The Politics Thread (PLAY NICELY!)

Be very careful throwing around phrases like that. It may be more moral in your eyes but morality is relative, not universal, and is different from person to person. A permanent belief that you hold the moral high ground is a barrier to any sort of constructive debate.

Don't forget - everyone enters a political debate believing they are right. But there's no point in holding a debate if neither side will give an inch.

EDIT: For clarity, that point is intended to apply to all posters in the thread. Please remember why people are here having these discussions with you in the first place.

There is nothing to fund. The rule is the rule. Actually read up on it not just the 30 word google response. The rule covers all people in need of medical services can't be denied based sex, race, etc or based on having insurance or not being able to afford the medical care. That is a great rule and should be expand on by the Republicans currently. Do you know who hates this rule... insurance company. They aren't the middleman on hundred of thousands of transaction a year. They spent alot of money to muddied this laws name... your Google response... is a prime example.

If you want you can argue insurance is important? I disagree.

If you want to argue healthcare for all is unimportant given your arguement it seem hypocritical.

Edit: good wages... I gave you an average wage of someone out of college. Our section 6 (welfare housing) if 10,000 to 12,000 a year and food cost $6000 to $8000 based on our welfare programs. How can someone who makes $46,000 be outside the 400% poverty line and not afford welfare housing bc of paying taxes and healthcare cost. That's why bill Clinton called it crazy.

The Democrats aren't the ones using violence. I wouldn't conflate the two just for the sake of your own arguments.

I doubt the people committing property damage would be fond of being called Democrats, either.

But please, I enjoy your mentioning of this violence. Could you please offer your opinions on the protestor shot by a Milo supporter a few weeks back? After which Breitbart ran the line that one of Milo's supporters was actually shot (and thusly debunked).

When we're talking about "Democrat violence" and bipartisanship and media coverage, I feel this is an event you'd be wanting to offer opinions on!

I'm always careful when using it.

Not wanting people to die vs. being sad about paying a bit more in taxes. There isn't a whole lot of nuance here, and I dislike you as a moderator insinuating things about my motivations that I never said (I do not believe that I always hold some kind of moral high ground. This is disingenuous of you). You wear your badge all the time, and you should be mindful of that. I'd hold colin or anyone else to the same standards, and believe me I am not new to the concept of holding a similar position.

Not to mention "morality is relative" is the precise defense white nationalists use to defend genocidal theories. So, be careful yourself. Morality might be relative, but people ending up dead are a rather objective metric.

Calling people dumb, while I get the personal "be careful" line from @cwarner7264 about inferring there might be a moral value judgement here.

And I bet cwarner wonders why I think his attentions might be biased. It might be because of the repeated lack of anything being done about people calling me stupid

Insurance companies are very much Not Good News. But that doesn't change the fact that EMTALA as a point of discussion was raised by you in an intentional attempt to divert from the actions Republicans made against the ACA.

And your average wage is a better situation than us in the UK are benefitting from, then (average wage is £27k, cross-discipline, cross-age group as far as I'm aware). And yet we pay for state healthcare.

It's certainly possible, eh? Paying for other peoples' healthcare

So does a person making $23000 pounds (I assume... I don't have a symbol) a year pay $5000 in taxes $6500 in health insurance and expected medical expenses? If so your system is just like ours and you should be upset too.

See, the benefit of having it entirely through the state is that health "insurance" (as it functions in the US) is a part of our regular taxation. The NHS (for better or worse, currently going through a bit of "worse" right now) is then funded by the government itself.

Of course we have regular accident insurance, house insurance, car insurance, etc (an unknown driver crashed into our car last week, our premiums have gone up and we're down a whole car - I understand your frustrations with insurance companies in general), but those are separate from care on the NHS that is afforded to every British (?) citizen. Which is of course different to foreign nationals coming in and "claiming" operations on the NHS; trash tabloids tend to overreport on this but the fact of the matter is only live-saving operations are done free of charge (if they quality), and everything else is recouped (and put on a waiting list, too).

https://listentotaxman.com/23000?
Gross pay: £23,000
Income tax: £2,400
National insurance: £1,792.80 (ostensibly towards healthcare)

Net pay: £18,807.20

Plus "Employer's National Insurance" £2,054.54 - (your employer pays this in tax, and theoretically this could be added on to your gross wage otherwise - slightly contentious point).

I don't think you fully understand the american medical system though. American insurance is much different. You appear to have a better system in place. So does canada. So does most of the world.

