Again, military industrial complex. If you want your problems to be addressed and get the funding they need, that's the elephant in the room.
What policies do you back that you believe would make things better in the USA
- Thread starter gorfias
- Start date
Just grabbed the post from Aegix and gonna do it this way.
1. We have 10 x Your Population. As far as I'm aware, going that route would be so extraordinarily expensive that it's just not going to happen. Add on the immensely powerful lobbyists who worm their way into both parties' beds and it becomes even more unlikely. I'd *love* single-payer though, personally. Additionally, we'd have to get our border situations solved, and quickly. The sheer strain of that on the system would kinda suck.
2. That'd be nice. I'd enjoy greater regulation so medical companies can't gouge like absolute monsters. However, R&D budgets would probably shrink quite a bit to compensate. I don't see 1 or 2 happening under either party.
3. If people weren't so insistent on living in cities, that'd be a lot more workable than it currently is. Space is an issue in metropolitan areas, along with budget and ROI. Again, 10 x Your Population. But I'd be down to lose a not insignificant chunk of military spending for that.
4. Completely in favor.
5. That'd be nice. From what I've seen, Trump has made some attempts in that direction (when not blowing Iranian generals off the face of the earth), only to be stymied by both parties. It'd sure as hell free up some capital for everything on this list, that's for sure. But too many interests involved. Too many people making too much money off it. Throw in steadily mounting tensions with China and it's sort of not in the cards.
6. That one ain't gonna happen any time soon, owing to the vast differentials in buying power of a dollar from state to state (though internet shopping is certainly helping to level things out, give it time). But it'd be nice and I'd support it. Now, UBI is another thing entirely- I'm not really down with that one.
7. Works in theory, but given the fact that people are...well, people are fuckin' violent, those social workers would probably need to be armed or have some sort of protection available to them, regardless. I kinda feel like we'd still have deaths by going that route. I certainly wouldn't want to check up on a potentially armed person with no way to defend myself. So, if you went with specially trained uniformed cops backing up social workers? I think that could work.
8. I'm fine with police having military hardware available. The problem is said hardware being deployed either unnecessarily or far too often. Access, however, is fine. Consider the relative level of firepower available to US citizens. So, realistically, I'd file this under better training and appropriate levels of response.
9. In favor of this as well. But, then, I'm accustomed to seeing overreach. Personally, I'm a pretty strong supporter of 2A- with some caveats. Like, oh, I dunno. Being able to show some level of proficiency? Possibly a safety course? Like a driver's license, but for the thing you can feasibly kill twenty people with or misfire and blow off your neighbor's hand through three walls? However! People who want guns in this country are very, very likely to be able to get them, whether legally or otherwise. Shit, we've got more guns than people. Quite literally.
Center left (voted for Obama) leaning toward Trump this time around, but honestly, probably not even voting. Just to preface the completely unsolicited opinions here.
1. We have 10 x Your Population. As far as I'm aware, going that route would be so extraordinarily expensive that it's just not going to happen. Add on the immensely powerful lobbyists who worm their way into both parties' beds and it becomes even more unlikely. I'd *love* single-payer though, personally. Additionally, we'd have to get our border situations solved, and quickly. The sheer strain of that on the system would kinda suck.
2. That'd be nice. I'd enjoy greater regulation so medical companies can't gouge like absolute monsters. However, R&D budgets would probably shrink quite a bit to compensate. I don't see 1 or 2 happening under either party.
3. If people weren't so insistent on living in cities, that'd be a lot more workable than it currently is. Space is an issue in metropolitan areas, along with budget and ROI. Again, 10 x Your Population. But I'd be down to lose a not insignificant chunk of military spending for that.
4. Completely in favor.
5. That'd be nice. From what I've seen, Trump has made some attempts in that direction (when not blowing Iranian generals off the face of the earth), only to be stymied by both parties. It'd sure as hell free up some capital for everything on this list, that's for sure. But too many interests involved. Too many people making too much money off it. Throw in steadily mounting tensions with China and it's sort of not in the cards.
