PGT: President-Elect Donald J Trump

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Eh, it's not totally unreasonable to suggest that people leave university having been effectively indoctrinated by the brand of politics that's shared by the staggering majority of people there. It isn't "socialism", but you're certainly more likely to favour socialized medicine having gone to university, regardless of whether your studies would give you any insight on medicine or government whatsoever.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Okay, now I'm confused. The options I put forward on the basis of a $1,233 billion federal health care budget weren't "more productive and healthy people, or less", it's better government health care for relatively few, or lower-quality health care for many. Either way you're going to have people whose health outcomes are worse and deleterious to society - how do you spend your money?

I think I'd obviously go with basic health care for more people, but I sincerely believe we're capable of more, so it seems like a bit of a false dilemma.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Good perspective article from Piers Morgan

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...g-ovation.html

Piers "Celebrity Apprentice Winner" Morgan misses the boat, as usual.

"She began by saying that Hollywood, foreigners and the press are ‘the most vilified segments of American society right now’."

This was using recent comments from President Comacho himself. He identified all of these groups as being a problem in the United States. Maybe missing out on the accuracy and irony of her comments is why Piers can't find a job in the US and had to go back to the UK to find work?

Why should anyone other than the President-elect be the one reaching out and trying to unify the country? He's the one who offended so many. Those he offended reaching out to him is reinforcing his behaviors and rewarding the spoiled brat with the lollipop he so badly wants. Christ, there were people predicting what Trump would tweet at 3am in response, and all of them were certain he would say something hateful toward Streep. Go figure, Trump lived up to the extremely low expectations people have of him and he made a mean tweet. But people should reach out to him? Keep looking for that job Piers.

Also, couldn't link through to where you really found the article?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I think I'd obviously go with basic health care for more people, but I sincerely believe we're capable of more, so it seems like a bit of a false dilemma.

Well, it isn't though, if the answer boils down to "Twelve hundred billion dollars isn't enough to fund the high quality program I think all citizens deserve? No problem, just get more money". And that's by far the most that they've budgeted for it; you have to assume that half the country thinks that's too much.

Doesn't seem much more realistic than the notion that poor people can just work harder or get better jobs and stop being poor, ultimately.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Well, it isn't though, if the answer boils down to "Twelve hundred billion dollars isn't enough to fund the high quality program I think all citizens deserve? No problem, just get more money". And that's by far the most that they've budgeted for it; you have to assume that half the country thinks that's too much.

Doesn't seem much more realistic than the notion that poor people can just work harder or get better jobs and stop being poor, ultimately.

Or allocate more money from other areas that are overfunded? I guess I'm confused, are you speaking in terms as if the figure you've given is the absolute most that can be squeezed out or is it "this is your health care budget, you decide how to spend it?"

EDIT: I guess what I'm saying is that the U.S. has the capability to provide equal access to pretty good medical care if they had desire to do so. Well beyond just basic and life-saving measures anyways.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Basically, at least in that hypothetical, both - in that it assumes that 1233 billion, which is by far the most the feds have ever spent on health care there (it was under a billion until 2014, and down around 800 billion during Obama's first term according to the charts on the websites I'm looking at) is not likely to be exceeded going forward. Asking for that budget to be maintained is a big ask, asking for a significant expansion of it is likely to be a non-starter. and even that huge sum of money isn't enough to provide the extremely high standard of health care that some would probably suggest everyone should receive as of right. There isn't unlimited money.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by New Era

Piers "Celebrity Apprentice Winner" Morgan misses the boat, as usual.

"She began by saying that Hollywood, foreigners and the press are ‘the most vilified segments of American society right now’."

This was using recent comments from President Comacho himself. He identified all of these groups as being a problem in the United States. Maybe missing out on the accuracy and irony of her comments is why Piers can't find a job in the US and had to go back to the UK to find work?

Foreigners, sure, but the press and Hollywood? If those two are at all vilified it is at their own doing in the eyes of the Average American. The mainstream press certainly so.

Celebrity Apprentice ties or not, Piers has been critical of Donald in the past, and even then, it has no impact on the validity of his arguments. Underlying everything is the notion that instead of taking the high road by promoting trying to work together, unity, or provide any constructive solutions, she chose that platform to stoke the fire even further which will certainly help no one. Jan 20th will come, he will become president as the people willed, and dividing the nation even further is going to lead to more issue and more hatred in that country. Something it needs desperately less of on both sides.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Basically, at least in that hypothetical, both - in that it assumes that 1233 billion, which is by far the most the feds have ever spent on health care there (it was under a billion until 2014, and down around 800 billion during Obama's first term according to the charts on the websites I'm looking at) is not likely to be exceeded going forward. Asking for that budget to be maintained is a big ask, asking for a significant expansion of it is likely to be a non-starter. and even that huge sum of money isn't enough to provide the extremely high standard of health care that some would probably suggest everyone should receive as of right. There isn't unlimited money.

