Quote from: Icy on February 17, 2016, 01:54:08 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on February 17, 2016, 01:53:04 PM

Quote from: Icy on February 17, 2016, 01:41:11 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on February 17, 2016, 12:49:39 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on February 17, 2016, 12:35:52 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on February 17, 2016, 12:12:26 PM

No part of Clinton's plan includes a move to a universal healthcare system.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/health-care/

Because the move doesn't need to be made; ACA provides a framework to achieve universal coverage.

I disagree.

Why?

Because I don't see the path to universal healthcare under the ACA. As long as private healthcare insurance is the only option unless you're poor enough to qualify for Medicare/Medicaid, we'll just keep doing what we're doing.

And the better option is?

I think single-payer is out best option.

Yes, but why?

Quote from: Mad Max on February 17, 2016, 02:09:48 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on February 17, 2016, 02:05:52 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on February 17, 2016, 01:57:18 PM

Quote from: Icy on February 17, 2016, 01:54:08 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on February 17, 2016, 01:53:04 PM

Quote from: Icy on February 17, 2016, 01:41:11 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on February 17, 2016, 12:49:39 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on February 17, 2016, 12:35:52 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on February 17, 2016, 12:12:26 PM

No part of Clinton's plan includes a move to a universal healthcare system.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/health-care/

Because the move doesn't need to be made; ACA provides a framework to achieve universal coverage.

I disagree.

Why?

Because I don't see the path to universal healthcare under the ACA. As long as private healthcare insurance is the only option unless you're poor enough to qualify for Medicare/Medicaid, we'll just keep doing what we're doing.

And the better option is?

I think single-payer is out best option.

Yes, but why?

Um, because I like it and it would meet everyone's needs?

How?

Quote

I'd gladly pay a couple percent more in taxes if it meant we get rid of this stupid shit.

Yes, but it isn't a "couple percent more" for everyone - hardly.

How doesn't it meet everyone's needs? If you need medical care, you can get it. End.

Quote from: Mad Max on February 17, 2016, 02:37:06 PM

Quote from: Icy on February 17, 2016, 02:27:06 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on February 17, 2016, 02:09:48 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on February 17, 2016, 02:05:52 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on February 17, 2016, 01:57:18 PM

Quote from: Icy on February 17, 2016, 01:54:08 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on February 17, 2016, 01:53:04 PM

Quote from: Icy on February 17, 2016, 01:41:11 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on February 17, 2016, 12:49:39 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on February 17, 2016, 12:35:52 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on February 17, 2016, 12:12:26 PM

No part of Clinton's plan includes a move to a universal healthcare system.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/health-care/

Because the move doesn't need to be made; ACA provides a framework to achieve universal coverage.

I disagree.

Why?

Because I don't see the path to universal healthcare under the ACA. As long as private healthcare insurance is the only option unless you're poor enough to qualify for Medicare/Medicaid, we'll just keep doing what we're doing.

And the better option is?

I think single-payer is out best option.

Yes, but why?

Um, because I like it and it would meet everyone's needs?

How?

Quote

I'd gladly pay a couple percent more in taxes if it meant we get rid of this stupid shit.

Yes, but it isn't a "couple percent more" for everyone - hardly.

How doesn't it meet everyone's needs? If you need medical care, you can get it. End.

There are ways to get that without resorting to a single-payer system.

And how would Clinton achieve that?

Are there other universal healthcare options out there? Perhaps. I'm open to ideas. But the fact remains that Hillary is not interested in moving toward that, which leaves me with Sanders to support.

The long story short here is that you guys are fucked no matter who gets in.

I feel like this is all you ever seem to contribute to these types of discussions, and it's kind of grating, to be honest.

Yes, we're all fucked--but the idea is that we're trying to figure out the least worst option. That's the strategy. We can sit here with our thumbs up our asses and just say "We're doomed!" OR we can try to figure out the best way to mitigate the consequences of doom.

So yes, we're all fucked. We know; it's tautological. How does that help us?

Quote from: Sandtrap on February 18, 2016, 12:35:14 PM

The long story short here is that you guys are fucked no matter who gets in.

I feel like this is all you ever seem to contribute to these types of discussions, and it's kind of grating, to be honest.

Yes, we're all fucked--but the idea is that we're trying to figure out the least worst option. That's the strategy. We can sit here with our thumbs up our asses and just say "We're doomed!" OR we can try to figure out the best way to mitigate the consequences of doom.

So yes, we're all fucked. We know; it's tautological. How does that help us?