6. That one ain't gonna happen any time soon, owing to the vast differentials in buying power of a dollar from state to state (though internet shopping is certainly helping to level things out, give it time). But it'd be nice and I'd support it. Now, UBI is another thing entirely- I'm not really down with that one.
7. Works in theory, but given the fact that people are...well, people are fuckin' violent, those social workers would probably need to be armed or have some sort of protection available to them, regardless. I kinda feel like we'd still have deaths by going that route. I certainly wouldn't want to check up on a potentially armed person with no way to defend myself. So, if you went with specially trained uniformed cops backing up social workers? I think that could work.
8. I'm fine with police having military hardware available. The problem is said hardware being deployed either unnecessarily or far too often. Access, however, is fine. Consider the relative level of firepower available to US citizens. So, realistically, I'd file this under better training and appropriate levels of response.
9. In favor of this as well. But, then, I'm accustomed to seeing overreach. Personally, I'm a pretty strong supporter of 2A- with some caveats. Like, oh, I dunno. Being able to show some level of proficiency? Possibly a safety course? Like a driver's license, but for the thing you can feasibly kill twenty people with or misfire and blow off your neighbor's hand through three walls? However! People who want guns in this country are very, very likely to be able to get them, whether legally or otherwise. Shit, we've got more guns than people. Quite literally.
Last edited:
- Apr 1, 2009
- 15,260
- 4,101
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
Oh he certainly has not, we are probably closer to a world war then we have been in the last 50 years. First off, he has done way more drone strikes than Obama and with less care for civilian casualties.
Under Donald Trump, drone strikes far exceed Obama's numbers
Trump has escalated the number of U.S. drone strikes overseas, and made the program even more secretive.
chicago.suntimes.com
Then he pulled us out of the iran nuclear deal which was a very good deal which everyone was down with, just because he hated Obama and that has removed a potential ally and destabilized the region further since now we have Iran going for nukes again and proved that the US is unreliable.
To solidify the US as unreliable he also abandoned our Kurdish allies against the advice of everyone. And on top of abandoning them to the Turks, he also insulted them as they retreated from their homes.
Here's What Has Happened in Syria in the Week Since Trump Abandoned the Kurds
President Trump's decision to pull U.S. troops out of northern Syria has led to chaos in the region.
www.rollingstone.com
This isn't even mentioning his insulting of our allies, trying to pull funding from NATO, deferring to putin, and insulting and trying to start something with china.
Yep.Oh he certainly has not, we are probably closer to a world war then we have been in the last 50 years. First off, he has done way more drone strikes than Obama and with less care for civilian casualties.
Under Donald Trump, drone strikes far exceed Obama's numbers
Trump has escalated the number of U.S. drone strikes overseas, and made the program even more secretive.
Then he pulled us out of the iran nuclear deal which was a very good deal which everyone was down with, just because he hated Obama and that has removed a potential ally and destabilized the region further since now we have Iran going for nukes again and proved that the US is unreliable.
To solidify the US as unreliable he also abandoned our Kurdish allies against the advice of everyone. And on top of abandoning them to the Turks, he also insulted them as they retreated from their homes.
Here's What Has Happened in Syria in the Week Since Trump Abandoned the Kurds
President Trump's decision to pull U.S. troops out of northern Syria has led to chaos in the region.
This isn't even mentioning his insulting of our allies, trying to pull funding from NATO, deferring to putin, and insulting and trying to start something with china.
Part of the reason medicine is so goddamn expensive in America is because we let the overhead resulting from private insurance get out of control. Institute single-payer and overhead will go down.
A lot of medical research is actually funded with tax money. That the pharma companies keep finding ways to charge us for it a second time is symptomatic of the fact we desperately need to get money out of politics.
It's already been shown that he hasn't. Combined with his attacks on US allies and fawning man-crushes on violent dictators, the US diplomatic position is weaker than it's ever been.
