TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The General US Politics Thread

Go To

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

MarqFJA The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer from Deserts of the Middle East (Before Recorded History) Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer
#258201: Oct 20th 2018 at 7:44:40 AM

What Manafort article?
This one and this one from the last WTFJHT feed. Which, for some reason, were not mentioned in this repost of the feed.

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.
LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#258203: Oct 20th 2018 at 9:55:55 AM

So are Republicans always trying to cut Social Security and Medicare on "principle" or are there certain lobbies that just really want those gone for some reason?

I realize I've never actually questioned the reasoning, just taken it as a given.

Edited by LSBK on Oct 20th 2018 at 12:06:25 PM

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#258204: Oct 20th 2018 at 9:58:22 AM

[up]Probably a bit of column A and a bit of column B.

Disgusted, but not surprised
Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#258205: Oct 20th 2018 at 10:01:18 AM

@Governor Walker: I was honestly surprised when I first saw this, but I'm quite thankful. Walker appears to have realized that he's really, really pissed off his former supporters by messing with the PFD.

Blueeyedrat Since: Oct, 2010
#258206: Oct 20th 2018 at 10:02:12 AM

I can definitely see both, yeah:

  • Why should a cent of my hard-earned money go to support those people, who don't deserve it?
  • Privatize it all, because the Free Market™ solves everything.

Edited by Blueeyedrat on Oct 20th 2018 at 10:03:25 AM

Ultimatum Disasturbator from the Amiga Forest (Old as dirt) Relationship Status: Who needs love when you have waffles?
Disasturbator
#258207: Oct 20th 2018 at 10:04:55 AM

> So are Republicans always trying to cut social security and Medicare on "principle" or are there certain lobbies that just really want those gone for some reason?

The insurance lobby is definitely the primary factor,they've always been the huge road block on to universal healhcare,it's all money see from people having to pay for healthcare,they don't want to lose it

It would have been better if they had Universal healthcare before the insurance companies became so big,alas they left it too late and the Insurance companies become the biggest tree in the forest and insured no other plants or trees flowered

Edited by Ultimatum on Oct 20th 2018 at 10:05:52 AM

have a listen and have a link to my discord server
TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#258208: Oct 20th 2018 at 11:20:05 AM

So are Republicans always trying to cut Social Security and Medicare on "principle" or are there certain lobbies that just really want those gone for some reason?

I realize I've never actually questioned the reasoning, just taken it as a given.

"Welfare" programs are a violation of Randian economics. Republicans subscribe to an economic philosophy that's basically

  1. Every man for himself. I'm not here to take care of you.
  2. The only way to fail is to be weak, lazy, and/or stupid. These people are useless parasites.
  3. Parasites should be left to die from their own failings, freeing up more resources for the rest of us.

They see any program that consists of providing financial or material aid to the less fortunate as giving handouts to parasites, and they also strongly believe that at least half of the recipients for these programs are just scam artists ripping off the system.

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
MarqFJA The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer from Deserts of the Middle East (Before Recorded History) Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer
#258209: Oct 20th 2018 at 11:51:42 AM

Every man for himself except us super-elite. I'm not here to take care of you, but rather you're here to pay for me being taken care of.
FTFY.

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.
Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#258210: Oct 20th 2018 at 11:55:57 AM

What you said and they said is the exact same thing, "every man for himself" by default just means that the people who are privileged do well and those who are underprivileged do poorly.

Which obviously is the entire point.

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
MorningStar1337 The Encounter that ended the Dogma from 🤔 Since: Nov, 2012
The Encounter that ended the Dogma
#258211: Oct 20th 2018 at 12:01:22 PM

And it isn't surprising to say the least. These are the types of people who'd love being slavers were slavery not outlawed. The kind of people who wants bourgeois supremacy and proletariat suffering and exploitation under the facade of meritocracy.

CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#258212: Oct 20th 2018 at 12:09:25 PM

Blaming the insurance companies is a bit off too because its the government trying to pass the buck on them (just like corporations who produce medical supplies and hospitals) versus simply paying for the government-paid medical care.

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#258213: Oct 20th 2018 at 12:17:19 PM

Blaming the insurance companies is a bit off too because its the government trying to pass the buck on them (just like corporations who produce medical supplies and hospitals) versus simply paying for the government-paid medical care.

And why does the Government want to do that?

Because the insurance industry and similar interests fund politicians (often Republicans) to fight against government involvement in healthcare.

It's perfectly appropriate to blame the insurance industry for the current state of affairs.

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#258214: Oct 20th 2018 at 12:30:56 PM

Insurance companies paying government officials not to try to make them pay for all medical expenses when it's not their job to pay for medical expenses is perfectly reasonable.

I'm entirely comfortable saying the system is to blame, not the people affected by it.

What, exactly, is the insurance company's responsibility here? To pay people who paid for insurance.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
AngelusNox Warder of the damned from The guard of the gates of oblivion Since: Dec, 2014 Relationship Status: Married to the job
Warder of the damned
#258215: Oct 20th 2018 at 12:31:29 PM

Insurance companies profit when you don't need treatment. The government trying to send them back the bills for their services is tied to their habit of making predatory insurance plans and pricing to begin with.

