Politics Discussion Thread (Heated Arguing Warning)

[Mardoc]

[one relative six generations prior and eight relatives 10 generations ago] and

You missed a doubling in this particular one, it would be sixteen relatives 10 generations ago.  Not that it's enough of an error to matter.

its a proved lie not hings which left says are and they wish to be

Eh...it's sketchy, but it can be argued.  It's not like there's any objective test for what it means to be Native American for affirmative action purposes (as opposed to tribal membership).  If you read the typical language it's all about 'how you identify' and 'no consequences'.  Historically 'one drop' of black ancestry was enough to subject you (at least in theory) to Jim Crow laws, which is probably why the affirmative action identification rules are so vague.

Personally I'm opposed to affirmative action, and this sort of thing is one reason why, but she was within the letter of the law.

So we end up with empty phrases and performances like this in lieu of anything that would actually improve people's lives.

Politicians are more interested in their own career than in the public well being?    Personally, that's the sort of thing that makes me a libertarian, opposed to the idea of (for example) giving politicians more control over health care.  After all, if single-payer does come about, it'll be designed and run by the very same politicians, still more interested in empty phrases than actual results.

The only time it appeared to have mattered

The trouble with modern racism, including affirmative action, is that everyone is super careful to never document it.  So you can never prove that it didn't matter.  Or that it did.  All we really know is that the hiring committee knew she could be counted as a minority, and that they hired her.  No proof either way if it mattered to their decision, affected anyone else, anything along those lines.

That's the cause of the disparate impact doctrine: can't prove anything, not to the standards of any other court action, but this outcome smells fishy, so we're going to punish you anyway.

unions

The more I read the history, the more my position goes to a pox on both their houses (management and unions). Seems like factories produced an incredible amount of wealth, and lots of people used lots of violence to try to control that wealth.

For modern unions - I'm fine with them so long as they don't use violence. I tend to think 'right to work' is the minimum required by human rights. But...it seems that unions aren't viable when they can't try to cripple or kill 'scabs', which is making them become less and less relevant.

[Krill]

Yeah, unions aren't viable...tell that to Germany. Or the GMC, RCN, Unison...

[ipecac]

over here I'm a Liberal, which is the non Nationalist (i.e. sensible) right wing. 

Sensibility in this modern age just means being in complete denial.

Sanders is one of the only true leftist in the Democrats, and we've all seen how much the establishment idiots in the Dems hate him by rigging the DNC against him, even though he had popular support. That was the biggest strategic blunder of the Democrats in the last election, alienating the true left by picking someone so right wing that even Fucking Trump managed to overtake her on the left on some stances. This is a strategy they have tried for a decade now, they push forward canditates like Barack "Here's Droney" Obama and Bill "Privatice everything" Clinton to appeal to non-crazy Republicans, all the while alienating their true core.

You should back up and think over this again: it worked for Bill and Obama, so it's not actually a terrible strategy. They actually know how to win the presidential elections in the US, Trump however turned out better at centralising than the DNC's latest choice.

[Fenn]

Politicians are more interested in their own career than in the public well being?    Personally, that's the sort of thing that makes me a libertarian, opposed to the idea of (for example) giving politicians more control over health care.  After all, if single-payer does come about, it'll be designed and run by the very same politicians, still more interested in empty phrases than actual results.

Just because it could go wrong doesn't mean it has to. Single payer works very well in, among other countries, Britain and Canada, and Australia before they dumped theirs. It's thanks to single-payer that I've been able to receive life-saving surgery and medication without facing ruinous bills and fees that I would in the States. Placing people's health into the hands of profit-driven businessmen is ridiculous on its face, and you don't need to look far to see how abuse happens: injured people refusing to call ambulances because they're privately owned and charge more than the victim can afford, pharmaceuticals companies raising prices by a thousandfold because they can, rent-seeking by dialysis companies...I could go on. Only a fantastically sheltered or deluded person could imagine that putting a price on people's treatment is good for anybody but wealthy capitalists.