Counterpoint: if you do not establish a living wage, how are people supposed to buy things other than the absolute essentials? A market economy needs a strong flow of capital, which is severely limited if workers are being paid too little.
Okay, this one's a little personal. Do you know how dehumanizing it feels for those of us with mental health problems to be automatically associated with violent, mentally broken predators for whom the primary solution should be to put us down? This keeps coming up.
How about we just tighten up the gun laws so police won't need military-grade firepower to achieve technological parity with the citizenry? If you give cops military hardware, they're going to use it whether you want them to or not. You need to decide whether you want the cops to be law enforcement or an occupying force.
- May 6, 2020
- 1,134
- 1,214
- 118
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- White Male
Background checks, renewing restrictions on people with histories of violence from acquiring more weapons, a national registry, actually let the ATF do its job, that sort of thing. And also maybe, just maybe, recognize that civilians don't need spray-and-pray weapons designed for suppressing fire in a war zone.
- May 6, 2020
- 1,134
- 1,214
- 118
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- White Male
I don't see how that would make anyone safer. Or how enforceable that would be considering that in states with registries, a large number of people have not complied. You already have hundreds of millions of guns in circulation and no way to tell at a glace if any specific gun is registered.
That something will be difficult is not an excuse to never try. We do it with cars, we do it with guns. We can actually enforce the policies of agencies like the ATF are actually allowed to do their jobs. The NRA has successfully lobbied to prevent the ATF from even having appointed leadership, effectively defanging them.
Talking about insurance always makes my head spin. Do you mind elaborating on what you mean by over-head and single payer? I know they're really basic terms when talking about the future of healthcare, but like I said, it all really just goes... over my head.
Simple version: single-payer would be a system by which there is a single health insurance provider run by the government that covers everyone. Overhead in private insurance includes ordinary business costs such as facility rentals, payroll, etc. Of course, private insurance companies also spend a lot on advertising and as one would expect of American business culture, the executives keep awarding themselves ever larger salaries and bonuses for not running the company into the ground that year. This is made worse by the fact that the insurance companies have more incentive to deny your claims than honor them. So they're making money hand over first already, but they want even more.
I see that working. For example the British NHS is really careful with the taxpayer's money and keeps healthcare efficient and at moderate costs. It's sustainable with little in the way of the usual bureaucratic excess. I think it's a really good example for the kind of healthcare that would work in the U.S.
That makes sense, but also makes me scratch my head. Shouldn't it be called single-provider?
A government provider has the advantage of only needing to remain solvent. Private insurance companies have investors and shareholders to please.
That's a question for the policy-makers.
A government has to 'please' no one because that tax money will keep on coming. It's no longer 'solvent' until the entire populace is bankrupt. That is why it's so efficient.
I'm not totally sure, but I think it goes by the term single payer because there is only one provider 'paying' out.
As I said. I'd love single-payer. I just don't think it's likely to happen.
I suppose if we went the single-payer route, the medical apparatus would actually have a vested interest in reducing costs all around, so it'd work out. Regardless, I don't think it's going to happen, under either party.
And, yes, I also made a point of jabbing at the lobbyists and such. But money won't be leaving politics any time soon.
All righty.
Don't really agree with it, but I'd imagine the standard argument would be "If they're not being paid well enough, they'd leave, and the labor market would adapt to suit demand."
As for me? Well. The thing is that the disparity in said living wage is quite high, while being absolute in other (I mentioned online shopping) aspects. Simply introducing a blanket increase in wages for a state would be a little silly. Break it down to the county level and you'd have a better system- but travel is a thing.
You run the risk of further disrupting buying power between neighboring counties. People from cities could just drive an hour out and grab up whatever they wanted on the cheap (which some already do, mind) so it'd be awkward. And if everyone in a city is being paid a standard amount as a baseline, that's probably going to have a knock-on effect of bumping up prices. And people who commute to cities for work. Do they get the wages associated with the place they live? They incur expenses from working in the city and I'd think, with the higher wages there, they'd wind up paying more than they would at home. What about gas? Corporate flight would probably be a thing to.
