US 2024 Presidential Election

[Silvanus]

If it is "very important rights" that can override the obligation not to kill, that just means there are other rules in your moral view that are of higher priority.

There are rights and concerns that override the obligation not to kill for almost everyone, and those rights and concerns are dependent in part on the characteristics of what is being killed.

For instance, the concern for my own sustenance overrides my obligation not to kill plants. It does not override my obligation not to kill animals, but other people do consider it to override that too.

What changes from person to person is not actually an adherence to an absolute rule or not-- the only people who adhere absolutely to a rule of no-killing are a subset of fruitarians. What changes from person to person is: 1) which concerns are weighed against it; and 2) the characteristics of the object. You have determined that sharing a species is a characteristic that overrides quality of life and various other concerns (but presumably not self-defence or some others). I have determined that more relevant characteristics are the capacity for its own interests, preferences, and suffering-- characteristics that encompass a lot of animals, but do not encompass clumps of unaware cells that happen to share my species.

((Not attempting to speak for Seanchaidh here ofc, just giving my two cents as I was involved earlier))

 

[gorfias]

I think Kamala was the worst, most incompetent POTUS candidate in my memory. We're talking pre-FDR. Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush did it better. But I don't think that is what cost her the election. These days, people are so partisan, they'll vote for a potato over someone they think will make them actually worse off.

One Democratic party operative said it best. You've got a major problem when you embody the status quo and 73% of the people think the nation is headed in the wrong direction.

Had she been a great candidate with fresh new ideas that people could believe, if implemented, would improve her lives? She still would not have been trusted to walk her talk. And so she lost.

 

[tippy2k2]

The celebration of a healthcare CEO getting gunned down hitman style is the closest thing to united this country has ever been. Seems like a pretty easy slam dunk policy to run on fixing our broken ass healthcare system but Democrats and Libs would rather chastise everyone and send thoughts and prayers to the people in charge of fucking us all over instead.

 

[Schadrach]

Trump urges judge to toss hush money case, citing Hunter Biden pardon

Trump's attorneys said President Biden's statement that his son had been "selectively, and unfairly, prosecuted" also applies to the president-elect.

www.nbcnews.com

I mean the core argument there is that if even Biden is admitting the courts are used for political attacks then the charges he was convicted of must also be a political attack and besides you can't sentence me, I'm going to be President!

I'd tell him to sit down, shut up, here's your fine and please report to prison on Jan 21, 2029 as you will no longer be president or eligible to be president again.

The celebration of a healthcare CEO getting gunned down hitman style is the closest thing to united this country has ever been.

Remember friends, should the shooter be caught and tried the decision of the jury cannot be ignored, challenged or dismissed and the jury is not required to explain their rationale. He'd be a fool to take a plea deal or a bench trial on this shooting, since he's likely to be extremely sympathetic to a jury.

 

[tippy2k2]

I mean the core argument there is that if even Biden is admitting the courts are used for political attacks then the charges he was convicted of must also be a political attack and besides you can't sentence me, I'm going to be President!

I'd tell him to sit down, shut up, here's your fine and please report to prison on Jan 21, 2029 as you will no longer be president or eligible to be president again.



Remember friends, should the shooter be caught and tried the decision of the jury cannot be ignored, challenged or dismissed and the jury is not required to explain their rationale. He'd be a fool to take a plea deal or a bench trial on this shooting, since he's likely to be extremely sympathetic to a jury.

If my man is caught, he's going to have about 1,000,000 people who have had their claims denied by UHC swear up and down that he was with them the whole time (Tippy included! I swear your honor, Assassin Guy and me were at my house playing video games and talking about how awful it would be for someone to shoot a health insurance CEO cause we're good Christian boys who would never resort to violence!)

 

[tstorm823]

There are rights and concerns that override the obligation not to kill for almost everyone, and those rights and concerns are dependent in part on the characteristics of what is being killed.

For instance, the concern for my own sustenance overrides my obligation not to kill plants. It does not override my obligation not to kill animals, but other people do consider it to override that too.