You lose your car and a payment gets delayed bc you are denied oh well. You miss a month of life saving treatment bc your insurance denies a drug and you have problems. Major problems. It's not something you want a for profit company messing around with.

Edit: my dislike of obamacare isn't the idea that all people shouldn't have insurance. It's the actually application of the law and how it affects our healthcare and the burden we are paying for it.

I'm very aware the American system is worse, sorry if I wasn't clear. And yes, healthcare is infinitely more important than having a working car (except when your partner in the final trimester of a pregnancy, you're learning to drive, and you're still having to pay off the car purchase).

The point I was making there was that I understood your position on insurance companies. I was saying I understood.

You don't want insurance companies meddling with that, I understand it. But sometimes you have to compromise; work within the system that you have, and insurance companies are very hard to dislodge in the American political / economic makeup. I wish, for the sake of the very friends I already mentioned, that this was not the case. But it is, so like thetrophysystem's prophetic advice, you have to work with what you have.

With reference to the UK healthcare system and the way it's funded, I thought I'd throw this into the mix:

https://iea.org.uk/blog/national-insurance-should-be-abolished

But now:

For the record, that is a piece that is for the abolition of the NI portion of our tax, so it kinda makes sense that it's presenting effects in a negative (unsourced) light

Oh I make no bones about that - it's a biased piece. So's this one, but perhaps it has a few more sources:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/gen...-Osborne-should-scrap-National-Insurance.html

Oh, I wasn't criticising you (and the bias is obvious), I just think given the current climate vetting all sources is preferable. I often vet my own links (especially normally if they're sources I tend to agree with). Just a habit of mine!

The Telegraph, for example, is a more conservative-minded paper (tends to align with Conservative party policy, but not always), and thus also likely to tie into disliking a policy that taxes the rich more than it does the poor

That piece also goes a long way to demonising those that are self-employed for the sole benefit of not having to pay as much NI, despite there being a wealth of contextual factors that affect being self-employed that actually make it more difficult in general than working for an established employer. Very pro-corporation, the tone of that piece, heh.

(of note, and unrelated to NI, there have been some really, really dumb Guardian pieces in general too of late. I tend to rate individual authors more than the papers they write for, to this end)

i feel like british politics deserve a thread of it's own

but really i'd prefer it if this thread was renamed "politics" as it is just that general. (obviously we're soon to be talking about the upcoming french elections or at least I hope you all are interested)

@Gorbles
I propose an international trade.

US Receives:
British EU membership
and two of the queens corgis

Britian Receives:
ACA regulation
and a Donald Trump bobble-head that chants "build that wall"

I'm confused. The British get the ACA for themselves? If so, trade accepted. If it means they regulate it for us, then I also accept because they'd make it "function". If it means they get the gift of us regulating it again, I'd sooner move to Britian, and they'd better refuge me if they're being dicks about what the US does, hypocrites.

The british replace british NHS with ACA. We get eu membership, but I'm sure trump can negotiate access the the eu markets and aviod that freedom of movement stuff. We start over with the healthcare law. Preferably with free market system, but I would accept a single payer system, if it runs effectively and efficiently.

Plus, we get two corgis and eliminate our surplus of Donald trump bobble-heads!

I'll keep the NHS thanks.

I dont think you know what cognitive dissonance means, or you are making incorrect assumptions about me again. I am perfectly able to criticise both republicans and democrats at the same time. Flynn messed up, but no the russians are not out to get ya. He wasn't a spy, Trump isn't a spy, and no the intel community is not withholding information from trump in fear that he will leak it to Mr Putin. The real story here is establishment vs outsider.

--
As for the NHS, to be fair, it seems to be decently good from the surface level research i've done into it, though I heard it's not so great when it comes to actual life threatening stuff like cancer where you're better off going to the US or Switzerland? I'm sure actual brits have a better understanding on it than I do though. Much better than the ACA which was basically written by the insurance industry.

I know precisely what it means, and I could well be making assumptions about you.

But then you go onto attempt to downplay and / or outright dismiss foreign intervention in American politics and basically toe either the conservative line, or the really far left line (and somehow I don't think you're really far left, are you?).

Flynn did more than mess up. To call what he did "messing up" while being as demonising of Clinton and the Democrat base as you have been, is an important note r.e. the language that you use that betrays your personal bias. As my language betrays mine (if I, y'know, didn't own up to them). You're crafting language that diminishes the negative import of the actions of the Republican Party, and you've repeatedly used language that either highlights or flat-out exaggerates the actions of the opposing party.

Why?