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

speedyboris Since: Feb, 2010
#111576: Feb 10th 2016 at 8:59:46 AM

Wanted to address a quote from the previous page:

"Christ Christie should drop out. He's become a much more hostile ideologue in recent years. Remember when he shook Obama's hand in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy and refused to play partisan politics? Contrast that with all the trash he's talked about the president since entering the race. Politics changes people for the worse."

Indeed. I actually sorta liked Chris Christie during that time, since he appeared willing to work with others. But ever since Bridgegate I've lost more and more respect for him, and on this campaign trail I found him positively obnoxious (although he's certainly not the only one). So I'm not at all upset he's dropped out of the race.

edited 10th Feb '16 9:02:12 AM by speedyboris

DrDougsh Since: Jan, 2001
#111577: Feb 10th 2016 at 9:11:43 AM

I did like his takedown of Rubio, though. Those were some strong words.

Luminosity Since: Jun, 2012 Relationship Status: Lovey-Dovey
#111578: Feb 10th 2016 at 9:14:42 AM

"We need to dispel the myth that..." *boom*

Sorry about that, my Rubio Bot just exploded.

Nihlus1 Since: Jul, 2015
#111579: Feb 10th 2016 at 9:19:48 AM

What is that number about?
It's from the article I posted earlier about the $1.1 trillion hole in Sanders' healthcare plan. It's what Sanders said his plan would save on prescription drugs vs what the US actually spends on prescription drugs as a whole (not just private health plans, but everybody). The expert who analyzed the plan basically pointed out that he was saying they'd somehow take drug spending nationally into the negatives.

Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#111580: Feb 10th 2016 at 9:21:47 AM

@Fighteer: From family (anecdotal) experience, the VA system needs to be fed to a wood chipper given how impossible it is to get them to do anything correctly. So I'm definitely not in favor of expanding government provision of healthcare until I personally can be assured that I, personally, will not be randomly juggled between insane asylums by bureaucrats like my uncle was.

GameGuruGG Vampire Hunter from Castlevania (Before Recorded History)
Vampire Hunter
#111581: Feb 10th 2016 at 9:34:09 AM

The biggest issue with single-payer in the United States is the biggest issue with everything the United States government controls... The Republicans will try to keep defunding it in their attempts to prove that government doesn't work.

edited 10th Feb '16 9:34:34 AM by GameGuruGG

Wizard Needs Food Badly
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#111582: Feb 10th 2016 at 9:56:19 AM

@Nihlus1: The fact that Sanders' plan has gaps is not an argument against the idea of single-payer. It is an argument against Sanders' proposed implementation.

[up][up] The VA is a victim of the general "starve the beast" mentality in Congress — take away its administrative funding and then call it a failure when it naturally breaks down. As I understand it, the quality of care given to veterans who get in the door is fine.

edited 10th Feb '16 9:57:21 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Nihlus1 Since: Jul, 2015
#111583: Feb 10th 2016 at 9:57:27 AM

The fact that Sanders' plan has gaps is not an argument against the idea of single-payer.
Remind me again where I was arguing against the very idea of single-payer.

DrDougsh Since: Jan, 2001
#111584: Feb 10th 2016 at 9:58:33 AM

[up][up][up] Oh, America wouldn't be the first. In Iceland, we currently have a government that's very keen on sabotaging our health care system to "prove" how it doesn't work.

edited 10th Feb '16 9:58:42 AM by DrDougsh

Luminosity Since: Jun, 2012 Relationship Status: Lovey-Dovey
#111585: Feb 10th 2016 at 10:10:45 AM

It's from the article I posted earlier about the $1.1 trillion hole in Sanders' healthcare plan. It's what Sanders said his plan would save on prescription drugs vs what the US actually spends on prescription drugs as a whole (not just private health plans, but everybody). The expert who analyzed the plan basically pointed out that he was saying they'd somehow take drug spending nationally into the negatives.

Oh that, I finally got around to reading it. It's wrong.

Thorpe's analysis rests on several incorrect, and occasionally outlandish, assumptions. Moreover, it is at odds with analyses of the costs of single-payer programs that he produced in the past, which projected large savings from such reform.

