said it has “grave concerns” about the accuracy of the memo.
A more interesting document is a Jan. 5 letter written by Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, urging the Justice Department to investigate whether criminal charges should be brought against Steele. The letter, with limited redactions, was made public after release of the Nunes memo.
The letter — which says the FBI in footnotes acknowledged the political origins of the dossier — argues that Steele, with the encouragement and assistance of Fusion GPS, actively sought to get the information he believed had been uncovered into the journalistic bloodstream during the campaign — and then lied to the FBI about what he had done.
One early example of reporting informed by Steele’s insights was a Yahoo News article about Page published Sept. 23, 2016, titled “U.S. intel officials probe ties between Trump adviser and Kremlin.” Key details in the report — about meetings Page allegedly held in Russia — appear to come straight out of one of Steele’s reports.
In particular, regarding the Yahoo article, the FBI told the FISA court in its filings that “the FBI does not believe that [Steele] directly provided this information to the press.” The actual “information” is redacted in the letter, and it’s unclear whether it is meaningful that the FBI used the word “directly.”
The Yahoo reporter, Michael Isikoff, has since acknowledged that he spoke to Steele for the article. Steele has also acknowledged, in a court filing in London regarding a defamation suit stemming from the BuzzFeed publication of the dossier, that he briefed reporters from The Washington Post, the New York Times, Yahoo News, the New Yorker and CNN.
The FBI eventually told the FISA court that it had terminated its relationship with Steele because of “unauthorized disclosure of information to the press,” the letter says.
The letter further says that Steele provided the FBI with information he had received from Clinton associates also investigating Trump. Steele obtained this report from Jonathan Winer, then a State Department official, who had received it from Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal; the report was written by Cody Shearer, a freelance journalist who was friends with Clinton and her husband, former president Bill Clinton.
The memo claimed that a source inside the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) spy agency alleged that Trump had financial ties to influential Russians and that the FSB had evidence of his engaging in compromising personal behavior, according to a copy obtained by The Washington Post. Steele told the FBI that he did not know whether the Shearer memo was accurate. (Winer, in an opinion article for The Post, said he did not share the Shearer material with anyone at State.)
“It’s troubling enough that the Clinton campaign funded Mr. Steele’s work, but that these Clinton associates were contemporaneously feeding Mr. Steele’s allegations raises additional concerns about his work,” the letter says. The letter also suggests that the more people knew Steele was engaged in this anti-Trump research, “the more likely it was vulnerable to manipulation.”
Now, let’s see if this material backs up Nunes’s claim: “Hillary Clinton colluded with the Russians to get dirt on Trump to feed it to the FBI to open up an investigation into the other campaign.”
Based on the available evidence, this claim quickly falls apart.
The Clinton campaign, via a law firm, did seek “dirt” on Trump and Russia. Steele did rely on Russian sources, supposedly contacts mined from his years as a spy. Steele did actively seek to draw attention to what he had found, though virtually no reporters wrote about his allegations before the election because they could not confirm them. And the FBI did use Steele’s reports to help obtain a court order allowing surveillance of a Trump associate — but that was after Page had quit the campaign.
For some, that may seem like a lot of smoke. But it’s a huge leap to say Clinton colluded with Russians to do this. Instead, you have (a) the campaign hiring (b) a research firm that hired (c) a researcher who spoke (d) to Russian sources. Steele, for his part, has suggested he tried to alert reporters and the FBI because he was appalled by what he had discovered. The closest connection to Clinton is the fact that Steele gave to the FBI material written by Clinton associates, but it’s unclear what the FBI did with that memo.
Meanwhile, there is little dispute over the finding by U.S. intelligence agencies that Russia developed a clear preference for Trump — and that Russian entities hacked into Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign accounts to obtain emails that were then leaked to undermine her campaign. It certainly would have been a sophisticated game of three-dimensional chess for Russia to simultaneously seek to undermine Clinton’s campaign while supplying her with information to spur an investigation of Russian activities on behalf of Trump.
Finally, the Nunes memo disclosed that the FBI opened a counterintelligence operation in July 2016 because of allegations concerning another Trump adviser, George Papadopoulos. But Papadopoulos was never mentioned in any of Steele’s reports. He came to the attention of the FBI because he had told an Australian diplomat that the Russians had obtained thousands of Clinton’s emails. He has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI and is cooperating with the special counsel.