What changes from person to person is not actually an adherence to an absolute rule or not-- the only people who adhere absolutely to a rule of no-killing are a subset of fruitarians. What changes from person to person is: 1) which concerns are weighed against it; and 2) the characteristics of the object. You have determined that sharing a species is a characteristic that overrides quality of life and various other concerns (but presumably not self-defence or some others). I have determined that more relevant characteristics are the capacity for its own interests, preferences, and suffering-- characteristics that encompass a lot of animals, but do not encompass clumps of unaware cells that happen to share my species.

((Not attempting to speak for Seanchaidh here ofc, just giving my two cents as I was involved earlier))

I'd say this is all accurate, you're just on a different level of discussion than I was going for. The thing I am driving at isn't so much what the particular rule on killing is, but that there is a rule at all. Seanchaidh made a bit of a show claiming that not dying is just a preference people have, that there isn't anything about life that's inherently good. It was a refutation of a deontological moral system, where the ethics of an action are judged by rules or obligations, like "thou shalt not kill". But once he starts creating a hierarchy of "preferences" and putting life above almost anything else, it becomes utterly indistinguishable from a rules-based moral system, where people are to follow certain rules (prioritize certain preferences) whenever a higher priority isn't taking precedence.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I think Kamala was the worst, most incompetent POTUS candidate in my memory. We're talking pre-FDR. Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush did it better. But I don't think that is what cost her the election. These days, people are so partisan, they'll vote for a potato over someone they think will make them actually worse off.

One Democratic party operative said it best. You've got a major problem when you embody the status quo and 73% of the people think the nation is headed in the wrong direction.

Had she been a great candidate with fresh new ideas that people could believe, if implemented, would improve her lives? She still would not have been trusted to walk her talk. And so she lost.

I broadly agree with you. She was up against Trump wrecking the US for another 4 years, and still did significantly worse than Biden did against the same. Being same old, not quite as bad as the other lot doesn't seem to win votes anymore. Supporting genocide not a good look either.

 

[gorfias]

I broadly agree with you. She was up against Trump wrecking the US for another 4 years, and still did significantly worse than Biden did against the same. Being same old, not quite as bad as the other lot doesn't seem to win votes anymore. Supporting genocide not a good look either.

I think voters think fondly about Trump's years relative to Biden's. Example: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...viewed-more-favorably-poll-finds/74292329007/ They don't expect Trump to wreck the nation but take us off the wrong direction.

This has been a fascinating election regardless of who you wanted to win.

On paper, Kamala had it all, going by the old rules. She had about 3 times as much money, the major celebrity endorsements, the ground game of people knocking on doors and canvasing, the MSM in the tank for her while ridiculing every syllable by Trump. Soft ball interviews and scripted rallies that mostly went smoothly. Yet she lost.

Is this because things have changed, particularly with social media taking away the MSM corporate monopoly? Or is Trump unique?

He didn't need her money. He can play 4d chess and say things like, "we're going to protect women whether they like it or not" and get a ton of MSM coverage condemning him for saying it but then people look into the context and he means things like protecting women in their sports (as opposed to the Biden Justice Department trying to apply Title 9 to biological men) and most people thought, "well, duh!" and found they support his position.

Even if the next 4 years are awesome, could, say, JD Vance pull that off?

The long term concern is, the more successful MAGA is, the more the powers that be will try to co-opt them. The Democratic party used to be the party of the working class. Now major labor union rank and file refuse to endorse their POTUS nominee as they see, correctly IMHO, that the Democratic party has become the party of people for whom the well being of our nation is not a priority.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I think voters think fondly about Trump's years relative to Biden's. Example: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...viewed-more-favorably-poll-finds/74292329007/ They don't expect Trump to wreck the nation but take us off the wrong direction.

Trump got more or less the same number of votes this time as in the last election, the Dems got a massive amount fewer. Presumably that was Trump voters voting Trump again, and lots of Dems voters giving up on the Dems.

Trump just had to continue being the same dumpster fire that got him votes before, but the Dems had to actually do something this time, and that's not in their nature. Admittedly Obama can be argued to have promised hope and change and all that, before proving he didn't really mean it. I daresay if Sanders got elected his big talk about fixing everything would have ended in very little, though I'd have expected him to try some of it.

