That always strikes me as insane how much money your government sinks into healthcare yet you all have to pay for private insurance not to be bankrupted by a hospital visit.Wait, but entitlement spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid DOES make up the majority of the federal budget. Per Politifact it makes up around 53% of the budget.View attachment 27111The:
- 41% of those surveyed thought "Spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid make up the largest portion of the U.S. Federal Budget" is a statement of opinion. I'm sure that, even after explanation, some people were confused by this being a blatant falsehood, but it's still not a statement of opinion; it can be proven true or false.
- Of the 57% who correctly identified it as a "factual statement" a whopping 62% thought it was accurate.
Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
GasBandit
Staff member
It mostly boils down to the problem that, for some reason, price fixing/collusion apparently isn't illegal if it's hospital administrators doing it. But the root of it is we tried to have our cake and eat it too - the advantages of a profit-driven capitalist economy (innovation, competition) but still has the disadvantages of a socialist mindset. The consumer has no idea what things cost and doesn't care because "I pay my premiums, I should just be covered for everything!" and in fact it doesn't work that way. Basically, without prices being set by a central authority (as it is in single payer), taking the customer out of the payloop just means prices run out of control as soon as somebody figures out they're allowed to write down whatever they want for prices. Without competition, of which there is really none in medicine (either thanks to emergencies eliminating the ability to "shop around," or just straight up price fixing), the system fails. And proponents of single payer have been doing everything they can to make sure it fails as painfully and catastrophically as possible for the last few decades so that they can generate a mandate for moving to their favored system.
I'm pretty sure you got that backwards... it has the worst elements from both capitalism and command-economy socialism, chasing profits at any costs, and no market controls.
TIL, republicans are pro-single market.
Are we really going to rehash the "Obamacare was based on the Heritage Foundation's healthcare ideas!" thing?
GasBandit
Staff member
Well, if you like we can rehash the "Obamacare tried to provide 10 years of coverage with 8 years of double-dipped financing, and squeaked through an unconstitutional individual mandate through a temporarily insane SC" thing. That's what I meant - it was designed to fail, so that democrats could sigh, throw up their hands and say "well, we gave the private market ONE LAST GOOD OL' COLLEGE TRY, but looks like we've got no choice but to socialize everything!
And then Trump happened, so the second part of that plan is put off until at least 2020, but perhaps has a greater probability of succeeding for it.
And then Trump happened, so the second part of that plan is put off until at least 2020, but perhaps has a greater probability of succeeding for it.
The fact that the republicans essentially control congress and the white house and still couldn't get rid of it just shows how deeply the barbs were set.
As much as we might rail and rant against it, it was a very well set bomb, and while they can't control the explosion as well as they'd like, it will explode.
Do I gotta use the same mad max quote again?
Absolutely. Never pass up an opportunity to quote Mad Max.
That’s just your opinion.
While doing the impeachment contest update, I noticed no one guessed the last year of Trump's term.
It made me wonder. If the democrats had a chance to impeach trump after the midterms - say they magically got enough seats and enough republicans in their pocket to do so - would they actually try, or would they play the long game and let him stay so they could run against him rather than Pence or another less extreme republican candidate in 2020?
It made me wonder. If the democrats had a chance to impeach trump after the midterms - say they magically got enough seats and enough republicans in their pocket to do so - would they actually try, or would they play the long game and let him stay so they could run against him rather than Pence or another less extreme republican candidate in 2020?
I'd hope they'd get rid of him, as he's a danger to the US every day that he has the slightest modicum of power. More than even pence would be.
Of course ideally they'd find evidence taking down both of them, and by then we'd have a democratic speaker of the house. I'd be fine with President Pelosi.
Of course ideally they'd find evidence taking down both of them, and by then we'd have a democratic speaker of the house. I'd be fine with President Pelosi.
You truly think a less-extreme Republican still has a chance? For good or bad, Trump and trumpism has taken over the Republican party, and honestly, proper conservatives and value voters should form a new party or go down with the ship.
The candidate always takes control of the ship (see Clinton, DNC, 2016).
It will be fascinating to see what the republicans do in 2020, but if Trump is still in power, they're probably going to double down on him, and he's going to run the same type of campaign. If the democrats can't energize the base (and by golly, it should be trivial to do so at this point) then it will be devastating for them.
They need another Obama, not another Clinton.
It might actually be wiser of them to leave Trump in place for his last year rather than impeach. If they impeach there's a reasonable chance that a large part of the democrat base will stay at home come the election on the basis that "We already got rid of Trump, job done" while the republican base will be all fired up. Leave him in place and if they can't get their base out voting they damn well deserve to lose.
