2020 Politics Thread - Enter At Your Own Risk - RULES IN OP

[GeechQuest]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

Because the incentive is always greater. Your example of Obamacare was apt; there was an extreme fear about businesses closing because of the new policy. But it was quickly realized that if you wanted to keep your business, you'd just eat the added expense and your business would still be great.

However, there were SOME businesses that folded (not many, but some). Imagine that because some folded, the baseline for employees changed from 50 to 40 because the system relied on 100% of the initial count to buy-in. When SOME business folded again because of the new rules we go from 40 to 35. Then 35 to 32. This is how socialism works, it creeps on you slowly so that one day you wake and up all of a sudden if you want a single employee, you gotta pay $20,000 per employee for health care.

The incentive to own a business is now gone. Those that have businesses and can afford it own a monopoly on the space, those that don't have nothing. Two classes. The haves, and have nots.

I get the sentiment that’s just not what has ever happened. Even in the Obamacare situation, those that folded were just absorbed by bigger (and in some instances smaller, now growing) companies.

Again, just looking at economic growth charts you can see this. Businesses fold daily in this country for a myriad of reasons. Some get regulated out of existence, some taxed out of existence, some just fail because they suck. The market always absorbs those losses on the micro and adds them to the macro.

Your example above sounds like what would happen in theory, but has never actually occurred and is not anywhere close to what has been proposed nationally.

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by GeechQuest

I get the sentiment that’s just not what has ever happened. Even in the Obamacare situation, those that folded were just absorbed by bigger (and in some instances smaller, now growing) companies.

Again, just looking at economic growth charts you can see this. Businesses fold daily in this country for a myriad of reasons. Some get regulated out of existence, some taxed out of existence, some just fail because they suck. The market always absorbs those losses on the micro and adds them to the macro.

Your example above sounds like what would happen in theory, but has never actually occurred and is not anywhere close to what has been proposed nationally.

Well, you're right in that it has never actually occured because we've never been a socialist country. There are examples of socialism throughout the world and they've all ended the same way, for the same reasons (or are about to end). Some say that's because those at the top got greedy, or the idea wasn't applied properly or whatever the excuse is. But if you embrace socialism, its always what happens.

Which is why capitalism is always the greater choice. It's not perfect, it has flaws but the incentive is what drives people. The brass ring as you call it, it matters greatly. It exists in everything we do. Work, relationships, sports, most everyone strives for something because that something matters. Give everyone a trophy and the desire to win one vs. getting handed one starts to fade.

A trophy is a trophy. Earned or otherwise.

[fulltritty]

Originally Posted by SleeperCards

I lived in Germany for 3 years and half of my family is in the UK, but nice try. You are on a roll today! CHOO-CHOO!

I will go low like you always do and be immature when you have zero arguments you can make. You should join your family in the UK.

[chezball]

[SleeperCards]

Originally Posted by fulltritty

I will go low like you always do and be immature when you have zero arguments you can make. You should join your family in the UK.

In what world is stating a fact and answering your question "going low" and "immature"? There was no argument to be had. Now I could point out how good you are at getting upset on message boards, but THAT might be immature.

[GeechQuest]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

Well, you're right in that it has never actually occured because we've never been a socialist country. There are examples of socialism throughout the world and they've all ended the same way, for the same reasons (or are about to end). Some say that's because those at the top got greedy, or the idea wasn't applied properly or whatever the excuse is. But if you embrace socialism, its always what happens.

Which is why capitalism is always the greater choice. It's not perfect, it has flaws but the incentive is what drives people. The brass ring as you call it, it matters greatly. It exists in everything we do. Work, relationships, sports, most everyone strives for something because that something matters. Give everyone a trophy and the desire to win one vs. getting handed one starts to fade.

A trophy is a trophy. Earned or otherwise.

Yeah I agree, but I think the best financial system is probably a blend of both (oddly enough, that is what we have in this country) where public and private sectors work in unison. Both have inherent flaws, like everything in life.

Is socialized medicine a business or country crusher? No, it’s not. Anybody who thinks it would be is silly.

Is socialized medicine as good as many pronounce it to be? No, it’s not.