Jack Langer, spokesman for the House Intelligence Committee, did not respond to queries about Nunes’s statement on the Hewitt show. But earlier in the week, we asked him why Nunes had said Papadopoulos “never even had met with the president” when Trump himself on March 31, 2016, had circulated on social media a photo of the two men together during a meeting of Trump’s foreign-policy advisers.
“Yes, there’s a photo of more than a dozen people sitting around a conference table, including Papadopoulos and Trump,” Langer replied. “But that does not make clear whether the two men knew each other at all.”
Presumably the same could be said for Clinton and Steele — especially since there is no known photo of the two together, let alone a known meeting.
The Pinocchio Test
Was the dossier used to gin up media attention to Russia-Trump ties and bolster an existing FBI investigation? Perhaps. That’s certainly a question worth exploring.
But the media needed little prodding to investigate when candidate Trump appeared unexpectedly solicitous of Russian President Vladimir Putin as Russian-linked entities leaked emails stolen by Russian hackers in the middle of a campaign. Meanwhile, the initial FBI counterintelligence probe was prompted not by Steele’s reporting but by the loose lips of a Trump campaign staffer.
Finally, there is no evidence that Clinton was involved in Steele’s reports or worked with Russian entities to feed information to Steele. That’s where Nunes’s claim goes off the rails — and why he earns Four Pinocchios.
Four Pinocchios
So erm no
How about you take your fake facts and your false conjectures somewhere else?
The united states is built on being reactionary. The Republicians especially in recent times. It is because of the US's position as a hegemonic power.
Now your comments on reform are correct. We do need a better public health but that should not belong to the private companies with undaunted ability to do whatever they want.
So too is this true of internet companies, regulation and ability to ensure that companies do not have unbridled power over the consumer should be the priority of the united states.
Also forcing a shutdown of the united states because of a short sighted wall project is idioitic and possible ill negotiable.
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
Honest I wish the Federal Government would just stay out of social issues and leave it up to the states. That is what they are supposed to do.
I am pro choice BTW. Wish the right would just drop that issue. It's so irrelevant in the grand scheme anyways. Look at it logistically at least. Less unwanted children = less tax money needed to support them. This is a good thing. Also - I am pro choice just based on the face that the government should not be telling you what you can do inside of your own body. GTFO.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Now your comments on reform are correct. We do need a better public health but that should not belong to the private companies with undaunted ability to do whatever they want.
.
Which is funny, given it's the Republicans who made everything in their power to rig the game so that Obama couldn't get what he really wanted.
Kilkrazy wrote: The Republicans spent the Obama years resolutely stalling and delaying to shut down the government and avoid passing a budget.
Now that they control the Senate, the House, the Presidency and the Supreme Court, they can't pass a budget.
Is this not vastly amusing?
Oh it is.
It just shows how the current republicians and consertative party don't know what the hell to do with being the government
It just comes to show incompetency breeds incompetency.
I do not believe anyone who says that Donald Trump was in the right to cheat an election and devalue the consitution of the united states and the people's right to vote.
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I'd also argue that a lot of people who call themselves conservative actually are reactionary. There is nothing conservative about wanting to overturn Roe v. Wade, for instance. It's been 45 years since 1973. Similarly, Medicaid's been around for even longer.
Conservatives are almost always reactionary. Conservatives oppose change and seek to preserve established institutions, which means when that if a change they oppose does happen, they usually don't suddenly change their beliefs, and therefore become reactionaries. Obviously socialists or social liberals can be just as reactionary as conservatives (see the Communist Party of Russia for example, where you can argue that it actually has become a conservative party), but that is less common in the West, where liberalism rather than socialism is the historical tradition. In the US, where liberal traditions are very strong, the conservatives are very reactionary in nature, the Tea Party and Trump being very good examples. Despite the negative way in which the term is often used, there is nothing inherently wrong with being reactionary though.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/07/30 16:02:38
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I'd also argue that a lot of people who call themselves conservative actually are reactionary. There is nothing conservative about wanting to overturn Roe v. Wade, for instance. It's been 45 years since 1973. Similarly, Medicaid's been around for even longer.
Conservatives are almost always reactionary. Conservatives oppose change and seek to preserve established institutions, which means when that if a change they oppose does happen, they usually don't suddenly change their beliefs, and therefore become reactionaries. Obviously socialists or social liberals can be just as reactionary as conservatives (see the Communist Party of Russia for example), but that is less common in the West, where liberalism rather than socialism is the historical tradition.
Despite the negative way in which the term is often used, there is nothing inherently wrong with being reactionary though.
