In fact it's the same thing than when any white person votes against a racist candidate. It would clearly be, on average, very much in the personal interest of white people to vote for white supremacy.
Yet pretty much nobody thinks like that. Personal benefit isn't even the reason white supremacists support white supremacy. They tend to quite genuinely believe they are doing it for the benefit of their children, and women, and the country in general.
What? That's incredibly common in the US!
In fact it might be the biggest political problem, current state. How many non white supremacist voters go along with the Republican party these days because they just have to go with the party that they believe makes the most sense fiscally (even if it isn't true)? It's a lot, it's literally how US politics works.
Last edited by jayswin; 01-15-2021 at 07:01 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to jayswin For This Useful Post:
Tulsi Gabbard should have been the democratic candidate. It’s ####ing whack that to get back to a reasonable state in American politics it’s Biden and Harris.
I know Cali has already thoroughly taken Gabbard apart.
But to me the only thing that is certain is had the Dem nominated Gabbard, people would have been on this board complaining about how someone more serious and qualified like Biden would have been a better choice (I'm not saying one of them would have been you, but I suspect many of them would have been the same people who are currently critical of Biden who has not even had the opportunity to govern).
Political primaries seem to be a breading ground for the No True Scotsman fallacy, because the infinite possibilities of what could have been never have to compromise, while the political reality of what is requires constant compromise.
I would suggest worrying more about what's possible with the circumstances that exist rather than worrying about what could have been. Of the two guys who will be President in January, Biden will be the best.
Biden was obviously the better choice of the two available. I don't think he's up to solving the problems he's faced with, but I don't really think any of the other possible Dem candidates were either. I'm at least gratified that he's taking an approach of keeping things cool and shying away from the spotlight. I'm not a fan, but so far I think he's playing it well.
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
The Following User Says Thank You to JohnnyB For This Useful Post:
We all know the GOP is exceptional at getting the right wing working class to vote against their own best interest
Just wanted to chime in and say so are the Democrats, they just rely on empty promises.
The growing wealth gap, regardless of administrations, is great evidence the entire thing is beholden to corporations. You're basically voting for right wingers that will screw over poor people for their own gain overtly, or slightly less right wingers that talk like left wingers but don't actually implement anything beyond token half measures that don't change anything.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Bill Bumface For This Useful Post:
There's no spell. There is also no such thing as "voting against ones interest". It's just that people's interests quite often are not what you think they "should be".
Personal financial interests just aren't a top voting priority for most people.
For example, let's look at that abortion vs. minimum wage thing.
That's a "do I want money for myself, if the price for it is countless babies dying" question. (Assuming you have a pro-life beliefs that is.) You have to be borderline sociopath to choose your own finances in that situation.
It's also just flat out wrong to say that this is specifically some working class thing.
Voting against a "higher minimum wage" candidate because of abortion is the exact same thing as when white upper middle-class people absolutely refuse to vote for tax-cutting candidate because they think he's a horrible racist, even when that would clearly be in their personal financial interest.
In fact it's the same thing than when any white person votes against a racist candidate. It would clearly be, on average, very much in the personal interest of white people to vote for white supremacy.
Yet pretty much nobody thinks like that. Personal benefit isn't even the reason white supremacists support white supremacy. They tend to quite genuinely believe they are doing it for the benefit of their children, and women, and the country in general.
I’d disagree with you that pro lifers choose the anti-abortion candidate instead of a minimum wage candidate. They choose the anti abortion candidate AND the anti minimum wage candidate.
I would bet if you asked most Republican leaning low income voters if minimum wage should be raised you would get a no. One because it would kill jobs but secondly people earning between minimum wage and the proposed $15 wouldn’t want to be making minimum wage like those “others”. They are better than those minimum wage earners. That and team sports. My team holds these dogmatic beliefs therefore I hold these dogmatic beliefs.
I know that I have to really think about why I hold certain views. Some of that thinking is likely just rationalizing an emotional response. In general people vote with emotion rather than practicality. Blame the other vote for my team.
Even people voting against Trump likely voted against him because they hate him then rationally evaluating foreign policy on if giving up being the worlds police is a positive or negative outcome or if Stella and aluminum tarries and the Chinese trade war have a beneficial or negative affect on them or the United States personally. Even with Covid you likely split based on being afraid of Covid vs denying Covid rather than a rational analysis of Trumps failed Covid policy.
The emotional choice I think comes first followed by rationalization.
Tulsi Gabbard should have been the democratic candidate. It’s ####ing whack that to get back to a reasonable state in American politics it’s Biden and Harris.
