Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[kenberg]

I think the simple way to understand it is as: for whatever treatments and costs the insurance covers, those will be paid by the government, rather than requiring the insured to pay premiums.

 

This still allows for the insurance to only pay a percentage of the medical costs, copayments, and deductibles, just like ordinary medical insurance does. You may be able to buy other insurance to fill in the gap.

 

I agree. I am not so sure that I think "single payer" is a good term for this arrangement, but I can live with it.

[kenberg]

I got my hair cut today, something I do every few months whether it needs it or not, and the guy cutting my hair was telling me he was listening to Matt Lauer's interview with Donald Trump. He thought Trump had very good answers. Becky and I have been wondering just where all of this support for Trump is coming from . I thought it wise to hold my tongue while he was holding the scissors. Halloween is coming up, but I can buy a mask.

[mike777]

What "few very few hands" are you talking about? Congress? The Department of Health and Human Services? I would rather have the power over my healthcare in the hands of the government than have it be decided by a dozen board members of some insurance company that is concerned more with how they appear to their shareholders than with my health. Now that is what I call a "few very few hands".

 

Winston if you truly believe that 20% of the American economy is decided and run by a few, very few people outside of the government ..ok

[chasetb]

Winston if you truly believe that 20% of the American economy is decided and run by a few, very few people outside of the government ..ok

Oh, he does. He also believes that Democrats can do nothing wrong, and all Republicans are inherently evil.

 

Before he decides to attack me like the Republican party, I have to state as I have before a few times, I align myself as a libertarian-conservative who dislikes both parties, but if I had to choose one, would go with the GOP. In the past few months, I have taken the World's Smallest Political Quiz 3 times, and I have scored as a Libertarian-Centrist, a Libertarian-Conservative-Centrist, and just a Libertarian.

 

If I made a Republican list, Trump would come in just above Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, and Lindsay Graham at the bottom. As for the Democrats, I put Bernie Sanders just above Hilary Clinton, but both of them are at the bottom as well.

[Winstonm]

Oh, he does. He also believes that Democrats can do nothing wrong, and all Republicans are inherently evil.

 

Before he decides to attack me like the Republican party, I have to state as I have before a few times, I align myself as a libertarian-conservative who dislikes both parties, but if I had to choose one, would go with the GOP. In the past few months, I have taken the World's Smallest Political Quiz 3 times, and I have scored as a Libertarian-Centrist, a Libertarian-Conservative-Centrist, and just a Libertarian.

 

If I made a Republican list, Trump would come in just above Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, and Lindsay Graham at the bottom. As for the Democrats, I put Bernie Sanders just above Hilary Clinton, but both of them are at the bottom as well.

 

No one has to "attack" the Republican party - that party, like any political party, is capable of self-destruction, more so when the Tea Party faction is factored in. As for a personal attack, I have no animosity toward libertarians - my take there is that anyone who espouses fantasy-based solutions to problems of reality should be pitied.

[Winstonm]

I agree. I am not so sure that I think "single payer" is a good term for this arrangement, but I can live with it.

 

I don't think terms are all that important. The more critical issue to resolve is whether or not in an advanced economy basic healthcare should be considered an individual right or should it be sold to the highest bidder like a commodity. If the lives of the poor. working poor and lower middle-class are not as valued as the lives of the wealthier classes, healthcare no doubt should remain a commodity.

[barmar]

I agree. I am not so sure that I think "single payer" is a good term for this arrangement, but I can live with it.

I think it's a vestige of a time when insurance and Medicare tended to cover more. Now Medicare has the "donut hole", and patients have to fill in the gaps much more.

[Winstonm]

Not all capitalists disparage the role of governments:

 

In a recent interview with The Atlantic, billionaire tech magnate Bill Gates announced his game plan to spend $2 billion of his own wealth on green energy investments, and called on his fellow private sector billionaires to help make the U.S. fossil-free by 2050. But in doing so, Gates admitted that the private sector is too selfish and inefficient to do the work on its own, and that mitigating climate change would be impossible without the help of government research and development.