 

[Silvanus]

I think voters think fondly about Trump's years relative to Biden's. Example: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...viewed-more-favorably-poll-finds/74292329007/ They don't expect Trump to wreck the nation but take us off the wrong direction.

This is probably true for many people regarding perception. Most people have a poor grasp of economics and don't recognise that the impact of fiscal & economic policy often isn't felt for years, so Trump can inherit a strong employment/growth/wage trend from Obama and then people will attribute that success to him.

On paper, Kamala had it all, going by the old rules. She had about 3 times as much money, the major celebrity endorsements, the ground game of people knocking on doors and canvasing, the MSM in the tank for her while ridiculing every syllable by Trump. Soft ball interviews and scripted rallies that mostly went smoothly. Yet she lost.

Money and celebrity endorsements, yes. Plenty of mainstream media was in Trump's corner, including the largest outlet in America, and he was constantly treated with kid gloves.

 

[Hades]

They don't expect Trump to wreck the nation but take us off the wrong direction.

And in that they’re objectively wrong. Why would Trump lower prices by forcing his corrupt buddies to stop price gauging. The class doing the price gauging are his buddies and peers. And his first term already proved Trump as not just unable, but also unwilling to come through in a crisis.

Whatever Trump voters hate will only get exacerbated by Trump and new problems will be mismanaged

 

[tstorm823]

...including the largest outlet in America*...

As always: *largest 24-hour cable news station

 

[Phoenixmgs]

The celebration of a healthcare CEO getting gunned down hitman style is the closest thing to united this country has ever been. Seems like a pretty easy slam dunk policy to run on fixing our broken ass healthcare system but Democrats and Libs would rather chastise everyone and send thoughts and prayers to the people in charge of fucking us all over instead.

Why though? Health insurance companies really aren't the problem as they don't set the prices, and the prices are the problem.

 

[tippy2k2]

Why though? Health insurance companies really aren't the problem as they don't set the prices, and the prices are the problem.

You've never had an insurance company reject a claim, have you?

 

[Phoenixmgs]

You've never had an insurance company reject a claim, have you?

But the reason they reject claims is because the prices are so high and they have to reject claims because they literally can't afford to cover everything.

 

[tippy2k2]

But the reason they reject claims is because the prices are so high and they have to reject claims because they literally can't afford to cover everything.

and I'm sure having an entire industry made up of fake middlemen have absolutely nothing to do with those high prices, right?

I've had chronic pain for five years now. It's been something I've cited repeatedly for why I will never vote for a politician who isn't completely full throated on board with M4A (or something similar). I don't talk about it a ton on here but the people on this board who know me know very well how fucked over I've been at various times by Health insurance Companies (and my case isn't even all that extreme, I'm not going to die from this if I don't get treatment, something that happens to people on a regular basis because Insurance Companies are more loyal to the bottom line than they are to care).

The CEO won't get another couple million if they let me try a new treatment plan doesn't get a ton of sympathy from me. These CEOs are not nearly as afraid as they should be and I will be absolutely giddy if people stopped taking their anger out on schools and public outings and start taking it out on industry leaders like this guy.

 

[Schadrach]

But the reason they reject claims is because the prices are so high and they have to reject claims because they literally can't afford to cover everything.

The insurance companies never pay the on paper cost of treatment. Especially with drugs.

For example, my wife is on a drug that on paper is $14k per dose, taken every two months. After the insurance and a patient assistance program we pay nothing. But no one is actually paying that $14k, and almost no one ever does.

You ever wonder why which brands of a given drug are on the formulary change every couple of years? It's not because the hypothetical on-paper price of the drugs swings that much between brands from year to year for it to make a meaningful difference, but because the drug companies offer the insurance companies a healthy discount to preferentially cover their brand because it boosts sales and the volume is how they make their money. The hypothetical on paper cost needs to be scary to make sure the insurance companies get theirs, too.

It's a bit less so for surgical procedures and the like, but there's layers of similar bullshit they just aren't quite as blatant.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

and I'm sure having an entire industry made up of fake middlemen have absolutely nothing to do with those high prices, right?