This is why they are so adamant in lobbying for preexisting conditions and try to exclude themselves from as many life saving treatments as possible, if they see that it isn't economically viable to proceed with treatment.

specially when they lobbied for them and the hospitals be allowed to treat the citizens and then send the government the bill, knowing very well they could charge 40 bucks for a box of tissue paper and 200 for a vial of aspirin.

Inter arma enim silent leges
CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#258216: Oct 20th 2018 at 12:32:59 PM

I recommend watching Netflix's DIRTY MONEY which shows companies like Valiant charging thousands of dollars for life-necessary medicine in order to bilk insurance companies of every dollar they can. This then gets passed onto other customers and why insurance rates are so high.

We blame the insurance companies but the system is rigged to take money from them as big pockets and divert the customers from thinking the people charging them for medicine and treatment are to blame.

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Oct 20th 2018 at 12:33:14 PM

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
megaeliz Since: Mar, 2017
#258217: Oct 20th 2018 at 12:41:23 PM

[up] which becomes another arguement for universal healthcare. By moving to a more centralized system, we now have the power of collective bargaining.

Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#258218: Oct 20th 2018 at 12:41:34 PM

Insurance companies paying government officials not to try to make them pay for all medical expenses when it's not their job to pay for medical expenses is perfectly reasonable.

I'm entirely comfortable saying the system is to blame, not the people affected by it.

What, exactly, is the insurance company's responsibility here? To pay people who paid for insurance.

Nothing more, nothing less.

This is only true if you think that companies' only moral obligation is to support their bottom line.

When companies lobby against reform that would benefit the common good in the name of defending their profits... well it might be inevitable but that's just an argument against the profit motive/capitalism, not one that especially puts them in a very good light.

I feel fairly comfortable viewing them as scum if they throw money against single payer (which they do). Sure the system may incentivize such behavior but it's not a coincidence and they're not innocent victims, actors like them made it like that.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Oct 20th 2018 at 3:42:31 PM

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
AngelusNox Warder of the damned from The guard of the gates of oblivion Since: Dec, 2014 Relationship Status: Married to the job
Warder of the damned
#258219: Oct 20th 2018 at 12:41:48 PM

Health and Healthcare business as a whole should be heavily regulated.

One thing is a free market when people have the option to buy stuff and there are a lot of offers, another different one is when their lives depend on it and there is a select few who can provide.

Inter arma enim silent leges
Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#258220: Oct 20th 2018 at 12:44:26 PM

Health and Healthcare business as a whole should be heavily regulated.

Health and healthcare business should be entirely nationalized, as long as there are private for-profit entities involved they will scratch against the regulations and try to loosen them.

If we want to resolve the healthcare situation in a manner that greatly decreases the chances of it degenerating in the future we need to remove the for-profit entities from the equation completely. Thus Medicare-for-all would be the best option to give every American healthcare.

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#258221: Oct 20th 2018 at 12:46:17 PM

That said, if you want to nationalize healthcare in the US, it has to be done gradually. The insurance industry is huge, accounts for a lot of economic output (inefficient as it is) and employs a lot of people. Can't eliminate a sector like that overnight, not without substantial consequences.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
megaeliz Since: Mar, 2017
#258222: Oct 20th 2018 at 12:50:21 PM

[up] So how do you think it should be done?

Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#258223: Oct 20th 2018 at 12:51:56 PM

That said, if you want to nationalize healthcare in the US, it has to be done gradually. The insurance industry is huge, accounts for a lot of economic output (inefficient as it is) and employs a lot of people. Can't eliminate a sector like that overnight, not without substantial consequences.

Maybe.

We shouldn't do it without any consideration for the consequences but with that said creative destruction is a key component of progress and if doing it too gradually risks Republicans sabotaging the process then that economic cost may be worth it in the long run.

So how do you think it should be done?

I second this question.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Oct 20th 2018 at 3:52:23 PM

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#258224: Oct 20th 2018 at 12:52:50 PM

I'm honestly not sure, I suppose it would involve co-opting and integrating the industry. The ACA was a great step.

That said, you also have to address the fact that the States have too much power in this arena, and some won't play ball. But the requires major political, or even constitutional reform....

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#258225: Oct 20th 2018 at 12:58:21 PM

This is only true if you think that companies' only moral obligation is to support their bottom line.

When companies lobby against reform that would benefit the common good in the name of defending their profits... well it might be inevitable but that's just an argument against the profit motive/capitalism, not one that especially puts them in a very good light.

I feel fairly comfortable viewing them as scum if they throw money against single payer (which they do). Sure the system may incentivize such behavior but it's not a coincidence and they're not innocent victims, actors like them made it like that.

That's the kind of logic which basically amounts to, "I bet those [insert rich minorities] are living off our hard earned white labor! We should seize it all for ourselves." Is there any reason why the insurance companies should pay for health care for the public versus the government?

The government DOES have an obligation to support its citizens. It also can do a better job because if you force the cost on insurance companies, you are just privatizing health care indirectly.

And it will collapse.

Fixing HC in America should be:

  • Regulating costs for all treatments, drugs, and equipment
  • Subdizing doctors and education costs
  • Public facilities
  • Government funded treatments
  • Making it illegal to overcharge for ambulances and other services
  • Making it illegal not to treat conditions

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Oct 20th 2018 at 1:01:30 AM

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.

Total posts: 417,856
Top