 

“There’s no fortune to be made. Even if you have a new energy source that costs the same as today’s and emits no CO2, it will be uncertain compared with what’s tried-and-true and already operating at unbelievable scale and has gotten through all the regulatory problems,” Gates said. “Without a substantial carbon tax, there’s no incentive for innovators or plant buyers to switch.”

 

Gates even tacked to the left and uttered words that few other billionaire investors would dare to say: government R&D is far more effective and efficient than anything the private sector could do.

[barmar]

I agree with Gates. The private sector is very poor at tackling problems that will not provide any short-term returns -- their investors won't back a plan that will not see payout for decades. Governments are under no compunction for short-term returns, although sometimes politicians will see the need for this as a requirement to get re-elected. But incumbents generally have a built-in leg up in the election that they don't need to do that -- it's enough not to totally mess up.

[Zelandakh]

I agree with Gates. The private sector is very poor at tackling problems that will not provide any short-term returns -- their investors won't back a plan that will not see payout for decades. Governments are under no compunction for short-term returns, although sometimes politicians will see the need for this as a requirement to get re-elected. But incumbents generally have a built-in leg up in the election that they don't need to do that -- it's enough not to totally mess up.

Are you specifically talking about the US here or more generally? Because the effects of incumbency vary quite a lot between countries.

[PassedOut]

The US has company when it comes to ignorant citizens: Iraqis think the U.S. is in cahoots with the Islamic State, and it is hurting the war

 

“It is not in doubt,” said Mustafa Saadi, who says his friend saw U.S. helicopters delivering bottled water to Islamic State positions. He is a commander in one of the Shiite militias that last month helped push the militants out of the oil refinery near Baiji in northern Iraq alongside the Iraqi army.

 

The Islamic State is “almost finished,” he said. “They are weak. If only America would stop supporting them, we could defeat them in days.”

No need for the US to escalate then. Just bring it all home and let the Iraqis finish the job. ;)

[kenberg]

The US has company when it comes to ignorant citizens: Iraqis think the U.S. is in cahoots with the Islamic State, and it is hurting the war

 

 

No need for the US to escalate then. Just bring it all home and let the Iraqis finish the job. ;)

 

I think that this is worth some thought. Of course we are not helping ISIS, we are in a panic about ISIS. So how could this happen.Partly it is groupthink, or whatever you want to call it. A bunch of Iraqis sit around griping and guess who is the villain. But that's not the whole thing. We did help Saddam target Iranians with poison gas in the 1980s so it's hardly a stretch to speculate we would help ISIS, another Sunni group, if we thought it might help us. But no, we don't think that it would. And later in the article you get the "more generous" view from a government official. Basically he absolves us of collaboration with ISIS, he just thinks we are useless.

 

I could go on.

 

Sure, we are not in cahoots with ISIS, got that. But the Iraqis have a mess, probably very few of them think of us as their salvation, and things go downhill from there. This happens. in many places, in many times, for many reasons.

 

 

Anyway, I think it is worthy of thought. All in all, it sounds almost hopeless. A better thought would be welcome.

[mike777]

If you accept there is a true war on terror as I mentioned years years ago...this is a 60 year fight.

 

I accept many forum posters do not think we are at war.

 

If you think this is just a police action ok ok ok.

 

 

Many ask what does victory look like.

 

victory = a significantly better political outcome than what we have now.

 

War=politics

[y66]

That WaPo story can probably be traced to the Iraqi BBO water cooler forum. What will those crazy IBBOers come up with next? That U.S. Senate Republicans unanimously opposed, with one exception, recent legislation to prevent ISIS suspects on the F.B.I.’s consolidated terrorist watchlist from purchasing guns or explosives?

[Al_U_Card]

If you keep hitting a wasp nest with a stick, you can't be surprised when they try to sting you... From "supporting" Al Qaeda in Afghanistan (Mujahideen vs. the Soviets) to "dis-arming" Saddam in Iraq (unemployed Repubican Guardsmen having easy access to then-vacant armories) to sending pallets (literally!) of cash that then "disappeared"; the US has greatly exacerbated the volatility as well as the violence both in and outside of the region.

