OMG Politics, I'm over it already.

Status
Not open for further replies.
It was. But they don't have a better one that they haven't called socialism yet. Me, I want single payer. Call me a socialist all you want.
I am with you there. Even as an econ major that prefers free markets, where they work. If government needs to step in because a market is not working, half measures are not the answer, if more is needed to make the system work. the ACA was a stepping stone, IMO. You can call me socialist too, in that regard, if you want. Also, in areas of education, and certainly with regard to the environment, and preservation of public lands.
 
The Republicans will only do something if they think it was their idea.

So we just have to trick them into thinking they came up with a single payer system, which they can call something moronically patriotic sounding, and we can get on with it.

Like a bad sit-com.
 
To be fair, the moonshot was conceived of while the country was still running on optimistic, collectivist "we killed Hitler" fumes.

By the end of the 60s, racist bullshit made people question collectivism (terming it entitlements) and people like Governor Reagan and various minions of Evil Slimelord Dick Nixon set about testing the waters of "retail politics" where people want "stuff" in exchange for taxes...and specifically want to deny stuff to other people because BY GUM...I HAFTA PAY FOR THAT.
William F. Buckley says hello. Yep, there's always that angle.
 
And that's the rub. Health care shouldn't be a "market." Much like the fire dept or police, going to the doctor shouldn't be something you have to "afford."
Yes, that was part of what I was trying to say. The free market does not work to provide those services well. So it should not be a market. Holding on the the market based features in the ACA has been holding it back, especially not having the single pay aspects. IMO.

One could also argue that the legal system should be, at least in some respects, made more of a public system. At least the criminal defense side. Everyone gets a lawyer, and if you want to pay the big bucks and hire your own, go for it. Right now, the thresholds for public defense are too high (at least where I live) and the public defenders are not well enough funded.

And how family law is handled for those without significant estates should also be made cheaper and easier. The current adversarial system where you hire a lawyer and go to war does not make separating a family with kids more whole. A collaborative approach would be better. And that should be publicly supported.

Now, if you are suing over a big divorce estate involving a ton of money, and/or business disputes, then some other business considerations apply and that should probably be free market. Also a lot of other civil stuff.

How's that for socialist?


EDIT: Those are just some thoughts off the top of my head, and a lot of thought and work would have to go into each of those changes. But access to justice has become too difficult to attain for a lot of regular people with smaller dollar issues.
 
The Republicans will only do something if they think it was their idea...

And the ACA was built on the framework of a GOP plan. They really don't know how to repeal and replace this without looking like complete assholes.
 
Yes, that was part of what I was trying to say. The free market does not work to provide those services well. So it should not be a market. Holding on the the market based features in the ACA has been holding it back, especially not having the single pay aspects. IMO.

One could also argue that the legal system should be, at least in some respects, made more of a public system. At least the criminal defense side. Everyone gets a lawyer, and if you want to pay the big bucks and hire your own, go for it. Right now, the thresholds for public defense are too high (at least where I live) and the public defenders are not well enough funded.

And how family law is handled for those without significant estates should also be made cheaper and easier. The current adversarial system where you hire a lawyer and go to war does not make separating a family with kids more whole. A collaborative approach would be better. And that should be publicly supported.

Now, if you are suing over a big divorce estate involving a ton of money, and/or business disputes, then some other business considerations apply and that should probably be free market. Also a lot of other civil stuff.

How's that for socialist?


EDIT: Those are just some thoughts off the top of my head, and a lot of thought and work would have to go into each of those changes. But access to justice has become too difficult to attain for a lot of regular people with smaller dollar issues.

I'm trying hard to not piss anyone off here, but here goes...

A lot of your problems boil down to your individualistic nature as Americans. Every man for himself and all that jazz.
That in itself is incredibly ironic considering your conservative politicians claim to be perfect Christians, but I won't go further into that.

Over here, free (or close to it) health care, free legal representation and free education until you're 16 is considered a basic human right and is all funded by the government. No matter the party, that's untouchable. That's just basic common sense.
This comes at the price of higher taxes, but no extra insurances or any of that bullshit. And I'm perfectly fine with that.
If my neighbour survives because of the tax money I pay? Good! Another time that might be me.

Sad thing it, you only have ONE politician who had the balls to say he wants to do something about it. Bernie.7
He's the sort of bloke the US desperately needs right now.
And the country goes and elects the one guy who will not do anything about it.
If anything you go back to pre-ACA times where only the wealthy can afford proper health care.
It will happen, trust me. You have an administration now that really doesn't give a fuck about anyone but themselves.
I've never seen a conservative government that hasn't sided with the wealthy and business owners, and I'm stunned that the lower classes still buys into their promises.
They've been doing that shit for over 200 years, and people still fall for it.

Disturbingly many still don't know the difference between socialism and communism.
Socialism is about making sure as many as possible have at least a basic set of rights. Health, education, a job (or at worst welfare that allows you to actually have a life).
And caring for your neighbour. How anyone could see that as a bad thing is beyond me.

Ok, I'm ramblin now, but still...

As a people, you have the power to change this, but you really have to want it.

Mind you, not directly pointing at you sunvalleylaw, but Mericans in general.

And fingers crossed the Donald doesn't fuck things up properly on an international scale. I'm honestly scared shitless right now.
This is the closest we've been to a major fuckup in 70 years.
 
@Dexter Inferno , I don't feel finger pointed at (how's that for good grammar?). I frankly agree with you. I do like individual rights in personal affairs, but making sure the basics are provided just makes sense, and does not mean, IMO, that your rights have been impinged unduly.
 
I'll just leave these two items here:

Screen Shot 2017-01-27 at 3.44.50 PM.png



Screen Shot 2017-01-27 at 3.46.00 PM.png
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top