That's fair. I'm certainly not saying any kind of universally accessible is going to cover everything and not have drawbacks, but there needs to be something in place to stem some of the major health problems we face as a society or it ends up costing us more in the long run.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Eh, it's not totally unreasonable to suggest that people leave university having been effectively indoctrinated by the brand of politics that's shared by the staggering majority of people there.

Or is it more reasonable to believe that people who are exposed to subject matter that expands their horizons and understanding of the world around them, especially when you teach them critical thinking skills to better understand the complex issues we face? I mean, its proven that exposure to education expands an individual's ability to understand others and display a level of empathy they did not have prior. I find it funny that you would accuse academia of indoctrinating others into a brand of politics when education systems all around the world see similar outcomes, yet operate in very different political systems and climates. Maybe your predisposition to your ideological position had your mind made up before you even entered whatever education institution you went to?

It isn't "socialism", but you're certainly more likely to favour socialized medicine having gone to university, regardless of whether your studies would give you any insight on medicine or government whatsoever.

Going to university means you've gone to a socialism indoctrination center, and now you are already conditioned to demand socialized medicine?

Where do you come up with this stuff?

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Celebrity Apprentice ties or not, Piers has been critical of Donald in the past, and even then, it has no impact on the validity of his arguments.

Except his interpretation of things is crap. Trump is the one doing the insulting and abusing his position of power. Streep said nothing that Trump had not said himself, and then said we should be better than all that he had said, expect our politicians and media to be better. Oh, the humanity!

Underlying everything is the notion that instead of taking the high road by promoting trying to work together, unity, or provide any constructive solutions, she chose that platform to stoke the fire even further which will certainly help no one.

Really? Demanding that people in power should not abuse their position, exactly like Trump has done his whole life, is somehow stoking the fire? Maybe President Comacho should listen to the comments before throwing his little tantrum?

Jan 20th will come, he will become president as the people willed, and dividing the nation even further is going to lead to more issue and more hatred in that country. Something it needs desperately less of on both sides.

And you'll be expecting the subjugated to apologize to those doing the subjugation, right?

[GGG]

Going to university is a liberalizing experience. People's measure of authoritarianism drops with each year of post secondary education.

Most view this as education rather than indoctrination but that's in the eye of the beholder

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by rubecube

That's fair. I'm certainly not saying any kind of universally accessible is going to cover everything and not have drawbacks, but there needs to be something in place to stem some of the major health problems we face as a society or it ends up costing us more in the long run.

I definitely agree with you on two points here - first that I'm in favour of universal health care, and I actually think I'd have chosen the same option as you did (baseline health care for all as opposed to full health care for some). Second, I definitely agree that critics of health care programs only look at the direct costs of the programs and not the cost savings down the line, though to be fair those are impossible to accurately measure (which isn't to say they aren't 100% certain to arise to some extent).

But you have to pick your battles. There's no way the US federal government starts appropriating 2+ trillion dollars for health care. So even assuming you can get half of what you'd need to pay for everything you'd ideally want, what do you spend that half on? What's going to have the greatest effect? I feel like this is an area where the processes being used by people in the effective altruism community should be brought to bear - maybe you'd like to spend a bunch of money on cancer research because of people you know who have it or stories you've heard about people fighting it, but if you want to save lives, you're better off buying mosquito nets.

It's really just an application of the Pareto principle, but it leaves one in the uncomfortable position of accepting the reality that the care people receive is inevitably going to depend on their means, and not to a tiny degree, either.

Originally Posted by GGG

Going to university is a liberalizing experience. People's measure of authoritarianism drops with each year of post secondary education.

Have you actually seen the state of American campuses lately? Authoritarianism is en vogue at the moment.

Anyway, I was talking more about the tendency to be shaped by the opinions of those around you. University campuses are massively left-leaning. I started left wing because of my upbringing, but that ideology was developed significantly through the fact that all of my professors and other students in a liberal arts faculty shared those views or more extreme versions of them, and my views have only moderated themselves in the years since I entered the workforce.

Is it at all surprising that peoples' opinions will be influenced by having the vast majority of people who surround them and teach them during a period of development having a particular ideological view of the world? It shouldn't be. And as has been discussed before, groups of people that lack diversity in political belief grow more and more extreme over time, which does not lead to liberalization. Authoritarianism isn't a right wing trait exclusively by any stretch of the imagination.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

You said that if you couldn't afford your kids that you should give them up for adoption! Not that maybe there should be supports from the government to help ensure their safety and that they are offered the basic advantages of living in a first world nation.