  • He incorrectly assumes administrative savings of only 4.7 percent of expenditures, based on projections of administrative savings under Vermont's proposed reform.

  • Thorpe assumes huge increases in the utilization of care, increases far beyond those that were seen when national health insurance was implemented in Canada, and much larger than is possible given the supply of doctors and hospital beds.

  • Thorpe assumes that the program would be a huge bonanza for state governments, projecting that the federal government would relieve them of 10 percent of their current spending for Medicaid and CHIP — equivalent to about $20 billion annually.

  • Thorpe's analysis also ignores the large savings that would accrue to state and local governments — and hence taxpayers — because they would be relieved of the costs of private coverage for public employees.

  • Thorpe's analysis also apparently ignores the huge tax subsidies that currently support private insurance, which are listed as "Tax Expenditures" in the federal government's official budget documents.

  • Thorpe assumes zero cost savings under single-payer on prescription drugs and devices.

Thorpe does not give actual figures for how many additional doctor visits and hospital stays he predicts. He thinks ten percent of spending for Medicaid will drop. That's not how single payer works.

Another. State and local government spent $177 billion last year on employee health benefits - about $120 billion more than state and local government would pay under the 6.2 percent payroll tax that Senator Sanders has proposed.

Nations with single-payer systems have in every case used their clout as a huge purchaser to lower drug prices by about 50 percent. In fact, the U.S. Defense Department and VA system have also been able to realize such savings.

So no, a deeply flawed analysis by former Bill Clinton's Deputy Assistant Secretary doesn't make Sanders a moron.

edited 10th Feb '16 10:10:53 AM by Luminosity

Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#111586: Feb 10th 2016 at 10:17:48 AM

@Fighteer: Well (and again, this is my secondhand experience), getting in the door wasn't the problem, the problem was getting information out of them or getting them to listen to involved family members when making decisions about a mental patient.

Private hospitals are a lot more likely to listen to the person with the power of attorney than government bureaucracies.

Ogodei Fuck you, Fascist sympathizers from The front lines Since: Jan, 2011
Fuck you, Fascist sympathizers
#111587: Feb 10th 2016 at 10:46:01 AM

The problem with drug prices is that, as the US is a leader in pharm research due to the higher profit motive, the R&D costs of drugs would be amortized to other countries. High-end drugs could get more expensive, worldwide.

Demonic_Braeburn Yankee Doodle Dandy from Defective California Since: Jan, 2016
Yankee Doodle Dandy
#111588: Feb 10th 2016 at 11:04:47 AM

Reuters: Chris Christie is dropping out.

And then there were 8.

edited 10th Feb '16 2:20:01 PM by Demonic_Braeburn

Any group who acts like morons ironically will eventually find itself swamped by morons who think themselves to be in good company.
Luminosity Since: Jun, 2012 Relationship Status: Lovey-Dovey
#111589: Feb 10th 2016 at 11:08:04 AM

Results of NH primaries

Democrat:

  • Sanders: 60.3%
  • Clinton: 38.0%

Republican:

  • Trump: 35.3%
  • Kasich: 15.8%
  • Cruz: 11.7%
  • Bush: 11.0%
  • Robot: 10.6%

edited 10th Feb '16 11:09:11 AM by Luminosity

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#111590: Feb 10th 2016 at 11:10:56 AM

Oh, wow, Sanders did break 60 percent. That's really good for him. Also, lol @ "robot".

edited 10th Feb '16 11:11:13 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#111591: Feb 10th 2016 at 11:27:06 AM

Yeah. 60% is a solid punch to Clinton, even with Sanders being the expected winner.

That said, Clinton still has the edge. The superdelegates love her and don't care what the Democratic base wants, and Super Tuesday is strongly in her favor. And fortunately for us but unfortunately for Sanders, there's no way Bernie will riot if he wins the states but loses by superdelegates.

Nihlus1 Since: Jul, 2015
#111592: Feb 10th 2016 at 11:27:46 AM

Oh that, I finally got around to reading it. It's wrong.
He was so wrong that Sanders backpedaled on several of his numbers when it was pointed out that they were literally impossible.