Indeed, but the question then becomes when conservatism stops being conservative in nature and becomes purely reactionary. I'd posit that when more than 50% of the population of a country wasn't even born for the event being reacted to it's well beyond "conserving" and much closer to "undoing".
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I'd also argue that a lot of people who call themselves conservative actually are reactionary. There is nothing conservative about wanting to overturn Roe v. Wade, for instance. It's been 45 years since 1973. Similarly, Medicaid's been around for even longer.
Conservatives are almost always reactionary. Conservatives oppose change and seek to preserve established institutions, which means when that if a change they oppose does happen, they usually don't suddenly change their beliefs, and therefore become reactionaries. Obviously socialists or social liberals can be just as reactionary as conservatives (see the Communist Party of Russia for example, where you can argue that it actually has become a conservative party), but that is less common in the West, where liberalism rather than socialism is the historical tradition.
Despite the negative way in which the term is often used, there is nothing inherently wrong with being reactionary though.
The important distiniction is between a social democrat and Socalist. As both can be reactionary, but Socalism a bit more as there position sorta demands it
Indeed, but the question then becomes when conservatism stops being conservative in nature and becomes purely reactionary. I'd posit that when more than 50% of the population of a country wasn't even born for the event being reacted to it's well beyond "conserving" and much closer to "undoing".
The Tea Party.
Its because the consertative party has not become consertative but authortarian. See Trump and every single republician president.
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
Prestor Jon wrote: Spending money we don’t have on healthcare we do need is still running deficits spending money we don’t have which isn’t sustainable in the long run no matter how much good is done with the spending.
And somehow, despite our braying about "American Exceptionalism", we're not able to pull of the logisitical feats Albania was able to handle.
Spoiler:
It is impossible to look at this map and say with any degree of honesty that universal healthcare is not possible economically.
There are 100 million Americans with diabetes or prediabetes. Average cost of treatment of diabetes over a persons lifetime is $85k. If the government is going to foot the bill for that treatment we need a revenue stream to pay for it. And that’s just one example of one health condition. I’m not saying that having universal healthcare would be bad or that I don’t want the US to have it but I’ve yet to see a practical plan for paying for it.
In what way? For what purpose? What specifically do you want changed?
This might come as a shock to you, but legitimate goal of public policy [i]ought [/i]to ensure that all Americans have access to quality health care. But, we need to have brass tacks conversation as to what it means by that.
I'm an odd duck from the rest of my conservative brethren in that I believe it's possible to achieve some sort of universal coverage while spending and taxing far less than we do in other aspect of governance. But, we need to have that hard conversation regarding ramifications of diverting resources from 'x' to funding this, as we simply cannot "tack on" the cost of such program on top of everything else we tax/spend on...
As specific change for Medicaid is to go more of a "block grant" per state, rather than having Congress dictate how it should be spent. The 50 states knows where best to utilize the fundings better than the yahoos in Congress. (ie, NH may want increased resources to fight the Opioid Crisis and MO may want those resources go towards mental health, etc...).
It should be possible and we should be able to better allocate our budget but every time studies come out analyzing the costs of national healthcare its found to be trillions of dollars annually and a good 2/3rd of annual Federal spending is mandatory spending already. Social Security alone is over $1.25 Trillion annually and we spend over another $1 Trillion on Medicare, Medicaid and the VA annually. To change to a national healthcare system requires a massive shift in the parameters of Federal spending and taxation and we'll need to do it during a time of hyper partisanship in which our two opposing Parties turn literally every issue into a game of existential chicken. When the Democrats had the White House and a Supermajority in the Senate the best they could do was the ACA, essentially providing Federally subsidized health insurance to 30 million Americans. We can't have another Democratic PotUS until at least 2020 and it's extremely unlikely that we'll see another Democratic supermajority in the Senate until at least 2022 so we could possibly see a national healthcare system become a key issue in the 2022 midterm elections.
WASHINGTON — Sen. Bernie Sanders' "Medicare for all" plan would increase government health care spending by $32.6 trillion over 10 years, according to a study by a university-based libertarian policy center.
That's trillion with a "T."
The latest plan from the Vermont independent would require historic tax increases as government replaces what employers and consumers now pay for health care, according to the analysis being released Monday by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University in Virginia. It would deliver significant savings on administration and drug costs, but increased demand for care would drive up spending, the analysis found.