Taking part in the rigged setup that really only exists to keep itself running won't really help either. All you'll get is what you've gotten so far. A chain of decisions that on occassion have occassional benefits, alongside their negatives, which, in some cases, override the previous benefits set by various governmental figures.

So how does saying we're fucked help us? It certainly doesn't. But then again, taking part in what's arguably a broken system in its present form doesn't either. Putting the vague hopes that "the least shittiest candidate" will amount to anything is a retarded gamble and a true show of complacency in the failed state of things.

In short, nobody has the balls to do what's really neccessary. Knock the failure over and start again. If you build a crooked house foundation, and decide that rather than demolish it and build it straight, you're going to try and wing it, you'll end up with a crooked house every time. You can make all the alterations and patches you want over time, but you're not going to magically stumble into a straight house by magic. You have to knock it over and start again. That doesn't mean that you can't take some good ideas from the previous house though.

The same applies to present politics. All the big changes in our history have come from the rise and fall of something. Not people betting on the same old system and gently sliding into a new one by chance. Naturally, of course, I'm talking about revolution. But that's a big word to say.

Something much bigger than old revolutions because the world's economy is interlinked now. Knock one dominoe over and every other one struggles to stay upright. I'd be dumb to think that a complete revolutionary turnover would end well or smoothly. Maybe it's not even possible anymore. But I'd also be foolish to think that we're ever going to amount to anything in our current complacency of electing "the least worst."

So I choose not to take part. Because really, until this current setup falls over and another one takes it's place, nothing of real worth or progress is going to happen. Maybe a few good patches here or there, as a presidential figure puts their focus on a certain area. But nothing outstanding. And nothing that we should be focusing on right now.

The present state of politics is just beating around the bush over larger issues, basically. And I'm not a fan of dancing around things. You can't change a system by playing by its rules.

But you go ahead and vote for your least worst candidate there Verb. See if anything remarkable happens. Although I doubt it ever will. Politicians these days just aren't the right sort of people in control. And the current setup plays to their favor. "Rigged game" doesn't even begin to cover it.

Then again, I'm talking to somebody who's a fan of the human extinction movement. Something as equally impossible to achieve as an "honest" politician. Go fucking figure.

So yes Verb, we're fucked. Fucked from the start and fucked till the end. If it makes you feel any better, for all my talk of disliking the current setup, I'm trapped in it as well. And I don't hold the answers to fix all that I complain about in terms of government. So for the most part, I do my best to separate myself from it, quietly.

Although occassionally I have the odd day where I can't help but be sarcastically non-constructive about it. Like so. But, really, with or without your vote, politicians will do their shit anyway because they live in a terribly fictitious world that's all held together by strings which frankly, give them fictitious limitations and reservations over actually getting shit done.

It's embarrassingly and monolithically retarded, and a tribute to human stupidity.

The tax revenue he plans on generating is a tiny fraction of how he proposes to get the money to pay for his plans

And where, prey tell, is the rest of the money going to come from?

I'm glad Sanders' plans are getting so much critical attention. If something doesn't fucking work, I want to know. That's the only way to hold people accountable.

Quote from: CIS on February 19, 2016, 04:14:09 PM

How exactly are we all fucked?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe

I think this will actually be pretty cool.

The tax revenue he plans on generating is a tiny fraction of how he proposes to get the money to pay for his plans

What is he going to do for the rest? Buy out the entirety of Trump's business conglomerate and pay all profit generated towards government programs?

Tax is government income.

>He wants us all to die
>thinks Trump is terrible
>Doesn't vote for Trump to ensure we all die faster

I don't get it.

Are you talking about anyone in particular, or is this just diarrhea of the keyboard?

Quote from: Ajax on February 19, 2016, 10:19:08 AM

The tax revenue he plans on generating is a tiny fraction of how he proposes to get the money to pay for his plans

And where, prey tell, is the rest of the money going to come from?

I feel like you should know this beforehand...

Quote from: Meta Cognition on February 19, 2016, 01:22:08 PM

Quote from: Ajax on February 19, 2016, 10:19:08 AM

The tax revenue he plans on generating is a tiny fraction of how he proposes to get the money to pay for his plans

And where, prey tell, is the rest of the money going to come from?

I feel like you should know this beforehand...

>based on gerald friedman's work

Literally get the fuck out of here with that voodoo bullshit. You don't get to scream and shout about how an economist supports Sanders when that economists' work is based mostly on unicorn farts and rainbows. Like, did you even read the article in the OP?