They're also apparently malleable. When I pointed out that the yearly savings numbers they were presenting on prescription drugs were literally impossible, the Sanders camp revised the number to $241 billion — huge and arguably implausible but not larger than total annual spending on prescription drugs. A follow-up email also revised down the assumed administrative savings from 16 percent to 13 percent and the savings on utilization up from $216 billion to a whopping $660 billion.

Anyway, I posted that to point out that Sanders' plan called for physically impossible things and none of the "economists" he hired to analyze it pointed this out before now, not necessarily because I agreed with 100% of what the author was saying. That said the article you posted is pretty much full of crap.

He incorrectly assumes administrative savings of only 4.7 percent of expenditures, based on projections of administrative savings under Vermont's proposed reform.
You can tell this part of the article is bullshit because it assumes 14.3% savings when even the insanely optimistic plan that Sanders is now proposing is only assuming 13% after Thorpe pointed out the inconsistencies.

Thorpe's analysis also apparently ignores the huge tax subsidies that currently support private insurance, which are listed as "Tax Expenditures" in the federal government's official budget documents
It actually doesn't. Neither Gunnel nor him mentioned those costs because they were assumed to be a massive part of how Sanders was going to pay for this to begin with. Thorpe's disputes centered mostly around the supposed savings on administrative costs, prescription drugs, and how much is being covered by the state. That and how much the tax needs to be.

Thorpe assumes huge increases in the utilization of care, increases far beyond those that were seen when national health insurance was implemented in Canada, and much larger than is possible given the supply of doctors and hospital beds.
Again, the author of this article is being even more insanely optimistic than the official Sanders campaign line. The dispute was between utilization increasing by 7% (proposed by Sanders) or 10% (proposed by Thorne).

Thorpe assumes that the program would be a huge bonanza for state governments, projecting that the federal government would relieve them of 10 percent of their current spending for Medicaid and CHIP — equivalent to about $20 billion annually.
He thoroughly explains why he assumes this:
State spending on their share of Medicaid and CHIP is not likely to continue fully for programs that no longer exist. However is likely that some state financing would remain in place. There is a precedent here with the Medicare Modernization Act with Part D of Medicare. When passed, Medicare assumed responsibility for financing the drug costs of dual Medicare- Medicaid eligibles. However, each state faced a “clawback” which started at 90 percent of what they would have spent on dual eligible drug expenses and phased down to 75 percent in 2015. We make a similar assumption for state MOE financing of the costs of former Medicaid and CHIP patients. If there were no state MOE, financing requirements for the single payer plan would increase by an average of $450 billion per year—an additional $4.5 trillion over ten years
"In essence you cannot force states to make spending on a expansion of Medicaid —how in the world can you expect states to contribute toward the costs of programs that are eliminated?"

Thorpe assumes zero cost savings under single-payer on prescription drugs and devices.
Blatantly untrue. He assumes the US can reduce the cost of prescription drugs by a fifth. He just rightly points out that Sanders can't do basic math.

I like how they ignore both the negative spending and the Sanders' campaign attempted rebuttal:

Sanders assumes $160 billion per year in savings relative to Thorpe because, they argue, he includes elective procedures like plastic surgery, which single-payer wouldn't cover. Thorpe disputes this: "Cosmetic surgery, really? That's $12 billion a year and in the second decimal of rounding." In other words: There's no way excluding plastic surgery can give you $160 billion of savings.

Furthermore:

Vermont also estimated that full single-payer would require a 11.5 percent payroll tax on all businesses and a progressive income-based premium ranging from 0 percent to 9.5 percent, with the top rate kicking in for those at four times the poverty line ($102,000 for a family of four in 2017).

Thorpe, similarly, estimates that you'd need a 14.3 percent payroll tax on employers for a national single-payer plan, and a 5.7 percent income-based premium, for a combined 20 percent tax — about what Vermont estimated.

That's much higher than Sanders's campaign is suggesting; they want a 6.2 percent payroll tax and a 2.2 percent income-based premium, along with a large number of other tax increases on the wealthy.

I can see why they ignored it though, Sanders's policy director Warren Gunnels did such a great job of refuting it:

Gunnels disputes the 20 percent tax increase figure in fiery terms. "That is absolutely absurd, it's absurd, it's outrageous," he said in a phone call. "It's coming from a gentleman that worked for Blue Cross Blue Shield. It's exactly what you would expect somebody who worked for BCBS to come up with. It's not even worthy of any type of serious reporting, because it would not happen."