Sanders' plan builds on Medicare, the popular insurance program for seniors. All U.S. residents would be covered with no copays and deductibles for medical services. The insurance industry would be relegated to a minor role.
"Enacting something like 'Medicare for all' would be a transformative change in the size of the federal government," said Charles Blahous, the study's author. Blahous was a senior economic adviser to former President George W. Bush and a public trustee of Social Security and Medicare during the Obama administration.
Responding to the study, Sanders took aim at the Mercatus Center, which receives funding from the conservative Koch brothers. Koch Industries CEO Charles Koch is on the center's board.
"If every major country on earth can guarantee health care to all, and achieve better health outcomes, while spending substantially less per capita than we do, it is absurd for anyone to suggest that the United States cannot do the same," Sanders said in a statement. "This grossly misleading and biased report is the Koch brothers response to the growing support in our country for a 'Medicare for all' program."
Sanders' office has not done a cost analysis, a spokesman said. However, the Mercatus estimates are within the range of other cost projections for Sanders' 2016 plan.
Sanders' staff found an error in an initial version of the Mercatus report, which counted a long-term care program that was in the 2016 proposal but not the current one. Blahous corrected it, reducing his estimate by about $3 trillion over 10 years. Blahous says the report is his own work, not the Koch brothers'.
Also called "single-payer" over the years, "Medicare for all" reflects a long-time wish among liberals for a government-run system that covers all Americans.
The idea won broad rank-and-file support after Sanders ran on it in the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries. Looking ahead to the 2020 election, Democrats are debating whether single-payer should be a "litmus test" for national candidates.
The Mercatus analysis estimated the 10-year cost of "Medicare for all" from 2022 to 2031, after an initial phase-in. Its findings are similar to those of several independent studies of Sanders' 2016 plan. Those studies found increases in federal spending over 10 years that ranged from $24.7 trillion to $34.7 trillion.
Kenneth Thorpe, a health policy professor at Emory University in Atlanta, authored one of those studies and says the Mercatus analysis reinforces them.
"It's showing that if you are going to go in this direction, it's going to cost the federal government $2.5 trillion to $3 trillion a year in terms of spending," said Thorpe. "Even though people don't pay premiums, the tax increases are going to be enormous. There are going to be a lot of people who'll pay more in taxes than they save on premiums." Thorpe was a senior health policy adviser in the Clinton administration.
The Mercatus study takes issue with a key cost-saving feature of the plan — that hospitals and doctors will accept payment based on lower Medicare rates for all their patients.
The study found that the plan would reap substantial savings from lower prescription costs — $846 billion over 10 years — since the government would deal directly with drugmakers. Savings from streamlined administration would be even greater, nearly $1.6 trillion.
But other provisions would tend to drive up spending, including coverage for nearly 30 million uninsured people, no deductibles and copays, and improved benefits, including dental, vision and hearing.
After taking into account current government health care financing, the study estimated that doubling all federal individual and corporate income taxes would not fully cover the additional costs.
Kilkrazy wrote: The Republicans spent the Obama years resolutely stalling and delaying to shut down the government and avoid passing a budget.
Now that they control the Senate, the House, the Presidency and the Supreme Court, they can't pass a budget.
Is this not vastly amusing?
Oh it is.
It just shows how the current republicians and consertative party don't know what the hell to do with being the government
It just comes to show incompetency breeds incompetency.
I do not believe anyone who says that Donald Trump was in the right to cheat an election and devalue the constitution of the united states and the people's right to vote.
There is no evidence to support that Donald Trump "Cheated". There is evidence to show that some Russians did some illegal things to discredit Hillary Clinton.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Yeah Medicaid is a complete bust. I don't have the answers for how to fix it - but you can't look at the pie chart and not feel disgusted.
As is typical - you put the government in charge of something and it gets completely screwed.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/30 16:10:59
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Really, conservative is all about maintaining the power of those with power. Basically, well off white (allegedly) Christian men. Thus anything that threatens that power (By bringing 'other' people to a closer level of power) must be stopped.
This means being against public education, against abortion (It is about controlling women, not protecting alleged babies...Notice how many of those that are cheering babies being ripped from their mother's arms and who rant about people on welfare having babies are against abortion).
This applies to government assistance, pollution controls, and various other issues.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
libertarian policy center.
And more reason not to trust the study...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/30 16:12:59
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I'd also argue that a lot of people who call themselves conservative actually are reactionary. There is nothing conservative about wanting to overturn Roe v. Wade, for instance. It's been 45 years since 1973. Similarly, Medicaid's been around for even longer.