[DegaBama]

New reports show the virus was here, last year. No duh haha.

[SleeperCards]

What was the other side's take on the recent whistleblower release? I'm just now seeing it.

https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/dr...ce-83049542002

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by GeechQuest

Yeah I agree, but I think the best financial system is probably a blend of both (oddly enough, that is what we have in this country) where public and private sectors work in unison. Both have inherent flaws, like everything in life.

Is socialized medicine a business or country crusher? No, it’s not. Anybody who thinks it would be is silly.

Is socialized medicine as good as many pronounce it to be? No, it’s not.

Yes, again I point to Israel. A combination of baseline coverage for all + buy more insurance if you want it. There are sacrifices to make, added expenses to take on but they seem to be doing just fine and my coworkers are baffled when I explain how it works here.

As you said, if you are a fan of capitalism, socialism often becomes the devil and vice versa. The truth is blended (but I believe shifted well towards Capitalism).

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by SleeperCards

What was the other side's take on the recent whistleblower release? I'm just now seeing it.

https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/dr...ce-83049542002

More to the story; as usual.

https://twitter.com/ddiamond/status/1253096075545710593

[jdandns]

Originally Posted by chezball

Yes, you must be NOARMALLLL!

[free2131]

Originally Posted by SleeperCards

In what world is stating a fact and answering your question "going low" and "immature"?

In his world, where he can call people that he disagrees with pieces of sh!t and say he doesn't care if people die while in the next breathe cry about people making personal attacks, all while posting 467 emojis.

Originally Posted by fulltritty

And yet you can help do that right now but you won't.

I, acting alone, could probably afford to clothe, house, and feed a few extra people or one family of 3, sure. I won't get into what charities or organizations I donate to because I don't wear it like a badge to show how philanthropic I am, but suffice it to say I donate my fair share, on top of paying my taxes. How many billionaires and corporations can say the same (excluding those who do it for tax write offs and good publicity only)?

I'm not even sure what you think I'm arguing for, but I'm not in favor of wealth distribution, nor am I suggestion that we alter our government from Capitalistic to Socialistic. What I AM saying is that we can and should have PROGRAMS that are Socialistic in nature (some of which we already have), one of those being Universal Healthcare.

Yes, I am fine with making you pay more taxes so everyone can visit a doctor for free*. Yes, I am okay with you not getting to keep your insurance that you like because for the MAJORITY, insurance is over-expensive and under covered.

We as a society have certain moral obligations, one of which in my opinion is to provide basic healthcare to everyone, with everyone being taxed based on his or her (or its) income level to pay for it. The more you make, the more you pay. No more legal tax evasion for corporations or the ultra rich. Time to tax capital gains as full income.

That means that, yes, some of us will pay more and use less than other people. That's what it means to live in a society.

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by jdandns

Yes, you must be NOARMALLLL!

Exactly right JD. I agree. They're the same. Biden and Trump are the same in their treatment of women.

[carlo16]

Originally Posted by GeechQuest

I know 3 local bartenders, none of whom want to return back to work because they're making more on unemployment + $600.

My BIL and FIL both also don't want to return back to work, because they are crushing it snagging unemployment + $600.

Anecdotal, obviously, but I'd say the majority out of work are making more now than they did at their full-time job.

The blanket financial policies put in place to answer to the shutdown are criminally inadequate. I work full time and bartend on the side taking home around $700/week. I don’t see a dime because I’m still employed full time. Everyone at my bar is loving life with that extra $600 while I’m out all that income.

[MIRRABB]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

Sure it is. You take everyone's money and give the same healthcare to all (awful as it turns out). The rich/healthy pay more, the poor/sick pay nothing.

Israel does this where everyone has a baseline policy and if you want to buy more coverage, you can. Combination of capitalism and socialism which is pretty effective. That said, gas is $6 a gallon, tax on automobiles is 100% and many day to day goods are considerably more expensive but it's all a a trade-off.

Yes, but we have to point out the distinction of socialized medicine (and Israel is a good example) simply being using tax receipts to pay for a baseline of healthCARE for all of the citizens.

In the example of yourself, you of course weren't paying monthly for health care. You were paying for health insurance. And in a system when basically everyone has health insurance to access health care, there are huge baked in costs that don't benefit you in any way.

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by MIRRABB

Yes, but we have to point out the distinction of socialized medicine (and Israel is a good example) simply being using tax receipts to pay for a baseline of healthCARE for all of the citizens.

In the example of yourself, you of course weren't paying monthly for health care. You were paying for health insurance. And in a system when basically everyone has health insurance to access health care, there are huge baked in costs that don't benefit you in any way.

My insurance paid for healthcare costs for others. I understand what you are saying but at the end of the day, it's semantics. A transfer of wealth from people to subsidize other people. Yes, it's very poorly done, inefficient and could have been done better to keep costs lower but ultimately it is socialized medicine (a very poor model nevertheless).

[chezball]

RBG just sent to the hospital, another pick for POTUS.
https://abc7ny.com/ruth-bader-ginsbu...lized/6154622/

[MIRRABB]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

My insurance paid for healthcare costs for others. I understand what you are saying but at the end of the day, it's semantics. A transfer of wealth from people to subsidize other people. Yes, it's very poorly done, inefficient and could have been done better to keep costs lower but ultimately it is socialized medicine (a very poor model nevertheless).

What's your solution then? I know that's a lot to ask but I'm actually just curious. Healthcare was too expensive before Obamacare, Obamacare didn't help at all for a variety of reasons, and even if it's repealed health care costs are still going to be out of control in this country.

[jdandns]

Originally Posted by chezball

RBG just sent to the hospital, another pick for POTUS.

Uh, no, but gross that you're wishing death on someone.

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

Exactly right JD. I agree. They're the same. Biden and Trump are the same in their treatment of women.

Yeah, no.

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by MIRRABB

What's your solution then? I know that's a lot to ask but I'm actually just curious. Healthcare was too expensive before Obamacare, Obamacare didn't help at all for a variety of reasons, and even if it's repealed health care costs are still going to be out of control in this country.

I don't have a good one. I know that putting it in the governments hands would be an abject disaster but I also know that privatization would never allow for a baseline coverage for all Americans.

Socialism on smaller scales can be implemented in specific sectors with success. There are European countries that have shown this, Israel etc but we're talking about a country of 330 million. It's not so simple, hell we couldn't make paper masks to protect people for a month!

The only thing I could say with any certainty is that for it to be successful, it must be a collaboration of both public and private sectors. A baseline coverage for all + the ability for me to buy more coverage if I want, which puts me in front if I desire. Beyond that, I don't know.

[SleeperCards]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

The only thing I could say with any certainty is that for it to be successful, it must be a collaboration of both public and private sectors. A baseline coverage for all + the ability for me to buy more coverage if I want, which puts me in front if I desire. Beyond that, I don't know.

Sounds like what Yang wanted to do, force the private sector to compete while also forcing pharma companies to charge less with the hope that the public system would eventually get to the point where the private wouldn't be needed. A bit of a transition instead of straight into M4A.

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by SleeperCards

Sounds like what Yang wanted to do, force the private sector to compete while also forcing pharma companies to charge less with the hope that the public system would eventually get to the point where the private wouldn't be needed. A bit of a transition instead of straight into M4A.

No. Where did you read that in my response? I said collaboration between public and private and you said "Force them to do this, then force them to do that, then cut them out entirely".

LOL

[NeedChapmans]

This is hilarious. This guy is exactly like Trump!

https://twitter.com/parscale/status/1257716602872750081

[SleeperCards]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

No. Where did you read that in my response? I said collaboration between public and private and you said "Force them to do this, then force them to do that, then cut them out entirely".

LOL

Force in the sense of if you don't lower your prices to what you are charging other countries for the same drugs, you won't be selling in the US. You think they are going to voluntarily lower prices for the good of humanity? It seems companies need to be forced to do the right thing. I don't see a situation where the "collaboration" isn't forceful, but maybe there's a way to get it done.

[rman112]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

This is hilarious. This guy is exactly like Trump!

https://twitter.com/parscale/status/1257716602872750081

Eventually it'll be whittled down to.. "Yeah, but he's a Democrat.. so he's different."