That's pretty weak. There are plenty of us here who now how to have a reasonable discussion, and you're a smart enough guy to be able to discuss things in general terms without having to right a freaking research paper.
The simple truth is that you should have said that it wouldn't work because of American nature, not the human variety. There are too many functional examples to suggest that humans aren't the problem.
Not saying it isn't weak. But I'd rather not just ignore the post.
I don't think you can talk about an issue like this in general terms. The amount of stuff that goes into healthcare, everything from the large scale factors to the little logistical details is incomprehensibly complicated to me. I can say, "a basic understanding of economics tells us that when resources aren't organically distributed through prices, that the distorted market replacing it will not reflect demand properly." I believe that's 100% true.
It also doesn't mean anything. Markets are rational from the standpoint that, based on limited resources, people will chose what they believe is best for them. But the things people believe they need may not be conducive to the health of a society. It might not be in the individual's best interests in a rational sense. Maybe a somewhat distorted market is better than an undistributed one.
Or, here's another thing. The biggest objection I have to any sort of socialized healthcare is that now we're relying on the government to provide us our health care. That's pants-shittingly horrifying. But if you don't think this, then we might as well be living in different worlds.
In general, I think that day-to-day healthcare should be completely private and that catastrophic injuries should be paid either with public money or a heavily regulated insurance market. Preferably the latter so it's not the government's responsibility. But I could be completely wrong. And I'm not informed enough to really know one way or another.
So I guess that's my opinion. It's weak. But I never said it wasn't.
Cept all the Republicans have is rhetoric. I have a full list of valid, rational complaints to levy against Republicans. Mitch McConnell has said his job is to prevent Obama, and thus anything good from happening. Republicans have backed away from so many of their ideas, because they can't let the other side do anything positive. They put partisanship way above the country, and I think the fact that Democrats are always bending over backwards to try and please Republicans is a sign that they actually want to do the right thing.
Besides, let's not forget, I'm not a Democrat. I'm a liberal, yes, but I don't hold any love or appreciation for the Democratic party. As bad as they are, Republicans have demonstrated themselves to be worse, time and time again.
Virtually all politicians are self-interested liars who put their re-election and the preservation of the political process above what's good for the country.
The Democratic party doesn't need your love or appreciation. They just need your vote. They know they can't either go to the left (and lose all the moderates) or to the middle (and lose another election like they did in 2000). They've figured out how to be just enough of both that moderates and liberals say "Well, at least with the Democrats I'm kinda getting what I want."
They don't compromise with the Republicans in the interest of moderation. They compromise with the Republicans because, like it or not, the Republicans represent a powerful feeling in this country. It's not purposeful ignorance. It's the feeling of "Why is the government not giving me anything that I want?"
In an older post, we had a "heated exchange" over the Obama signing statement about military spying. My point was that the words were there, but the feeling isn't. It's why people watch movies moreso than read books. Books are just words that can have feeling. Movies show you the feeling.
Obama might make political compromises so the Republicans can't make him look too bad. But there's no feeling. When the Supreme Court upheld the ACA, he called it a victory. Where's the effort to emotionally reach out to the people like me who might see negative consequences of the bill. Something like 40-50% of people polled depending on the moment are against the bill. And they're
ignored."Well, they're just idiots who believe in creationism." Irrelevant. He's their president too. He makes political compromises with the Republicans so you can use that as a reason to say he's trying to be accommodating. But when has he ever made a broad policy change as a show of willing to listen?
Even when he made the contraception compromise, his statements basically came down to, "Listen very slowly, I respect religious freedom, even though I was insensitive enough to try imposing this on you in the first place. We're going to make it so you don't have to be responsible for providing the contraception. Even though you're not comfortable with birth control at all, I'm going to still give your employees a chance to have it from another source. It's a right, because we just decided it is one. I'm now going to say I'm religious and respect religious rights, even though there's no reason to believe I actually take religion seriously."
Where's the apology? Where's the sensitivity? Where's the admission of wrongdoing?
"If he did that, then people would say even he knows he did something wrong."
Not the point. When you want people to treat you better, you establish boundaries and treat them right. Obama's done the exact opposite by not setting boundaries and then acting righteous in the face of concerns that he has no intention of seriously addressing.
And now this has gotten stupidly long. My point is, it takes two parties to have an argument. If there's a political argument happening (and I'm pretty sure there is), then both people in the argument are responsible.
Topic: Election 2012 (Read 238091 times)
