The Politics Thread (PLAY NICELY!)

x'D I think even the most hardened republican can get abdominal cramps from this :

They are **** targets for budget cuts. I agree. Were it me, I'd choose some questionable targets too. Like, congressional salary, and almost every federally funded program across the board until we re-evaluate their worth (sort of like travel ban until security evaluation, except funding ban until worth evaluation).

As I said, it'd be ideal, to have a tax-sheet at the end of filing, where individuals can opt to fund programs, and the government match tax dollars 1:1. That way, nobody can say, they're funding anything they don't want.

The REAL PROBLEM, is that we're using MORE THAN the tax income of the nation, per person, somehow, someway. It's way more important, that it's effectively reduced, somehow, someway. I doubt Trump will even balance it though, if you want to "feel good about yourself", you hate the pilot, and he'll probably crash and kill the world. I hope your section of the plane explodes across the tarmac first though, just because you were an ******* about it.

Eventually, the money will dry up, and there will be literally no money to give an agency even if we wanted to. The poor might starve, the middle class might turn poor, people might go without, and it'll suck even worse, because it'll be generous usage of money, that caused people who really needed it to starve to death. Some people will make it, become more sufficient with their own resources at their disposal, and be better because of it, as unnecessary government dependency usually leads to disappointment when the government sucks, and the people enjoying government benefits they probably could get by on their own without, are probably going to ruin it for the people who literally needed it to live.

Any questions about what I just typed, should be made in the form of a payment to China for the U.S. Debt. It'll eventually dry up, it's important to spend less, before there's nothing to spend, and the government funding comes in the form of a white envelope that, when you open, releases a white flag that says "bang" on it. We'll see how many students that provides lunches for (which is an amazing use of funding, if not manipulated).

ONE LAST NOTE: Notice how I said "we should fund programs voluntarily with tax money". This guy says he "drunkenly funded 17 federal programs", and I simply ask "is he going to voluntarily do it when it stops coming from taxes"? If not, or if so, why the f*ck is he b**ching about it? Did he want to allot someone else's money, yearly, to the cause too? They'd donate too if they wanted to fund it. We have gofundme now. All federal programs are, is taking money out of your neighbors wallet, and telling them they're paying for this whether they like it or not. It's just getting by, because it's taking barely-noticable amounts of money. Barely-noticable amounts, which are still not enough, which leaves the nation in debt, which will eventually effect the neighbor too.

basically yes that and write to his governor about it because state-wide policy can be different from nation-wide one.

I... I can't tell if you actually live in the states or not... but last I checked, those were mostly included in the final bill. That was the original bill, that was essentially the final bill. Republicans changed little. That government shutdown, iirc, was caused by financial disagreements. Which, they barely rectified, through stupid "we'll still do everything anyway, but somehow spend less" bullshit. Which basically, sums up all of our politicians in general. Assuming that you ARE in the states.

So basically, California. You know what is, and was always, made fun of a lot, even before Trump? California. #justsaying #sorrynotsorry

so much angst x'D......

hard to feel anything apart for hilarity.

I mean sure. and even then I'd be happy enough but you assume every other state's fondness of trump and his policies. I guess I'm talking to a brick wall if I say you're getting a bit ahead of yourself there or would you level with me there?

I'm not in the States, but considering you said "this sounds like the ACA we know and hate", I assumed you were against principles established in the ACA.

Hence me quoting them and asking why they were bad. