American Politics

[M3J]

You can tell Trump is a puppet and something terrible is about to happen.

Which I find hilarious because reindeer, snow and mistletoe weren't around in ancient Palistine where Jesus was born (he wasn't even born in December) and red is considered a "Christmas Colour". I think in the US you have some people who are very extreme in seperating any religion and you have those that want Right winged American Christianity in everything. In France and Québec, they try to separate it but it's to the point where someone in the government can't wear a cross necklace to work. Or banning women from wearing burkinis . You can't please everyone when there is restrictions on what to wear. However, got can't force your beliefs in laws because laws are supposed to be neutral, and protect everyone.

Why can't more countries be like Canada where they don't care if someone is religious or atheistic? Christmas is a decided day off by the government so might as well enjoy the relaxation whatever you believe in

He is, but he also has an uninformed mind of his own, which makes him even more dangerous. Sadly he's not enough of a puppet, otherwise he'd be doing much better in approval ratings.

We have a lot of people who are extreme in wanting right wing bullshit or Christian shit in everything, and it's annoying. They make out to be as if their religion is better than Islam or more peaceful despite history showing us otherwise.

Canada does actually care.

I am not suggesting republicans are going to do anything. If anything, right now it seems likely that republicans won't move a finger for trump, which is a worst case scenario. Now, that is just the short term and it is completely possible they all get back in line eventually behind trump. They are going for tax cuts next which should be a fair bit simpler than obamacare repeal to pass as it is plausible they get a few democrat voters on that. Now, if trump screws that up...

I dunno man, given the amount of republicans that were against ACA and were gung-ho about repealing it for years, it says a lot that they still haven't been able to do it. I also doubt they'll openly back Trump, just because they know there are republicans/conservatives who don't like Trump.

 

[kkck]

I dunno man, given the amount of republicans that were against ACA and were gung-ho about repealing it for years, it says a lot that they still haven't been able to do it. I also doubt they'll openly back Trump, just because they know there are republicans/conservatives who don't like Trump.

The difference is that when it comes to obamacare there were republicans willing to not screw over their voters and every democrat is ideologically against repealing it for something that would cover less people. With taxes the situation is a bit different, republicans will have a much easier time supporting that and there definitely are democrats who are not ideologically against it. Not to mention that both democrat and republican donors have an interest in this. That said, if trump fails to pass tax cuts then I would argue his presidency is effectively over. Not because he'd get impeach but rather because he will lose any ability to do anything for the remainder of his term beyond the scope of the power he personally wields. Compared to repealing obamacare at least tax cuts are basically easy.

 

[Newkerzy]

Now this is one way to troll neo-nazis and white supremacists.....

Pretty good idea, actually.

 

[qwwq]

Trump is a moron

 

[M3J]

The difference is that when it comes to obamacare there were republicans willing to not screw over their voters and every democrat is ideologically against repealing it for something that would cover less people. With taxes the situation is a bit different, republicans will have a much easier time supporting that and there definitely are democrats who are not ideologically against it. Not to mention that both democrat and republican donors have an interest in this. That said, if trump fails to pass tax cuts then I would argue his presidency is effectively over. Not because he'd get impeach but rather because he will lose any ability to do anything for the remainder of his term beyond the scope of the power he personally wields. Compared to repealing obamacare at least tax cuts are basically easy.

I'm pretty sure most republicans weren't willing to screw over themselves and their families though, hence why they postponed repealing ACA until they could find ways to protect themselves. But then again, this is from a left-wing/liberal source or three, so I dunno how true it is.

Yeah, so imagine how bad Trump would have to be to fail to pass that, if he does. Though, I can see some dems being against it just because Trump, and because some might see taxes as necessary.

--- Double Post Merged, Aug 20, 2017, Original Post Date: Aug 19, 2017 ---

https://t.co/YAam5bZFFA

 

[Reebi]

I'm pretty sure most republicans weren't willing to screw over themselves and their families though, hence why they postponed repealing ACA until they could find ways to protect themselves. But then again, this is from a left-wing/liberal source or three, so I dunno how true it is.

Yeah, so imagine how bad Trump would have to be to fail to pass that, if he does. Though, I can see some dems being against it just because Trump, and because some might see taxes as necessary.

--- Double Post Merged, Aug 20, 2017, Original Post Date: Aug 19, 2017 ---

https://t.co/YAam5bZFFA

In Canada, our health care is through the province, which would work better for the US to have it state regulated rather than nationally. There will be differences but it would be way easier to manage. Some funding comes from all three levels (municipal, provincial, and federal) but what is covered and charging hospitals is through the province. Out of province is covered (Someone from Alberta in British Columbia) because they charge the residing province of that individual. The only downside is the US has 50 states, which would be difficult for charging back.

 

[SleipnirX]

In Canada, our health care is through the province, which would work better for the US to have it state regulated rather than nationally. There will be differences but it would be way easier to manage. Some funding comes from all three levels (municipal, provincial, and federal) but what is covered and charging hospitals is through the province. Out of province is covered (Someone from Alberta in British Columbia) because they charge the residing province of that individual. The only downside is the US has 50 states, which would be difficult for charging back.

I'm surprised somewhere like California hasn't instigated some sort of socialised healthcare system yet (or is it illegal via federal government?) I don't see why Americans are so opposed to it when it's in the interests of the vast majority, cheaper for the government, and provides a better platform for new treatments (economy of scale when production starts)?

 

[Reebi]

I'm surprised somewhere like California hasn't instigated some sort of socialised healthcare system yet (or is it illegal via federal government?) I don't see why Americans are so opposed to it when it's in the interests of the vast majority, cheaper for the government, and provides a better platform for new treatments (economy of scale when production starts)?

Free healthcare = a more productive society; thus better economy. A lot of illnesses can be caught in the early stages with less time off work but when people have to pay for it, things get ignored and fester. They also need better labour laws regarding sick/mat leave in order to allow the sick to rest without fear of losing employement. The worst thing is going to work and having someone hack a lung and getting everyone else sick. Especially if it's the restaurant industry

I understand Americans value work but when people lose their jobs due to illness or forced to work while sick, how does that help productivity?

 

[kkck]

I'm surprised somewhere like California hasn't instigated some sort of socialised healthcare system yet (or is it illegal via federal government?) I don't see why Americans are so opposed to it when it's in the interests of the vast majority, cheaper for the government, and provides a better platform for new treatments (economy of scale when production starts)?

Welp, that is what happens when half the people in the country support a party whose position is basically, if not literally, that government intervention on stuff in immoral. For republicans whether universal health care works or not is irrelevant.

 

[M3J]

In Canada, our health care is through the province, which would work better for the US to have it state regulated rather than nationally. There will be differences but it would be way easier to manage. Some funding comes from all three levels (municipal, provincial, and federal) but what is covered and charging hospitals is through the province. Out of province is covered (Someone from Alberta in British Columbia) because they charge the residing province of that individual. The only downside is the US has 50 states, which would be difficult for charging back.

Sounds complicated

I'm surprised somewhere like California hasn't instigated some sort of socialised healthcare system yet (or is it illegal via federal government?) I don't see why Americans are so opposed to it when it's in the interests of the vast majority, cheaper for the government, and provides a better platform for new treatments (economy of scale when production starts)?

Because "waaah socialism!" and anything good for people is seen as bad in the republicans' views. You're apparently not an American if you care about USA and its citizens.

 

[Reebi]

Sounds complicated

Because "waaah socialism!" and anything good for people is seen as bad in the republicans' views. You're apparently not an American if you care about USA and its citizens.

It's not really complicated. If you go to a public health care facility you show your health card and the gov't pays for the visit. If your in are out of province you site your health card and they charge your province for the bill. The only thing that would be difficult is the out of state charging but I'm sure they can figure that out.

 

[M3J]

Makes sense. Also sounds impossible, at least as long as we have republicans in some sort of power. There's no doubt they'll fight this if they believe people will benefit while the wealthy won't make as much.

 

[SleipnirX]

Welp, that is what happens when half the people in the country support a party whose position is basically, if not literally, that government intervention on stuff in immoral. For republicans whether universal health care works or not is irrelevant.

Sounds complicated

Because "waaah socialism!" and anything good for people is seen as bad in the republicans' views. You're apparently not an American if you care about USA and its citizens.

Honestly I'm surprised FDR and his 'new deal' and the memory of the previous laissez faire regime (a factor in the Wall Street crash and Great Depression) didn't fundamentally shift the American mindset in a more lasting way, though I suppose the Cold War in the intervening 50 years probably tainted the brand a bit. Not that Soviet state capitalism has anything to do with socialised healthcare, but socialism=communism=evil empire seems to be the abiding memory of the era.

I can remember a conversation a few years back with a relative of mine who's born/ bred American, and the perception of how the NHS in England works - if you'd believed half of what he said it's likely it would have been abolished years ago. In the end I decided to simply point out that the UK govt actually spends less per person on the NHS than the US govt spends on its healthcare programmes, and care/ outcomes are generally rated as anywhere from pretty good to outstanding, depending on the procedure. He didn't believe me so I told him to google some actual unbiased peer-reviewed papers about it, and now he's a convert to the idea!

 

[kkck]

Honestly I'm surprised FDR and his 'new deal' and the memory of the previous laissez faire regime (a factor in the Wall Street crash and Great Depression) didn't fundamentally shift the American mindset in a more lasting way, though I suppose the Cold War in the intervening 50 years probably tainted the brand a bit. Not that Soviet state capitalism has anything to do with socialised healthcare, but socialism=communism=evil empire seems to be the abiding memory of the era.

I can remember a conversation a few years back with a relative of mine who's born/ bred American, and the perception of how the NHS in England works - if you'd believed half of what he said it's likely it would have been abolished years ago. In the end I decided to simply point out that the UK govt actually spends less per person on the NHS than the US govt spends on its healthcare programmes, and care/ outcomes are generally rated as anywhere from pretty good to outstanding, depending on the procedure. He didn't believe me so I told him to google some actual unbiased peer-reviewed papers about it, and now he's a convert to the idea!

I think at the time it did shift mentality, though probably not as much as to implement systems similar to european ones. Still, policy wise republicans and democrats were very different 4 years ago. As far as I can tell the issue was good old reagan (and perhaps jimmy carter). After the reagan presidency both parties has a rightward shift. Reagan was essentially a right wing nutjob and then bill came and pushed the party to about as rightwing as european rightwing parties or so.

As for the spending you mention, I am not sure it is entirely fair to put it all NHS. Sure, the UK spends less per person but a similar system wouldn't necessarily do that in the US. People at the US are much more overweight and generally unhealthier than european folk. Which is not to say socialized medicine wouldn't save money for the US either, just that the cost wouldn't necessarily go down as much.

 

[SleipnirX]

I think at the time it did shift mentality, though probably not as much as to implement systems similar to european ones. Still, policy wise republicans and democrats were very different 4 years ago. As far as I can tell the issue was good old reagan (and perhaps jimmy carter). After the reagan presidency both parties has a rightward shift. Reagan was essentially a right wing nutjob and then bill came and pushed the party to about as rightwing as european rightwing parties or so.

As for the spending you mention, I am not sure it is entirely fair to put it all NHS. Sure, the UK spends less per person but a similar system wouldn't necessarily do that in the US. People at the US are much more overweight and generally unhealthier than european folk. Which is not to say socialized medicine wouldn't save money for the US either, just that the cost wouldn't necessarily go down as much.

Oh yes Reagan, the best president the rest of the world ever had. I do like him for his role in peacefully ending the Cold War (by being willing to actually engage constructively with Gorbachev) and he deserves his exaulted place in history for that, but undoubtedly presiding over the US' conversion from the worlds' largest creditor nation to its largest debtor nation in his misguided arms race makes his domestic record more questionable. Yeah it seems to be true the Democrats are probably not much further to the left of the Conservatives (Tories) here (though in fairness the Tories have now positioned themselves as basically centrist). We don't really have an equivalent Republican Party, some people may point to UKIP, but in many ways they are more [national] socialist than the Tories who are free market minded to a greater or lesser degree.

Oh no, it's probably not comparable in all but a few localised cases. I said California in my earlier post because it's generally more liberally minded, but also has a population density towards the lower end of the European scale (comparable to France or Poland) I guess some of the North Eastern ones could be even better in that regard too, though not sure if they're more laissez-faire minded. On that point is the cost of ambulance services across the sparsely populated areas of the US, it's enough of a struggle to cover rural England, where you're never really that far from at least a reasonably sized town, god knows how unaffordable covering a whole state with the same physical land area but 1/10 of the population would be. I was more making the point about how the institution is generally portrayed/ perceived on your side of the Atlantic, but how knowing the facts about socialised medicine is generally enough to convince people of its merits, however it could be implemented.

 

[kkck]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/huppke/ct-trump-rally-media-huppke-20170823-story.html

This one gave me a chuckle or two for anyone who cares.

 

[M3J]

Honestly I'm surprised FDR and his 'new deal' and the memory of the previous laissez faire regime (a factor in the Wall Street crash and Great Depression) didn't fundamentally shift the American mindset in a more lasting way, though I suppose the Cold War in the intervening 50 years probably tainted the brand a bit. Not that Soviet state capitalism has anything to do with socialised healthcare, but socialism=communism=evil empire seems to be the abiding memory of the era.

I can remember a conversation a few years back with a relative of mine who's born/ bred American, and the perception of how the NHS in England works - if you'd believed half of what he said it's likely it would have been abolished years ago. In the end I decided to simply point out that the UK govt actually spends less per person on the NHS than the US govt spends on its healthcare programmes, and care/ outcomes are generally rated as anywhere from pretty good to outstanding, depending on the procedure. He didn't believe me so I told him to google some actual unbiased peer-reviewed papers about it, and now he's a convert to the idea!

There were plenty of people, as far as I know, who were against the New Deal even years after. As I've said, anything good for the people is usually seen as socialist or bad, whereas anything bad for people or good for the wealthy is seen as good. A lot of the right wingers or capitalism lovers are cancers to progress, truth be told.



Congratulations! Out of curiosity, was he a left wing or right?

 

[Kato756]

While I have seldom posted here, I think identifying myself again is good for discussion prouporses:

I am a Brazillian Male, a History Teacher, who came from a mostly non-political family (with littlee right wing inclinations on the economic field), and the College I went too is VERY far into the left.
I am here mostly because I care, both as a person and as a historian, about how the people see what´s happening. Because let me get it straight to everyone, History is very freaking biased (no shit sherlock), and I have never seen more proof of that than at my College. We, historians, hold way more power than you guys would believe. In the mid (1 generation) to long (3-5 generations), I´d say we have even more power than the media.

I do this post mainly for 2 points:

1) Watch out for "researchs". Never, EVER, hold em as a proof in any discussion, unless you have invested a LOT of time to search into it. Basic questions: Who did it? Whose side the people that did it tend to normally side with? How many were interviewd? Where was this poll done? What where the options?
I give thee a example. Next year our elections are gonna happen and a left-wing candidate that was our president in the past is probally gonna come back, and so a poll was circulating around facebook that 60% of Brazillians would vote for him, and the left was parading it as a victory sign. Except that, if you bothered to go and read instead of just looking at the title that appears on facebook, you would see that the one who made it was a organization that has mostly sided with said candidate; that the research was made only on São Paulo, one of various states of Brazil; that it had only 3.000 asked (just for refference, Brazil has 200.000.000); and that a lot of said "right wing options" were people that, while popular, are in no way set to run for the president office.
EVERY poll does this, so beware of using them.

2)Our public healthcare, SUS, is a good example of what is good and what is bad in free health care. While it has undeniably saved many lifes, it is plagued with bad administration and corruption, and we have had lots of cases of people that have died whilist having to wait 20+ hours. I do believe USA could do a better job at it, since your people are more inclinated to politics than mine, but please, beware that it does not become a money sink for the contry

 

[SleipnirX]

There were plenty of people, as far as I know, who were against the New Deal even years after. As I've said, anything good for the people is usually seen as socialist or bad, whereas anything bad for people or good for the wealthy is seen as good. A lot of the right wingers or capitalism lovers are cancers to progress, truth be told.



Congratulations! Out of curiosity, was he a left wing or right?

Yeah, I think over-deregulation, under taxing of corporations in particular (to say nothing of the complicated tax avoidance measures) and general nepotism/ barriers to social mobility have now gotten to the point where it's meaningfully endangering the status quo (here at least, can't say how things are on your side) Jeremy Corbyn (think Bernie Sanders, but even more radically left considering the UKs generally less-right political landscape to start with) doing much better in the last election than he was expected to seems to have been a wake up for the Tories though, and they appear to be scrambling to try and rein back excesses now. It's sort of the same argument about conservation of historic buildings or nature, if you keep them away from people en masse, then they don't feel invested in them and there is less impetus ultimately to maintain/ preserve them.

I believe the family is usually republican, dont know if this changed his whole political outlook though, likely not officially I'd guess. I don't know if there is a lobby within the republicans that is pro (or at least neutral) on socialised medicine?

 

[Reebi]

I think at the time it did shift mentality, though probably not as much as to implement systems similar to european ones. Still, policy wise republicans and democrats were very different 4 years ago. As far as I can tell the issue was good old reagan (and perhaps jimmy carter). After the reagan presidency both parties has a rightward shift. Reagan was essentially a right wing nutjob and then bill came and pushed the party to about as rightwing as european rightwing parties or so.

As for the spending you mention, I am not sure it is entirely fair to put it all NHS. Sure, the UK spends less per person but a similar system wouldn't necessarily do that in the US. People at the US are much more overweight and generally unhealthier than european folk. Which is not to say socialized medicine wouldn't save money for the US either, just that the cost wouldn't necessarily go down as much.

Canadians are almost as fat as Americans and we have free health care. Not everyone in Europe is slim I have family on both sides of the pond and I would say it's even the ratio of slender to larger members.