[kenberg]

That WaPo story can probably be traced to the Iraqi BBO water cooler forum. What will those crazy IBBOers come up with next? That U.S. Senate Republicans unanimously opposed, with one exception, recent legislation to prevent ISIS suspects on the F.B.I.'s consolidated terrorist watchlist from purchasing guns or explosives?

 

 

yes, an Iraqi BBO Forum sounds about right.

 

Now for the legislation. Actually I'm not all that comfortable saying someone cannot do what other citizens do because he is on someone's list. I grew up when people couldn't get a job in the movie industry because they were on someone's list. Yes, making a movie and buying a gun are two very different activities but I am still uneasy about lists.

 

But of course then the solution, for many of these weapons, is that no one in private life needs to have them. Some people, because of the circumstances of their lives, do need a weapon for self protection. Unfortunate but true. But we could scale way back on what is allowed, and sharply increase the licensing requirements. laws and attitudes must change together here. The default is that a person does not need a gun of any kind and he sure as hell doesn't need a way to wipe out a large number of people in thirty seconds or so.

 

I suppose that we won't address this, so we will keep seeing people getting slaughtered by nut cases, religious nuts, paranoid nuts. A nut is a nut.

[kenberg]

I am in a muddle. Driving home I listen to NPR. There was a little talk about the bill cited above stopping people on a list from buying guns. I gather this would be the same list that bars those on it from flying. It was Brooks and Dionne talkng and one of them made the reasonable point that if we can prohibit someone from guying an airline ticked we could permit him from buying a gun. Fair enough. But it got me to thinking about just how much the feds can prohibit someone from doing without charging him with a crime. I am a little late to this concern, I know.

 

The older I get, the less certain I am that I have the answer for much of anything.

 

Still, it seems obvious that we need to change both laws and attitudes about guns.

[Al_U_Card]

Guns don't kill people, BULLETS kill them (unless you use the gun as a club, I suppose...) so make bullets hard to get (hunters need how many per trip?) and gun clubs (not for clubbing lol) and shooting ranges would need to keep records of numbers and users.

[blackshoe]

Yes, we definitely need more government oversight of every aspect of our lives.

[PassedOut]

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[cherdano]

Yes, we definitely need more government oversight of every aspect of our lives.

Yes, how dare the government regulate the sale of stuff designed to kill other people?? You have lost all sense of perspective.

 

There is nothing more central to the mission of government than to defend the country against people from outside the country, and to provide for its citizens to leave peacefully with each other.

 

And if you really think that the government regulating gun ownership is comparable to the government overseeing every aspect of your life, then you should 1. get a life, and 2. see a shrink.

[blackshoe]

"promote the general welfare" ≠ "establish a welfare state".

[PassedOut]

"promote the general welfare" ≠ "establish a welfare state".

And "promote the general welfare" ≠ "let every Tom, Dick, and Harry run around armed to the teeth".

And "insure domestic tranquility" ≠ "do not regulate firearms".

[kenberg]

The Constitution was soon supplemented by ten amendments. Roughly speaking, the Constitution says what the government can do, the amendments set out restrictions. This tension between wanting the government to be a force for good and wanting the government to be restrained has been with us from the beginning.

 

Finding the balance is the task of every age. Our specific problems today are vastly different from what they were some 200+ years ago so it is just natural that we have to revise our approach. The tension between government involvement and government restraint will remain, however. All in all, I have found government action a net plus in my own life. That does not mean I always favor government intervention (aka meddling), not by a long shot.

[y66]

"promote the general welfare" ≠ "establish a welfare state".

Not necessarily equal you mean. If people want a more libertarian style of government, the Constitution provides flexibility for that. Ditto for Barack Obama or Bernie Sanders style "social democracies". If you want to characterize their positions as "welfare states" it covers that too.

 

On each of the 4 issues below, the majority of Americans are more aligned with Sanders and Obama than they are with you.

 

http://www.people-press.org/files/2015/08/8-12-2015-3-56-39-PM.png

 

And yet, every attempt to act on these issues has been thwarted by the NRA and its minions who have no qualms about turning the Constitution on its head. The only thing more galling than their absurd interpretation of the Constitution in this context -- and yours -- is their claim that their self serving actions are more in keeping with the spirit of that document than acting prudently to keep some insane people from obtaining weapons of mass destruction.