Side note: Thorpe did once do a consulting assignment for BCBS, conducting "a study a decade or so ago looking at the racial and income characteristics of who enrolls in Medicare + Choice [now called Medicare Advantage] plans," per his recollection. But he's an academic who's broadly respected across the spectrum, and who's been sympathetic to single-payer in the past. The Sanders campaign's characterization here seems unfair, even ad hominem.

So no, a deeply flawed analysis by former Bill Clinton's Deputy Assistant Secretary doesn't make Sanders a moron.
No, all of Sanders' economic policies make him a moron. Especially his attempts to stop free trade and create another credit bubble.

edited 10th Feb '16 11:33:12 AM by Nihlus1

JackOLantern1337 Shameful Display from The Most Miserable Province in the Russian Empir Since: Aug, 2014 Relationship Status: 700 wives and 300 concubines
Shameful Display
#111593: Feb 10th 2016 at 12:06:37 PM

[up][up] But his supporters will. If they can't have a political revolution they'll probably try a fucking Communist one in a few decades. Things in this country are coming to a head, and one way or another it will all be over soon.

I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.
ironballs16 Since: Jul, 2009 Relationship Status: Owner of a lonely heart
#111594: Feb 10th 2016 at 12:31:14 PM

Part of the issue with the VA is one that's afflicting all agencies right now, but them in particular - outdated computer systems. As the ad for Full Frontal with Samantha Bee has been pointing out, it's woefully unprepared for female-related medical claims, and the actual operating systems in use can sometimes date back to the '70s. That's just a recipe for disaster when it comes to timely, effective treatment, especially for anyone that moves, as those files don't transfer easy.

"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
Luminosity Since: Jun, 2012 Relationship Status: Lovey-Dovey
#111595: Feb 10th 2016 at 12:31:36 PM

He was so wrong that Sanders backpedaled on several of his numbers when it was pointed out that they were literally impossible.

Such bold claims shouldn't go baseless. Please find a credible source that explains exactly how Sanders backpedeled from his numbers.

Anyway, I posted that to point out that Sanders' plan called for physically impossible things and none of the "economists" he hired to analyze it pointed this out before now, not necessarily because I agreed with 100% of what the author was saying.

Ah, very well, that is what I shall focus on then. Saying things are physically impossible without explaining why they're physically impossible isn't very helpful of a citation. Furthermore, your claim that Sanders hired economists to analyze the plan in his favor rings hollow in the light of Thrope's explicit ties to the Clintons.

No, all of Sanders' economic policies make him a moron. Especially his attempts to stop free trade and create another credit bubble.

Do you support the TPP?

tricksterson Never Trust from Behind you with an icepick Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Above such petty unnecessities
Luminosity Since: Jun, 2012 Relationship Status: Lovey-Dovey
#111597: Feb 10th 2016 at 12:36:13 PM

[up]They're just dropping like flies, aren't they?

DrDougsh Since: Jan, 2001
#111598: Feb 10th 2016 at 12:43:33 PM

Yep. It's a vicious, cutthroat fight to the finish where only one bloodied candidate may stand triumphant amidst a mountain of deposed, disappointed rivals.

It's like the Hunger Games. No! It's more than that! It's...

THE HUNGRY FOR POWER GAMES!

JackOLantern1337 Shameful Display from The Most Miserable Province in the Russian Empir Since: Aug, 2014 Relationship Status: 700 wives and 300 concubines
Shameful Display
#111599: Feb 10th 2016 at 12:45:40 PM

[up][up][up][up] You say that like it's one of the questions where answering yes automatically means you are worthless as a person, like "do you molest puppies" or "are you a racist."

I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.
speedyboris Since: Feb, 2010
#111600: Feb 10th 2016 at 12:47:39 PM

Good. I remember one of the things she said was that if she became president, all citizens would be "required" to buy smartphones so she could regularly poll them on policy issues. Nuts to that, I want to keep my dumbphone!

...Oh, and she wouldn't let go of the Planned Parenthood thing. Feh.

edited 10th Feb '16 12:48:24 PM by speedyboris


Total posts: 417,856
Top