Discussion in 'Current Affairs & Debate' started by Mugatu, Oct 30, 2018.
Beto has announced!
can't wait for Beto to be PRES
He seems a bit FLAKY, which is surely the opposite of what you need to beat Trump?
He's a likeable guy, and by far the hottest candidate so far (apart from Garfield), but nobody seems to know what his actual beliefs are beyond wanting to win. He did come out in support of legalising dank kush but he's a moderate in a leftist's clothing, a bit like Obama.
Congratulations on the sex, Cory Booker and Rosario Dawson:
Important to keep in mind re Betomania:
It's slightly odd that Robert Hussein O'Rourke went from refusing to release his fundraising total to suddenly outpacing everyone else. He's obviously not lying about the numbers but I do wonder how many big donors put him over the top and why the campaign isn't saying how many people donated.
Feels like he's Bernie's main rival though, all I can conclude is that B*to must now be destroyed.
his voting record on the environment is atrocious, unfortunately
so is he a good guy or just a nice looking/talking guy? i can never be bothered to invest any interest in the primaries...
I'm sure he's a nice guy personally, but he's the perfect face for the kind of ineffective but feel-good liberal status quo politics that I really dislike.
In terms of his positions on stuff, he's now ditched Medicare for All (despite building a base off the back of it in Texas), he receives huge amounts of money from the oil and gas industries and he's voted for a lot of Republican bills despite representing a safe Democratic district.
He's not the worst person on the list but he's the best example of style over substance by a long way. And I wish he'd stop standing on top of tables all the time, it's making my obsessive hygiene impulses really flare up.
A (fairly liberal, I thought) American on my FB posted this. LOLZ
I wouldn't be surprised if they were a liberal to be honest, some of the SEETHING FURY that the online #resistance people have about anyone on the left is ridiculous.
It's always directed to the left as well, I'll bet they didn't mention Joe Manchin refusing to vote for LGBT equality this week.
I really like Cortez as a Representative and a member of Congress. She does a fabulous job keeping old cunts in check, especially those who are used to not being questioned. But hell to the FUCK no to her being President. I love her as an administrative power, not really as a decision-maker.
well she's not running, so
She's probably the best person in Congress (apart from on foreign policy, Ro Khanna and Ilhan Omar are both very good). Even beyond the viral videos, she's pushed the Green New Deal into the conversation more than any other politician.
I know she's said a couple silly things on Twitter but I think she correctly realises that radical decisions are genuinely needed, especially on environmental stuff. She's a big net positive for the whole left-wing movement and I hope she becomes president at some point, as long as she sticks to her views.
i keep thinking of cortez as the universal balance's answer to trump. she seems to be striking a chord with people in the way he does.
i like her but i think she's a bit too gimmicky for me to take seriously but then she's really quite young still, isn't she?
I'm a painfully sober academic Marxist but the left does need a few gimmicks sometimes. It definitely helps that AOC (usually) doesn't talk like a politician and she can play the celebrity game a little, although it does also worry me slightly that she'll end up watering down her positions because of that.
She'll have to. Americans hate anything that remotely resembles a nanny state. And so far a good majority of her proposed policies seem to be centered around eroding economic freedom. I don't think that's a solution for the current economic inequality. A bipartisan compromise, LIKE THEY USED TO DO, would be nice.
I'd love to see a move away from stock insurance, where the investors basically have everyone's lives in their hands, and towards mutual insurance. The companies still make profit, they still contribute to the economy, they still allow economic freedom and all decisions are made for the benefit of the insurance companies' policyholders. Most importantly, profits are kept WITHIN the company instead of just handed back to sleazy investors who really don't give a shit about their policyholders.
I think it could appeal to both parties as ACTUAL healthcare reform.
But like I said, I still love AOC as a congresswoman. SShe's like an administrative hawk.
But who exactly has the economic freedom you're talking about? People like to believe that anyone can follow the rules, get good grades and become successful but it doesn't work like that so much anymore. I don't live in America but that's literally my own personal experience right now.
It's not economic freedom if only rich people are able to enjoy it. Nobody should have to work two or three jobs to live, or have to sell all their stuff to afford medical bills. I think seeing her ideas as an erosion is exactly what billionaires are trying to trick us into believing, she just wants everyone to have that freedom.