What a strange, strange thing to write on January 15, 2021.
__________________
Mom and Dad love you, Rowan - February 15, 2024
Just wanted to chime in and say so are the Democrats, they just rely on empty promises.
The growing wealth gap, regardless of administrations, is great evidence the entire thing is beholden to corporations. You're basically voting for right wingers that will screw over poor people for their own gain overtly, or slightly less right wingers that talk like left wingers but don't actually implement anything beyond token half measures that don't change anything.
The biggest problem with America is how exactly can you focus on the complex issues like wealth gap and the future of the economy when you still can't get healthcare right? Or still actively focus on abortion? These should be settled issues and are in most other Western countries. But every election it's the same recycled stuff. Until that is done then it's just a pipe dream the more complex issues can be settled.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
The biggest problem with America is how exactly can you focus on the complex issues like wealth gap and the future of the economy when you still can't get healthcare right? Or still actively focus on abortion? These should be settled issues and are in most other Western countries. But every election it's the same recycled stuff. Until that is done then it's just a pipe dream the more complex issues can be settled.
Its all about timing.
Most of the Countries you're talking about implemented Universal Health Care at a much simpler time when it was a far easier sell and the costs werent nearly as astronomical.
I look at the USA and I understand why implementing something like this is borderline impossible. The cost of re-structuring their entire system, both initially and having to deal with every group thats going to lose money?
I dont envy them that issue. Its something they should have done ~70 years ago. Now you have too many entrenched interests and too much money at stake and too many Politicians for sale.
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
If you are flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a Fire Exit. - Mitch Hedberg
Just wanted to chime in and say so are the Democrats, they just rely on empty promises.
The growing wealth gap, regardless of administrations, is great evidence the entire thing is beholden to corporations. You're basically voting for right wingers that will screw over poor people for their own gain overtly, or slightly less right wingers that talk like left wingers but don't actually implement anything beyond token half measures that don't change anything.
This is true and eventually is going to backfire on corporations because you know what’s bad for business? Massive civil unrest, looting, rioting, civil war, etc.
I listened to a very interesting podcast episode for TED talks business and they interviewed the CEO of PayPal who said their company underwent a massive change to their compensation structure. Instead of making sure employees were at a minimum wage instead they focused on a new metric called Net Disposable Income to make sure their lower level employees had enough money to survive. It did escalate their G&A, but his view was that while yes corporations are beholden to shareholders but they need to be about more than that. Companies have many stakeholders not just one, and by having happy employees you in fact ARE benefiting the shareholders because your company will grow better / make more / profits / have more customers etc. Rather than a race to the lowest G&A he was basically like corporations need to kinda think the opposite.
This is part of the issue with the USA (and Canada I guess). Myopic corporate greed that continues to grow wealth inequality that obviously eventually will have a breaking point.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Mr.Coffee For This Useful Post:
Most of the Countries you're talking about implemented Universal Health Care at a much simpler time when it was a far easier sell and the costs werent nearly as astronomical.
I look at the USA and I understand why implementing something like this is borderline impossible. The cost of re-structuring their entire system, both initially and having to deal with every group thats going to lose money?
I dont envy them that issue. Its something they should have done ~70 years ago. Now you have too many entrenched interests and too much money at stake and too many Politicians for sale.
The numbers for Medicare for All are mind boggling. Remember when we tried to figure out if you could get there by taxing the rich? I think it turned out that if you imposed a 100% income tax on the top fifth, it would pay maybe a fourth of Medicare for All? If we totally eliminated military spending we'd get another quarter of the way there. That $2 trillion the US has wasted on stupid wars in the Middle East since 9/11 - that would pay for 8 months of Medicare for All. There is no way to do that without massive tax increases. On everyone.
Some people would come out ahead, especially those who are already paying their own premiums out of pocket and/or are paying a lot in deductibles, copays, and cost-sharing. Some people would come out behind, especially those who get health insurance through their employers and who are not charged the actual premium, and those who use less medical care.
The ads that the Republicans, the AMA, the medical device makers, and the health insurance lobby are going to focus on the latter. There will be horror stories about increased wait times, and people who couldn't get treatment they needed under Medicare, and the like.
And, as Locke said, this doesn't even get into pointing out that no country in history has switched 150 million people from private insurance to a public plan, or the disruption from throwing thousands of people in the industries out of work.