Conservatives are almost always reactionary. Conservatives oppose change and seek to preserve established institutions, which means when that if a change they oppose does happen, they usually don't suddenly change their beliefs, and therefore become reactionaries. Obviously socialists or social liberals can be just as reactionary as conservatives (see the Communist Party of Russia for example), but that is less common in the West, where liberalism rather than socialism is the historical tradition.
Despite the negative way in which the term is often used, there is nothing inherently wrong with being reactionary though.
Indeed, but the question then becomes when conservatism stops being conservative in nature and becomes purely reactionary. I'd posit that when more than 50% of the population of a country wasn't even born for the event being reacted to it's well beyond "conserving" and much closer to "undoing".
I agree that could a good separation line, although I myself view a position as reactionary as soon as it shifts from opposing a change to turning back a change. I guess I would say there are degrees of reactionary based on how long ago the change they want to undo was made. Like someone who wants to undo a change made half a century ago would be much more reactionary than someone who just wants to undo changes made by the previous administration.
Everyone around Trump seemed involved with Russian agents during the election, even his son Donnie JR. For Trump not to have known he would have had to be stupidly oblivious, which granted could be the case. The campaign knowing ahead of time of the email leaks is a pretty big red flag.
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I'd also argue that a lot of people who call themselves conservative actually are reactionary. There is nothing conservative about wanting to overturn Roe v. Wade, for instance. It's been 45 years since 1973. Similarly, Medicaid's been around for even longer.
Conservatives are almost always reactionary. Conservatives oppose change and seek to preserve established institutions, which means when that if a change they oppose does happen, they usually don't suddenly change their beliefs, and therefore become reactionaries. Obviously socialists or social liberals can be just as reactionary as conservatives (see the Communist Party of Russia for example, where you can argue that it actually has become a conservative party), but that is less common in the West, where liberalism rather than socialism is the historical tradition.
Despite the negative way in which the term is often used, there is nothing inherently wrong with being reactionary though.
The important distiniction is between a social democrat and Socalist. As both can be reactionary, but Socalism a bit more as there position sorta demands it
Sure. I would say that since social liberalism is a much more loose set of ideas than socialism, it is indeed more common for socialists to develop reactionary tendencies than social democrats, the ideology of socialist groups like democratic socialists or communists being more rigid and confrontational than that of liberal groups like social democrats. Social democrats in general are more likely to seek a compromise, rather than confrontation by seeking to undo their opponents changes entirely.
Yeah Medicaid is a complete bust. I don't have the answers for how to fix it - but you can't look at the pie chart and not feel disgusted.
As is typical - you put the government in charge of something and it gets completely screwed.
Why do you feel disgusted that your government is spending money on healthcare?
As for your second point, that is laughably false. Most developed countries have the government in charge of healthcare spending and they spend less per capita than the USA does.
The reason your government spends a lot is because of the parasitical nature of insurance in healthcare and how that inflates the prices of basic treatments in the system.
Just look at Trump throwing a hissy fit that we here in Europe are getting drugs from US pharmaceutical companies for less than US hospitals pay for identical drugs.
Remove the drive for profit from your healthcare system and that spending will drop substantially.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/30 16:27:01
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.
Kilkrazy wrote: The Republicans spent the Obama years resolutely stalling and delaying to shut down the government and avoid passing a budget.
Now that they control the Senate, the House, the Presidency and the Supreme Court, they can't pass a budget.
Is this not vastly amusing?
Not amusing in the sense that they don't control the Senate. The minority still has filibuster power for budget...
You'd be correct had the GOP has 60 Senators...and yes, that'd be hysterical.
Is that why there is no budget passed? The minority Dem Senate is filibustering it?
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
The Mercatus Center is pretty infamous and the amount of influence the Koch brothers wield on the wider university are seriously threatening academic independence. Its projects are just your general right wing rundown, climate change reform opposition, deregulations, reducing government spending on everything but pet projects, opposition to the CFPB etc. But its pretty powerful considering its Koch funded.
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
skyth wrote: Really, conservative is all about maintaining the power of those with power. Basically, well off white (allegedly) Christian men. Thus anything that threatens that power (By bringing 'other' people to a closer level of power) must be stopped.
This means being against public education, against abortion (It is about controlling women, not protecting alleged babies...Notice how many of those that are cheering babies being ripped from their mother's arms and who rant about people on welfare having babies are against abortion).