True.

But I never said that one should "Teach your children that they are the biggest mistakes of your life."

There is a difference between, say, believing that having a child at a certain time in one's life was a mistake, and believing that having a child at all was a mistake.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by GGG

Hockey Illiterate

In your health care proposal would you include free birth control for all and free abortions as part of your minimal health care to support the poor?

I'd support free birth control, of all types, as part of the coverage under a basic health care plan.

I would likely not support free abortions, except for the usual rape, incest, and life of the mother carve-outs.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

I'd support free birth control, of all types, as part of the coverage under a basic health care plan. I would likely not support free abortions, except for the usual rape, incest, and life of the mother carve-outs.

So the question is why one and not the other. Presumably the rationale is for free birth control is that it costs so little and relieves the health care system of so huge a burden that it's a no brainer, but if so, doesn't the same logic follow for abortions (even if they're a bit more expensive)?

Moreover, does your policy decision here change if someone provides you with good reason to believe that there's a demographic problem (as in many western countries), with the result that purely as a matter of macroeconomics and what's best for the country, which I gather is what you're going for, more babies are good?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Flash Walken, indirectly, here:

No, I am saying, the phrase pulling yourself up by your boot straps, or bootstrapping is synonymous with the impossible, more accurately the absurdly impossible, but is now used unironically as metaphorical advice on how to improve ones station.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

I'd support free birth control, of all types, as part of the coverage under a basic health care plan.

I would likely not support free abortions, except for the usual rape, incest, and life of the mother carve-outs.

See this doesn't make sense.

You tell people not to be poor, to make good decisions and you want to make a barrier to the choice that will allow them the best chance of not being poor. You also increase the population of future poor by forcing the poor to have children where as those with the means have abortions.

So if you are effectively forcing people to have children don't you then have an obligation to pay for their health care and education costs. Isn't paying for an abortion the most economical way of dealing with the issue.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Or allocate more money from other areas that are overfunded? I guess I'm confused, are you speaking in terms as if the figure you've given is the absolute most that can be squeezed out or is it "this is your health care budget, you decide how to spend it?"

EDIT: I guess what I'm saying is that the U.S. has the capability to provide equal access to pretty good medical care if they had desire to do so. Well beyond just basic and life-saving measures anyways.

Well, one way for the US to come up with more money for health care (without raising taxes) is to cut overall military spending and stop funding/subsidizing other nations' defense programs.

Do you think that Canada would be okay with that? Poland? South Korea? Or pick any almost any other country.

After all, it is probably relatively easy for a country to provide a national health care system to its citizens when it can offload a portion of its defense obligations to another nation. So, in that respect, perhaps the poor and uninsured in the US should really look to Canadians, Poles, South Koreans, and the citizens of other such nations as the reason why they don't have affordable health care.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

perhaps the poor and uninsured in the US should really look to Canadians, Poles, South Koreans, and the citizens of other such nations as the reason why they don't have affordable health care.

Good idea, it's not like blaming foreigners for their problems has ever been a failing strategy to date.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

No, I am saying, the phrase pulling yourself up by your boot straps, or bootstrapping is synonymous with the impossible, more accurately the absurdly impossible, but is now used unironically as metaphorical advice on how to improve ones station.

Yeah... because in this context, given the modern use of the term, you can actually do it. That is, it's not absurdly impossible, just more difficult than many people seem to appreciate. I suspect that this change came about gradually as a matter of praise to indicate just what an accomplishment it is to create your own success (e.g., "that's amazing, you started from nothing and pulled yourself up by your bootstraps").

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

So the question is why one and not the other. Presumably the rationale is for free birth control is that it costs so little and relieves the health care system of so huge a burden that it's a no brainer, but if so, doesn't the same logic follow for abortions (even if they're a bit more expensive)?

Moreover, does your policy decision here change if someone provides you with good reason to believe that there's a demographic problem (as in many western countries), with the result that purely as a matter of macroeconomics and what's best for the country, which I gather is what you're going for, more babies are good?

Re: why one and not the other?

Because you can avail yourself of the free birth control. If you choose not to and voluntarily engage in activities that lead to conception, well, then that's your fault. You had the option not to end up in such a situation, but you failed to plan appropriately--that's on you and so you should live with the consequences.

Which means that you either have an abortion on your (and the father's) dime, or you have the kid and keep it or give it up for adoption.

I doubt that my policy view would change based on demographic issues.