But the KFF report says that as of January 2020, 2/3 of the people favoring M4A believed that they will keep their own insurance. (Apparently that question was not asked in the more recent polls, or else they just haven't updated their power point to address it.) Also in January 2020, pretty solid majorities said they would oppose M4A if they were told that it would requirement most Americans to pay more in taxes (60-37 against), or that it would eliminate private health insurance companies (58-37 against). If you put the benefits and drawbacks together in a question, opinion is split evenly.
So the KFF report gives no reason to think that there's a big nationwide groundswell for M4A, particularly not when the two big downsides or alternatives like expanding on the ACA and adding a public option are considered.
And, of course, Bernie Sanders' inability to get more than 30 percent of the vote in the Democratic primary, despite being well known and well funded, doesn't seem to suggest that there's massive demand for M4A yet either.
We might get to the point where there is a national groundswell for M4A - maybe if the Republicans in the Supreme Court keep striking down non-M4A alternatives but there's no way we're there right now.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
Last I read M4A would be more cost efficient than the current system. As in it would cost the US Government less than they're paying now. That was from a Koch Brother's study.
Do you have a source on the spending costs?
I also think if the US were to switch to M4A it would be a process and not a flip of a switch.
__________________ "Calgary Flames is the best team in all the land" - My Brainwashed Son
Last I read M4A would be more cost efficient than the current system. As in it would cost the US Government less than they're paying now. That was from a Koch Brother's study.
Do you have a source on the spending costs?
I also think if the US were to switch to M4A it would be a process and not a flip of a switch.
It's hard to say if it would cost less. Are you eliminating all private care? The middleman so to speak? In Canada, public and private co-exist. All Canadian have supplementary packages such as dental, vision, drugs, physio et cetera.
How would this co-existing work (if at all) in a universal health care system in America?
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
I don't know much about Medicare in the US, but aren't all senior citizens covered? Couldnt they just gradually reduce the age for eligibility over time to expand the program? Maybe add premiums the younger you are when you join to cover some of the costs. That way it would give insurers and citizens time to adjust.
If I were starting a system from scratch, then I think that the idea of moving towards a single-payer system could very well make sense," Obama said. "That's the kind of system that you have in most industrialized countries around the world. The only problem is that we're not starting from scratch."
__________________
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to corporatejay For This Useful Post:
I don't know much about Medicare in the US, but aren't all senior citizens covered? Couldnt they just gradually reduce the age for eligibility over time to expand the program? Maybe add premiums the younger you are when you join to cover some of the costs. That way it would give insurers and citizens time to adjust.
Pretty sure they are not. Seniors are getting crushed having to pull out the retirement savings to pay for healthcare.
Quote:
Originally Posted by corporatejay
Obama's take on it, which seems to be the most pragmatic.
It still would be tough. What industrialized nation comes even close to the US in population? US has 330 million, who's 2nd? Germany? 80 million. Plus the US is barely a federal government, it's a mish mash of states and laws. Just look at the election.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
I don't know much about Medicare in the US, but aren't all senior citizens covered? Couldnt they just gradually reduce the age for eligibility over time to expand the program? Maybe add premiums the younger you are when you join to cover some of the costs. That way it would give insurers and citizens time to adjust.
Pretty much (there are a few exceptions), although Medicare isn’t “free” and it doesn’t cover 100% of one’s medical costs (it generally covers 80%), which is why there is medigap insurance and various “Part [insert letter here]” add-ons to cover the gaps and enhance coverages.
Slowly lowering the enrollment age would work, but it could enlarge the funding gap in that a lot of people pay for Medicare from their social security, and although many start social security at 62 and Medicare doesn’t kick in until 65 (usually, although there are exceptions), increasing the starting year gap between those two programs could be problematic. But there are ways around that.
Personally, I’m in favor of Medicare for All, and I think that the funding issues are overblown. Just take all the (currently untaxed) money that employers pay for health insurance for their employees and send it to the federal government instead, add in a small national sales tax, increase income taxes a bit on certain income levels, do a few other things (lower drug prices, for one), and the funding is pretty much there. And, regardless, health care isn’t something that should turn a profit, and deficit spending probably doesn’t matter for the US government.
And if the pandemic has evidenced anything, it should be this: 1) Heath care is already rationed even if you have fantastically expensive health insurance; and 2) tying your health insurance coverage to your employer is insane.
Bill Maher and Rubecube might actually agree on something; even as bad as the Republicans have been, Democrats have failed their constituents too and that needs to stop.
__________________
-James
GO FLAMES GO.
The Following User Says Thank You to TorqueDog For This Useful Post:
