Mega-Thread: 2020 United States General Election

[Endus]

you said "people are illogically scared of change", i'm pointing out that there are actual real world examples that people look at for comparison.
its part of the reason that people object to removing private options.

And that comparison involves irrationally cherry-picking examples solely to support the fearmongering conclusion you want to draw.

Like I said, multiple times, and originally set out saying; this is irrational fearmongering nonsense. You're just describing the fearmongering, not arguing that it's reasonable.

[starlord]

And that comparison involves irrationally cherry-picking examples solely to support the fearmongering conclusion you want to draw.

Like I said, multiple times, and originally set out saying; this is irrational fearmongering nonsense. You're just describing the fearmongering, not arguing that it's reasonable.

it's up to the people who want nationalized healthcare to build up the trust in the government that is lacking due to things like the VA.
saying "all those examples of american government run healthcare being awful are irrelevant because it works perfectly in other countries" isn't very persuasive, as we've seen play out already.

[cubby]

I think you're being deliberately misleading and dishonest by trying to cherry-pick apples when the conversation's about oranges. And I've given you more leash than you deserved on this particular angle.

The VA is a part of the USA's overall broken healthcare system. It is not a separate system unto itself. You can't treat it as such, like you're trying to.

Sorry to be jumping in here, but I wanted to ask you about this particular point. It was my understanding that the VA operates outside of the "regular" U.S. healthcare system. With their own medical professionals and patient system. I can see the argument for it generally being part of the U.S. system, because it's in the U.S., and can draw form the other parts - but I think a good case could be made that it does operate outside normal parameters in a number of key, and large, categories.

Can you help me out here - what am I missing?

[cubby]

It doesn't operate outside the US Healthcare system any more than any private network does. It just gets a shit ton of public funding.

But isn't it an entirely publicly funded program?

[Edge-]

It doesn't operate outside the US Healthcare system any more than any private network does. It just gets a shit ton of public funding.

It doesn't operate "outside", but it's very different.

The VA is government provided health care. Their doctors are government employees, and are the only place you'll find government employed doctors providing care like this (outside of active duty).

The issue being that people stubbornly and dogmatically refuse to acknowledge that it's fundamentally different than government paid health care, which is what M4A would be, and what Medicare is right now. The doctors would remain in private practice or in whatever hospitals/networks they're a part of, not on the government payroll.

How much funding either receives doesn't change the structure of either.

[starlord]

It doesn't operate "outside", but it's very different.

The VA is government provided health care. Their doctors are government employees, and are the only place you'll find government employed doctors providing care like this (outside of active duty).

The issue being that people stubbornly and dogmatically refuse to acknowledge that it's fundamentally different than government paid health care, which is what M4A would be, and what Medicare is right now. The doctors would remain in private practice or in whatever hospitals/networks they're a part of, not on the government payroll.

How much funding either receives doesn't change the structure of either.

the conversation kinda meandered a bit, and that is true.
however, there are also things like the Hyde amendment to contend with in M4A, as well as repubs constant effort to cut funding for the program as a whole.

[beanman12345]

it's up to the people who want nationalized healthcare to build up the trust in the government that is lacking due to things like the VA.
saying "all those examples of american government run healthcare being awful are irrelevant because it works perfectly in other countries" isn't very persuasive, as we've seen play out already.

I do understand your point on the VA, it's broken, there really is no denying that, and the perception of it some people can extrapolate on government healthcare. But Medicare isn't broken. Medicare is just fine. The problem with Medicare is it doesn't and hasn't ever covered 100% of insurance, only about 90%. The rest is either private or state supplemented Medicaid. That's always been what confused me with the m4a & no insurance, because medicare is only 90% coverage. It'd either have to be 100% coverage or 90% coverage state 10% coverage for all. But certain states probably wouldn't be able to afford that, so it'd have to probably be 100% coverage. With the ACA if you have medicaid, you already have medicare because it's what is supplemented. Not all vet's apply for medicaid but they should apply because they are probably eligible. But with M4A the broken VA system would be gone, and replaced by a system that's been working well since LBJ signed the bill into law. If you have Medicaid or Medicare you aren't waiting 100+ days to see a doctor meanwhile dying at home like the VA.