There'd be a lot to moderate, essentially. Lot of minutia. Tax code would probably need a complete overhaul.
But yeah, I said I agreed with it. Maybe through standardization of pricing for essential goods and services across the board. A set range to account for variables? Would be interesting to see how it was implemented is all.
I don't recall inferring that folks with mental health issues are or should be "associated with violent, mentally broken predators." I simply stated that people are violent, which, I'm sure you can agree, is a pretty prominent part of our species' history.
Kind of think you're reading into that a bit.
I very subtly suggested that I'd like background checks and the like, in addition to safety courses, and licensing.
But, yeah. I still stand by my statement. Even a couple people with registered hunting rifles could make short work of dozens of beat cops. So, I'm fine with police having access to military hardware, so long as it's employed properly/sparingly. Again. It's a matter I think would be addressed by increased training standards and better threat assessment leading to proportional responses befitting a given situation. And...nah?
That last part sounds like a slight false dichotomy.
Law enforcement can still be law enforcement while having access to tools like that.
Last edited:
Gun rights lobbyist also forget that explosives used to be a second amendment right until they changed the laws in the 20s. Because they were deemed to dangerous for soecity to have....
Also, can we say 20s now? Because people are probably going to think this century...
And it never will if we don't start mobilizing to put the pressure on. Politicians won't do anything until you twist their thumbscrews hard enough.
A certain amount of price control and tax reform will be necessary. And by "certain amount" I of course mean, "years of work."
Considering I struggle with mental health issues and have taken abuse for it, I am a little defensive on the topic, I confess.
There is a difference between civilian law enforcement and the military. I would prefer to keep those two as far apart from each other as possible. I don't care what uniform you're wearing, if you're breaking out military hardware designed for an occupying force, then you're an occupying force. Especially so when you have so little accountability as American cops face.
In more detail:
Drugs are bought by health providers on behalf of users. The heavy splintering of the US health system into independent providers (both in terms of healthcare and insurers) means that they individually lack economic clout to drive down prices.
To fill this gap, sort of "middleman" companies emerged, called IIRC Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs). These could buy in bulk and pressure lower prices from pharmaceutical manfacturers, run their admin and take their cut, and can still supply on to healthcare providers cheaper than the healthcare providers could secure drugs alone direct from the drug manufacturers. However, the very existence of a middleman system, while beneficial in the US system compared to its absence, is another administrative and transaction layer creating huge inefficiency compared to single payer. Secondly, it has some odd results because it gives all sorts of interesting negotiation options between the PBMs and manufacturers.
The basic idea is that when drugs go off patent, they are replaced by cheaper generics that can be made by anyone. Manufacturers like to protect their best brands and maximise returns, so arrange package deals where the PBMs get discounted drugs from manufacturers, whilst being held to full, very expensive price on some of the brands. This means that consumers are stuck with the deals their PBM/provider has cut. One provider thus ends up prescribing patients with a generic drug for a few dollars; another providers may have a different deal such that the same drug costs an order of magnitude more, because it's the big brand version.
This system is highly beneficial to both the PBMs, simply by facilitating their very existence, and also the pharmaceutical firms, who can gain higher profits from their drugs. The biggest losers, naturally, are consumers. Needless to say, with the UK exiting the EU, the USA has already made a lot of noise about destroying the NHS's central drug procurement in any trade deal, precisely so that it makes the UK easier for drug corporations to mine for profits. One could make the criticism of single-payer under free market ideology that it is unfair: "monopsony" (a sort of reverse of monopoly where excessive power resides with the buyer over the sellers). However, there's actually not much evidence that monopsony is usually problematic: certainly not anything like as damaging to market function as monopoly. Drugs companies, after all, still make a ton of money out of the UK.