I'd really, really love to bet against this, but I remember the '04 campaign far too well. I really don't think the party leadership is going to be able to form a consensus until it's either too late, or - as you said - they come together behind the lesser of two evils and it winds up being a simpering twit.
And here I thought prices were spiraling because of the ever-increasing cost of malpractice insurance due to the current litigation-based economy.
--Patrick
I still think the supreme court will be one of the bigger issues in 2020 as well. The liberal justices are going to hang on tooth and nail during Trump's term (just as scalia did during Obama's term, only having a problem with death) with the hope that the next president is liberal.
If one of them dies during this term it's going to be assumed it was conspiracy/murder/assassination.
Yet even people who hate trump will vote for him because there's a chance of changing the supreme court, and no matter what other ills befall the nation due to his tenure, a supreme court justice pick is longer lasting than any presidency, and makes a larger impact than anyone in congress.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...atters-more-to-republicans-than-trump/504038/
So the democrats have a lot to lose if they don't get their ducks in a row and find someone that can 1) appeal to their base, and 2) beat trump. I suspect they're not going to succeed going further to the left, but trying to appeal to some of Trump's base.
But who knows. The DNC is holding their primary earlier in 2020, the 2020 election is now ramping up and behind the scenes the campaigns are forming.
The next 2.5 years are going to be a circus.
If one of them dies during this term it's going to be assumed it was conspiracy/murder/assassination.
Yet even people who hate trump will vote for him because there's a chance of changing the supreme court, and no matter what other ills befall the nation due to his tenure, a supreme court justice pick is longer lasting than any presidency, and makes a larger impact than anyone in congress.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...atters-more-to-republicans-than-trump/504038/
So the democrats have a lot to lose if they don't get their ducks in a row and find someone that can 1) appeal to their base, and 2) beat trump. I suspect they're not going to succeed going further to the left, but trying to appeal to some of Trump's base.
But who knows. The DNC is holding their primary earlier in 2020, the 2020 election is now ramping up and behind the scenes the campaigns are forming.
The next 2.5 years are going to be a circus.
Of course, how could i not see it, the dems decided to trick everyone by passing a bill without any republican support that they didn't like instead of the bill they really wanted, because they're secretly Machiavellian Overlords that plan everything to the T, instead of just people that are just flailing around like idiots trying to see what works, like everyone else.
Post automatically merged:
That's the last thing that's going to work...
We're talking some people that literally said Trump stiffed them on contracting work, but would still vote for him...
Last edited:
You know what? I'll see your,
We either get a full second Trump term, or a civil war to remove him from office.
and raise you:
We either get a full second Trump term, or a civil war to remove him from office.
I am going on record now as saying that I don't like either of those two options.
...but that there's even the possibility we might get both.
--Patrick
/why not both
But really, what weapons will that civil war be fought with? The side that would intend to overthrow him has, for the last several decades, demonized guns to the point that there's a 2:1 ratio of guns in conservative hands vs liberal hands.
I didn't say it would go well.
I probably figured that, since the the election would be under way during that whole final year, the Dems would be democratic enough to leave it to the people to decide, bevause if Trump lasted that long, the reasons for impeachment would've been more Clintonesque than Nixonian.
Turns out, I'm wrong, and the reason for impeachment is gonna be uber-Nixonian and is just not gonna happen. It's time to start a Guess the Date Trump Is Overthrown contest, is what I'm saying.
Yeah, and it's not like the richer states are liberal, and people can just buy/seize guns if it actually comes to that.
Unless they own the guns beforehand, they can't possibly at any at any point.
Still more than enough guns to people for literally anyone that wants to fight to have one.
I think the thread about genealogy sites being used to solve cold cases got memory holed, but this seems as good a place as any.
ABC News: DNA on gum, water bottle leads to DJ's arrest 26 years after teacher killed
ABC News: DNA on gum, water bottle leads to DJ's arrest 26 years after teacher killed
excerpts said:
figmentPez
Staff member
Which brings around the question of ammo, and supplies, and allies. It's a lot messier than just who has the guns now. It's who can keep the guns shooting, the troops fed, the information flowing, etc.
Speaking of allies, if this comes to war, it's not Democrats versus Republicans. Other countries are going to get involved. Multi-national corporations are going to get involved (even if they only do so clandestinely). It's going to be a mess, and I expect a lot of surprises if it comes to civil war.
GasBandit
Staff member
Not to mention who has more practice with the guns. Hand an effete urban california liberal an AR-15 and they're just as likely to break it or shoot something accidentally as be an effective resistance fighter.
hashtag lowtestosterone
Last edited:
How redundant!