[starlord]

I do understand your point on the VA, it's broken, there really is no denying that, and the perception of it some people can extrapolate on government healthcare. But Medicare isn't broken. Medicare is just fine. The problem with Medicare is it doesn't and hasn't ever covered 100% of insurance, only about 90%. The rest is either private or state supplemented Medicaid. That's always been what confused me with the m4a & no insurance, because medicare is only 90% coverage. It'd either have to be 100% coverage or 90% coverage state 10% coverage for all. But certain states probably wouldn't be able to afford that, so it'd have to probably be 100% coverage. With the ACA if you have medicaid, you already have medicare because it's what is supplemented. Not all vet's apply for medicaid but they should apply because they are probably eligible. But with M4A the broken VA system would be gone, and replaced by a system that's been working well since LBJ signed the bill into law. If you have Medicaid or Medicare you aren't waiting 100+ days to see a doctor meanwhile dying at home like the VA.

yea it really comes down to the exact implementation.
warren had it laid out, and people didn't like that either, so... for now it just seems to be something people "like the general idea of" but aren't willing to follow through.
meanwhile hospitals close all over due to non payments.

[Endus]

it's up to the people who want nationalized healthcare to build up the trust in the government that is lacking due to things like the VA.
saying "all those examples of american government run healthcare being awful are irrelevant because it works perfectly in other countries" isn't very persuasive, as we've seen play out already.

You mean "one example", which isn't even a complete example.

Like I said; you're cherry-picking, and it's not a reasonable stance.

Sorry to be jumping in here, but I wanted to ask you about this particular point. It was my understanding that the VA operates outside of the "regular" U.S. healthcare system. With their own medical professionals and patient system. I can see the argument for it generally being part of the U.S. system, because it's in the U.S., and can draw form the other parts - but I think a good case could be made that it does operate outside normal parameters in a number of key, and large, categories.

Can you help me out here - what am I missing?

That it only exists alongside the extant American healthcare system, and is designed entirely to be a supplement to that system. You're arguing that there are ways that it's separate, but it was built from the ground up with the recognition that there would be a private healthcare system covering the needs of everyone else; it was not ever intended to be a complete system. And in many ways, was designed to be a failure, because American politicians are great at paying lip service to their military veterans while steadfastly ignoring their needs and breaking them to pieces before discarding them like broken dolls. Because that's not endemic to military service. Plenty of other nations don't see anything like that damage to out vets, long-term.

You can make a pretty solid case that one of the core purposes of the VA is to create a deliberately shoddy system to keep vets out of the for-profit healthcare system, precisely because actually addressing their needs would not be a source of profit for insurers. Not because it's better for the health of those vets. That's why the USA doesn't just give veterans a kick-ass full-ride insurance package and let the regular system take care of them.

Edit: I should mention I'm being pretty denigrating to the VA in terms of its structure. That condemnation is directed at politicians who are responsible for its state, not the staff trying to do their best inside a broken system.

[beanman12345]

yea it really comes down to the exact implementation.
warren had it laid out, and people didn't like that either, so... for now it just seems to be something people "like the general idea of" but aren't willing to follow through.
meanwhile hospitals close all over due to non payments.

Yeah, these guys are much smarter than I am in regards to healthcare and can come up with some way of implementation, comes down to political will to do so. Which Warren and Bernie might, but it doesn't seem like the rest of their primary opponents on the ticket in congress do, nor the colleagues that are sitting there now. I am actually just fine with fixing the broken ACA by dialing the clock back to 2016 and adding a public option. Not as sound as universal healthcare as I'd prefer, but it'd do the job of it, problem being that the bureaucracy remains, which is always hell. Then maybe whenever the dem's can get a super majority in the senate again, there might be the political will for full universal coverage. Maybe, hopefully.

[starlord]

You mean "one example", which isn't even a complete example.

Like I said; you're cherry-picking, and it's not a reasonable stance.

how many examples would you need to not dismiss them as "cherrypicking"?

[Endus]

how many examples would you need to not dismiss them as "cherrypicking"?

"How much cherry picking do i have to do for it to not be cherry picking?"

This is a ridiculous question.

[Hobb]

They are only using 5 sources. RealClearPolitics, uses 11. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...oval-6179.html

He is close to 46% now. Average.

Actually it shows 44.8% so less than a 1% difference between them an 538. Also on realclear's site Trump disapproval rating is even high than 538's site.

No matter how you look at it Trump is pretty much finished.

