Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Ruth Bader Ginsburg plans to stay on Supreme Court for at least five more years.
Good, sounds like she realizes what retiring would mean. Hope she can hold out as long as she's able. And hopefully Trump is out of office by then.
Edited by speedyboris on Jul 31st 2018 at 12:09:46 PM
@Dingo Walley 1: the takeaway is that it would decrease overall spending, not add 30 trillion to the deficit. That is how messed up our current healthcare systems are. That proposal would leave everyone covered and at least theoretically capable of affording all necessary medical procedures, so you can see why the reactionaries are spitting blood just thinking about it.
The actual issue not mentioned there is also a mark against the current system: it has become so grotesquely bloated that the Insurance and Pharmaceutical industries are employing tens of thousands of people doing unnecessary jobs that will be out of work if this ever comes to pass. A pittance compared to the net gain of universal coverage, but you can bet that argument will be front and center if the Democrats ever regain full control of the government.
That. TL;DR This would constitute an overall decrease in government spending.
Edited by ViperMagnum357 on Jul 31st 2018 at 1:16:29 PM
Don’t get me started on bloat. I work healthcare finance, and over the last five years we’ve gone from receiving 36% of what we bill from insurance companies to 32%. 68% of revenue is being written off, and it’s due to the weird hodge-lodge of contract rules where some programs pay a flat rate, some a percentage, etc. and it just leads to the most bizarre set of inflated costs to try and get the ones that pay a percent to make up for the increased loss from the ones that pay a flat rate.
My nightmare vision of the future consists of a world where Thiel's bloodsucking, Musk's robot cars, and Uber have joined forces, all news is from Zuckerberg's Facebook which is infested with Kremlin bots, and Trump is President for life — a life that is also extended thanks to Thiel. And Trump is using the blood of the immigrant children he took from parents.
Oh, and the Earth is a polluted wasteland being stripmined for resources while the super-rich spend vacations on Mars.
Edited by M84 on Aug 1st 2018 at 1:30:04 AM
Disgusted, but not surprisedVox has a good article on Sanders' Medicare For All Plan.
Bernie Sanders’s $32 trillion Medicare-for-all plan is actually kind of a bargain
I have to say reading that (and the Jacobin) article have firmly convinced me in favor of Medicare for All, and any Democratic candidate that doesn't support it (or a hybrid form of universal healthcare) isn't going to have my support in the primaries.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Jul 31st 2018 at 1:56:26 PM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang@3of4: American right-wing "secularism" is like the rest of the right wing: so far into Wonderland that they can easily believe six impossible, contradictory things before breakfast. It's how Silicon Valley librotarians and Deep South fundamentalists work on the same team, both worshipping Ayn Rand as a totem while completely blotting out everything she said that doesn't agree with their individual viewpoints.
Ah, here's a clearer write-up courtesy of The Intercept
- and yea, seems that it applies for the same time-span, meaning that the figure cited would actually be $2 Trillion higher without the Medicare for All idea being implemented.
Absolutely, if we can emphasize that it’s supported by sources that are naturally skeptical of it instead of ideologues fudging the numbers then I think that message would be very practical.
True but irrelevant, the fanatics will reject it on principle but we aren’t marketing to them anyway. What matters are the Democrats, Independents, and Moderate Republicans. They can be convinced through such tactics.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Jul 31st 2018 at 2:29:01 PM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
Um... of course? Republican voters IIRC consist of 30% of the population, even if all of them are 100% committed fanatics they're still outnumbered by Democrats and Independents.
There's a reason the Republican Party is so supportive of voter suppression and other undemocratic tactics, they know it's the only way they can have a stranglehold on power.
We lose when we don't get enough votes not because they overwhelm us.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Jul 31st 2018 at 2:40:06 PM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangEh, the issue with Sander's plan was never if it might make sense - frankly, every form of proper healthcare coverage does for the US, because in the current system there is literally money sucked out of the system on so many places. The issue is that it isn't really realistic for the US. As the article alludes to, there are systemic challenges which are nearly impossible to overcome. Remember, health care for all isn't exactly a new idea, the US has tried to get there for decades. No, the issue was always if it is possible to just implement the plan all at once. And frankly, at least until a few years ago it just was a unrealistic proposal because the republicans would have hindered it at every turn. It would have never gotten off the ground. Which is exactly why Obama went this this step by step solution.
Frankly, the smart approach would be to continue improving "Obamacare" and everything else connected to it and then move it step by step towards something universal. Maybe not exactly like Bernie Sander's plan...but one shouldn't be too dogmatic about it. Various EU countries have different kind of coverage and different systems to pay for it, and they all work one way or another.
Just for the record...the ad really is real? It is really not some kind of spoof? Is stuff like this common in advertising for elections?
Edited by Swanpride on Jul 31st 2018 at 12:51:29 PM
There's nothing that makes the US an impossible place to implement universal healthcare in, compared to Sweden or Canada, apart from the people trying to stop it. If the democrats control all 3 chambers in 2020, it's time to finally move forward with Medicare-for-All.
Exactly this, it may not have been viable in 2016 but 2020 will very likely be a very different scenario.
Everything is impossible until it suddenly isn't and Overton windows don't move themselves, we can and should try to get it implemented even if there are difficulties involved.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangSteve Bannon threatened Republicans who take Koch Brothers money: https://cnb.cx/2NV8N3F

You see kids, in a few years he might be dating you
Inter arma enim silent leges