If you see healthcare as a human right, then I think that should take priority over insurance companies' profit margins. People's health is more important than markets. Even then, the type of healthcare system that AOC supports would actually reduce government spending.
Bipartisanship is a noble idea but we've seen with healthcare, the Democrats are full of spineless moral cowards like Obama and the Republicans are totally ideological on the issue. The debate has always bent to the right because of that, a shift in the other direction is well overdue.
Why not have the mutual insurance provider be the actual government itself? You could have one single programme, lose the market-driven bureaucracy of Obamacare and direct some of the exorbitant amounts that people pay private insurers into a company that the whole country has a stake in.
I certainly have that economic freedom right now. I like shopping around for my healthcare. I like deciding for myself what my health needs are. And I like that my private insurance doesn't require me to wait at a public institute. And I don't even have a fancy job. My salary is extremely average. It's not perfect but competition has worked very well here. Workplaces that do not offer benefits struggle to attract and keep employees. Insurance companies that are too expensive have a limited client base.
Again, as it stands it's not perfect but I'd much rather have the current system worked on than getting the government to baby everyone and just forcing everyone to buy into it.
No I don't believe healthcare is a human right. That's a lovely thought, but ultimately the world owes you nothing. Any good or service that you have to get someone else to do for you is by definition not a right. But what I DO believe is that healthcare insurance should always be firstly for the benefit of the policyholders, not for profit. That's why I like the idea of Mutual Insurance.
Because I distrust them as much as I distrust corporations. The government has shown time and time again that they have just as much potential to abuse their power as corporations. I don't want corporations to have their power over people's health taken away only to be handed to the government. No thanks. Mutual insurance is a for-profit private company that it owned by the people. Not by investors or by the government. It's much more constitutional and democratic.
I also think that mutual insurance is great for the social fabric. It has great opportunities to promote independent communities that don't need anyone's help or supervision.
A lot of people aren't able to afford health insurance (or get it through their employer) though, what would be a good solution for them?
Well, I'm glad that you're well-served by what you currently have. I hope it never happens to you but a lot of other people's health needs aren't as predictable, or they have pre-existing conditions, or they're trying to support a family on a low wage and can't afford their co-pay. Freedoms should also be universal by definition, and the current system doesn't seem to offer what you have to those people.
I obviously disagree with you on the human right question, but to explain, I don't see it as a case of "the world" owing me anything, more a question of our moral priorities, especially when America essentially has an unlimited military budget. I know it sounds like hippy bullshit but the world is made of people, the invisible hand of the free market isn't God. I think we owe each other a lot more than what poor people in America are currently getting.
Personally, I would feel more empowered against a government that I could democratically vote out than a corporate insurance industry that is effectively a race to the bottom. You're totally right that policy-holders should come first, but all for-profit insurance (corporate or mutual) relies on sustained economic growth to keep going.
Obviously, mutual insurance is a small improvement on the current system but it's limited by design. How do you decide what type of care is covered? Would it be able to look after as many people as a bigger, federally-funded provider, especially when a lot of people need care at the same time? You clearly accept the idea of a provider owned by the people, it's not a big leap to a more comprehensive universal provider from there.
Who the fuck is scraeming "STOP WRITING ESSAYS" at my house. show yourself, coward. i will never stop writing essays
100%. I don't think "Right" is quite the word, but "Opportunity". I'm a firm believer that if you're going to live in America, make use of the best economy in the world, live behind the strongest army in the world, have the privilege of enjoying the democracy and liberty that it gives you, then you are absolutely required to make sure that the people who make it what it is are healthy, educated and secure. And give them the FAIR opportunity to do so. That's why I love the idea of employer benefits.
But totally socialized healthcare is just overkill for me. I don't want to rely totally on either on a nanny state or a money-hungry corporation. We should be able to create and provide our own insurance that puts healthcare first. Policies that promote that in the current system is what I'd like to see.
That's because cunt investors hate it because the profit is marginal compared to what they're used to. If it's incentivized well and given room to growth, I think it could really work.
are we buying this Cory Booker and Rosario Dawson story that POPPED UP at the weekend and is suddenly getting a massive PR push?
because it seems very much as if someone has noted that an ELIGIBLE BACHELOR couldn't POSSIBLY enter the white house without a first lady at his side