Ultimately, it's true that lasting, stable reforms are impossible under capitalism; career politicians will always tend to be more loyal to their donors and corporate backers than their constituents. But that doesn't mean we should throw up our hands and institute some Ayn Rand dystopia.

[Bacchus]

British healthcare does not work 'very well', notwithstanding the widespread 'pride in our NHS'. Especially for the most common conditions, the standard of care is atrocious. 'Serious' illnesses, e.g. cancer and anything that happens to be politically important, are treated pretty well, but God forbid you just need an ultrasound for some non-lethal concern.

Also single-payer is not the only alternative -- Switzerland leaves health expenditures in the hands of profit driven businessmen and does reasonably well by that. The best way to control profit gouging behavior is freer, more competitive markets. Government bureaucrats prioritize their personal well-being with no lesser vigour than corporate managers, except corporate managers are actually beholden to their clients in a way government employees aren't.

[AdrienIer]

Government employees have no incentive to make things worse for patients, on the contrary their main way of being promoted is to make the situation better. They don't gain anything from making people pay more. Corporations on the other hand gain profits from doing that.
The French system for example is working rather well, although the hospitals are generally understaffed.

[T-hawk]

but God forbid you just need an ultrasound for some non-lethal concern.

The demand for a free good goes to infinity. Supply cannot do so. So the laws of economics dictate that rationing must result.

[Krill]

There are waiting lists for every healthcare system, even gold plated ones. And anyone that expects a national health service to provide every clinical service in existence is also delusional. So yeah, if that is defined as rationing so be it, but private health care still exists in the UK.

[Bacchus]

Government employees have no incentive to make things worse for patients, on the contrary their main way of being promoted is to make the situation better.

Errr. One could easily flip this around and it would work just as well, with managers being promoted when they serve their markets well. Of course both bureaucrats and corporate managers at times have incentives to make things worse, let me count the ways: forced to keep budgets down, underpay staff, make supplies last longer, forced to adhere to KPIs which are frequently arbitrarily chosen, incentivized to keep difficult patients out to avoid deaths and complications, etc, etc. Most importantly, the bureaucrats serve not the patients, but their superiors and supervisors, which opens a whole lot of space for inventive ways to please those without pleasing the patients (pleasing patients is incredibly difficult and can even look hopeless). Private companies in a competitive market, in the final analysis just can't avoid serving patients without going out of business. Public institutions can, and do. Only in some cases does it so happen that the easiest way to please the many supervisors is to actually do a good job for the patients. The last thing you find at the top of any settled bureaucracy, public or private, is action-oriented, grassroots-focused problem-solvers.

[Mardoc]

Yeah, unions aren't viable...tell that to Germany. Or the GMC, RCN, Unison...

Eh, I guess my biggest thing is that I don't much care about unions and I don't have to care about them.  People get a fair deal without being unionized.  Maybe that's path-dependent and it's a good thing unions once existed, maybe it would have happened anyway; doesn't matter to my daily life and I'm glad of it.

Just because it could go wrong doesn't mean it has to. Single payer works very well in, among other countries, Britain and Canada, and Australia before they dumped theirs. It's thanks to single-payer that I've been able to receive life-saving surgery and medication without facing ruinous bills and fees that I would in the States.

It doesn't work for even the US Veterans Administration.  Theoretically every vet has free healthcare for life; in practice most of them end up buying private insurance and staying as far away from the VA as they can.  That's despite vets tending to be photogenic people who can get public sympathy.

I would feel a lot happier about being subjected to single payer if the US government could make it work for those people who are already in US healthcare programs.  Make me jealous of the vets, and I'll consider voting to expand that program.  As it is today, I feel lucky that I don't have to rely on the government.

Ultimately, it's true that lasting, stable reforms are impossible under capitalism; career politicians will always tend to be more loyal to their donors and corporate backers than their constituents. But that doesn't mean we should throw up our hands and institute some Ayn Rand dystopia.

I...there are so many layers of worldview tied together in here, that I can't even start to respond, not without spending pages and pages.  I'll just say that I have no interest in dystopia and that I disagree with you on what leads to it.