I've had chronic pain for five years now. It's been something I've cited repeatedly for why I will never vote for a politician who isn't completely full throated on board with M4A (or something similar). I don't talk about it a ton on here but the people on this board who know me know very well how fucked over I've been at various times by Health insurance Companies (and my case isn't even all that extreme, I'm not going to die from this if I don't get treatment, something that happens to people on a regular basis because Insurance Companies are more loyal to the bottom line than they are to care).

The CEO won't get another couple million if they let me try a new treatment plan doesn't get a ton of sympathy from me. These CEOs are not nearly as afraid as they should be and I will be absolutely giddy if people stopped taking their anger out on schools and public outings and start taking it out on industry leaders like this guy.

Ozempic is 10x more money in the US than it is in the UK. It's not the insurance companies that set the prices. M4A won't work in the US because we don't have to money to pay such exorbitant prices for healthcare. Just look at the profit margins insurance companies, they are rather low. You're placing your anger in the wrong spot.

The insurance companies never pay the on paper cost of treatment. Especially with drugs.

For example, my wife is on a drug that on paper is $14k per dose, taken every two months. After the insurance and a patient assistance program we pay nothing. But no one is actually paying that $14k, and almost no one ever does.

You ever wonder why which brands of a given drug are on the formulary change every couple of years? It's not because the hypothetical on-paper price of the drugs swings that much between brands from year to year for it to make a meaningful difference, but because the drug companies offer the insurance companies a healthy discount to preferentially cover their brand because it boosts sales and the volume is how they make their money. The hypothetical on paper cost needs to be scary to make sure the insurance companies get theirs, too.

It's a bit less so for surgical procedures and the like, but there's layers of similar bullshit they just aren't quite as blatant.

Regardless if they pay the "paper" cost or not, drugs and treatments are still way more expensive in the US than anywhere else.

 

[Trunkage]

And in that they’re objectively wrong. Why would Trump lower prices by forcing his corrupt buddies to stop price gauging. The class doing the price gauging are his buddies and peers. And his first term already proved Trump as not just unable, but also unwilling to come through in a crisis.

Whatever Trump voters hate will only get exacerbated by Trump and new problems will be mismanaged

I mean, drug crimes went up under Trump because he spent so much time trying to deport innocent migrants. A lot of ICE resources were shifted to the border instead of... you know.... finding drug cartels.

 

[tstorm823]

Ozempic is 10x more money in the US than it is in the UK. It's not the insurance companies that set the prices. M4A won't work in the US because we don't have to money to pay such exorbitant prices for healthcare. Just look at the profit margins insurance companies, they are rather low. You're placing your anger in the wrong spot.

Regardless if they pay the "paper" cost or not, drugs and treatments are still way more expensive in the US than anywhere else.

The manufacturers aren't blameless, and neither is the government, but it really is the insurances that deserve the most blame, and it has everything to do with not paying the cost on paper. Insurances (in tandem with PBMs) negotiate ridiculous discounts with the manufacturers specifically in the form of rebates.

This is a not particularly exaggerated hypothetical, I have been behind the counter of a pharmacy, I have seen numbers. You can have a drug that's actual price should be $10, it's probably manufactured for like 50 cents if that. Nice 95% margin on that. The insurances know it's cheap to make, they demand a 99% discount on the product, and they control almost all the sales, so instead of telling them to pound sand, the manufacturer lists the price at $1000 and gives them the 99% discount and still makes their desired profit. The insurance pays the pharmacy on your behalf, the pharmacy pays the distributor, the distributor pays the manufacturer, and then the manufacturer pays back the insurance, and each of those entities is making a fraction of 1% of the money being passed literally in a circle because they are making a perfectly reasonable profit on what would have been a fair market price. There's obviously collusion with the manufacturers to do this, so it may seem silly to focus on the insurances, but they are the beneficiaries of this system, specifically because it makes it impossible to afford medicine without insurance. They have the leverage of collective bargaining power, and then they use that leverage to demand care providers and drug companies drive more people to them. It is pure racketeering, and a century ago would have been busted up by the federal government, but the structure of this mirrors Medicare in many ways, so there's little political will to break it up even before the lobbying starts.