[starlord]

"How much cherry picking do i have to do for it to not be cherry picking?"

This is a ridiculous question.

so cherrypicking is just posting examples that contradict you then. easily dismissed, cherrypicking.

[Endus]

so cherrypicking is just posting examples that contradict you then. easily dismissed, cherrypicking.

The examples don't contradict me. That's your problem. If you think they do, you have made no effort to understand my position. I never said universal healthcare can never be mismanaged. I said there's no reason to presume it would be mismanaged.

And no, citing one example of one non-universal system in a country that's been traditionally opposed to such things, that's not an argument against that. You'd have to argue that there is some significant reason why the USA is systemically incapable of reproducing the outcomes seen by basically every other developed nation on the planet, when they have those various examples to work from to boot. You haven't made any effort to address that.

[starlord]

The examples don't contradict me. That's your problem. If you think they do, you have made no effort to understand my position. I never said universal healthcare can never be mismanaged. I said there's no reason to presume it would be mismanaged.

And no, citing one example of one non-universal system in a country that's been traditionally opposed to such things, that's not an argument against that. You'd have to argue that there is some significant reason why the USA is systemically incapable of reproducing the outcomes seen by basically every other developed nation on the planet, when they have those various examples to work from to boot. You haven't made any effort to address that.

the conversation was "why people in the USA are reluctant about universal healthcare".
when given an example of a reason why, you say that doesn't count because you *personally* don't consider it a good reason. that's not going to change any minds.

[Endus]

the conversation was "why people in the USA are reluctant about universal healthcare".
when given an example of a reason why, you say that doesn't count because you *personally* don't consider it a good reason. that's not going to change any minds.

I didn't say it "doesn't count". I said it's irrational and based on fearmongering, not facts and reason.

You keep attacking a straw man rather than my argument. It's tiring.

My entire thesis at the outset was that Americans are generally opposed to universal healthcare. My point was that their reasoning as to why is cowardly nonsense.

[starlord]

I didn't say it "doesn't count". I said it's irrational and based on fearmongering, not facts and reason.

You keep attacking a straw man rather than my argument. It's tiring.

it's not irrational to think "a healthcare system could be mismanaged, just like an existing one that is," and therefore be reluctant to embrace it.

[Endus]

it's not irrational to think "a healthcare system could be mismanaged, just like an existing one that is," and therefore be reluctant to embrace it.

It's irrational for a host of reasons.

It's irrational in the same way that refusing to leave your house because "a meteor might hit me in the head" is irrational. Theoretical possibility is not an argument for inevitability.

It's irrational because the one system you're using as that example is not a universal healthcare system in the first place.

It's irrational because the entire reason we're having the debate is that the current American system is poorly managed; that the system could not be mismanaged is a straw man you made up to avoid the actual argument you were presented with.

Your entire position is based on the irrational fear that a universal healthcare system will be mismanaged, and you use that to defend your stand protecting the continuance of the current for-profit system, which is already mismanaged, and will continue to be, by design.

You're a perfect example of exactly the attitude I brought up in my first post. It is not a rational position.

[starlord]

It's irrational for a host of reasons.

It's irrational in the same way that refusing to leave your house because "a meteor might hit me in the head" is irrational. Theoretical possibility is not an argument for inevitability.

It's irrational because the one system you're using as that example is not a universal healthcare system in the first place.

It's irrational because the entire reason we're having the debate is that the current American system is poorly managed; that the system could not be mismanaged is a straw man you made up to avoid the actual argument you were presented with.

Your entire position is based on the irrational fear that a universal healthcare system will be mismanaged, and you use that to defend your stand protecting the continuance of the current for-profit system, which is already mismanaged, and will continue to be, by design.

You're a perfect example of exactly the attitude I brought up in my first post. It is not a rational position.

its a perfectly reasonable fear based off of existing examples. you conflate every countries healthcare systems (which are often different from each other), as a reason why the US based healthcare system (whatever form it may be) would be fine, in a system that you yourself admit was designed to be a failure, as well as one of the successful programs constantly being used as a political football by a certain party to "cut spending".
they sure as heck would attack universal healthcare funding; that is a given, not "meteor on head" possibility.
also, no one has addressed that federal funding is prohibited for women's healthcare providers for abortion. this is an example of why government owned healthcare could be potentially damaging to certain demographics.