This applies to government assistance, pollution controls, and various other issues.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
libertarian policy center.
And more reason not to trust the study...
Pick a different study then, they all forecast similar costs to the plan.
Its findings are similar to those of several independent studies of Sanders' 2016 plan. Those studies found increases in federal spending over 10 years that ranged from $24.7 trillion to $34.7 trillion.
[b]Kenneth Thorpe, a health policy professor at Emory University in Atlanta, authored one of those studies and says the Mercatus analysis reinforces them.[/b]
"It's showing that if you are going to go in this direction, it's going to cost the federal government $2.5 trillion to $3 trillion a year in terms of spending," said Thorpe. "Even though people don't pay premiums, the tax increases are going to be enormous. There are going to be a lot of people who'll pay more in taxes than they save on premiums." Thorpe was a senior health policy adviser in the Clinton administration.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/30 16:32:26
Funny how the Koch foundation gave Emory university at least $18,000 and they come up with this...
I also love how they feel the need to increase the figures by putting it over a 10 year period and multiplying the dollar value by 10. Really dishonest if you ask me.
Only comparing premium increases for people and neglecting the part of the premium paid for by the employers.
Nope. Doesn't look like something to be taken seriously.
Yeah. I think most of those studies find it would be impossible to pay a healthcare system in USA because you have some of the more crazy prices for all kind of medical threatments in the world.
Wasn't in India a couple years ago a problem when the right to sell one medicine that was "public/generic" was bought by an america company and changed from 20$ per box to something like 1000$?
Of course it is impossible to have a public healthcare when drugs have something like 1000% to 10.000% overprice. Because... if USA can't... why everybody else does? I believe is something similar with how USA has one of the worst and most expensives internet connections of the world.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/07/30 16:46:14
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
Yeah Medicaid is a complete bust. I don't have the answers for how to fix it - but you can't look at the pie chart and not feel disgusted.
As is typical - you put the government in charge of something and it gets completely screwed.
Why do you feel disgusted that your government is spending money on healthcare?
As for your second point, that is laughably false. Most developed countries have the government in charge of healthcare spending and they spend less per capita than the USA does.
The reason your government spends a lot is because of the parasitical nature of insurance in healthcare and how that inflates the prices of basic treatments in the system.
Just look at Trump throwing a hissy fit that we here in Europe are getting drugs from US pharmaceutical companies for less than US hospitals pay for identical drugs.
Remove the drive for profit from your healthcare system and that spending will drop substantially.
That chart says Medicaid & Health. I am going to assume that the majority of that is Medicaid. Correct me if I am wrong.
That is a program to give people 65 and older free health care. Obviously this is an expensive population to treat - and like you said - the invidious nature of insurance and other factors make this cost much higher than you would expect . But dang...If we put that kind of money into education or science or something...We might have already ascended into a new kind of culture or a Utopian society. I can't even imagine what it would cost to give all Americans free health care in this system. It might be more than the entire budget!
Basically the main problem with Medicade is it has automatic payments. There is no competition. This keeps cost high. It's the exact same reason why college costs so much - automatic money coming from the government - they can just keep raising cost and they wont lose any customers. It's gross.
Also - forgive me for being blunt but if European health care was so good. There wouldn't be so many people from other countries around the world coming here for surgeries.
Maybe some of it is a myth - what do you think about your health are system.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/30 16:50:57
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
But if US healthcare is so great why do Americans leaving the US to get healthcare outnumber people coming into the US by 2 to 1? The reasons that the US has some excellent healthcare at the very top of the system are pretty varied, but sadly unless you're quite wealthy you will never see the type of healthcare that foreigners fly in for.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/30 16:59:54
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
A Town Called Malus wrote: Putin would not have done what he did as revenge for Clinton supposedly trying to make him lose an election.
Because it is impossible for Putin for lose unless he doesn't want to win. Because anybody who has a chance to beat him ends up in prison or dead.
Even if that were true. There were large demonstrations (the largest demonstrations in the past 20 years) against Putin prior to the elections. Clinton was extremely opposed to Putin. In fact - she said he had no soul (To the world). Come on man. This is the most simple thing in the world to understand. Putin doesn't like Hillary. In fact he hates her. The invention of Trump collusion is not required for Putin to get his Revenge.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
18.000 
3.500 
8.200 
3.300 
2.400 
3.100 
5.500 
2.500 
3.200 
3.000
1750 pts Blood Specters
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
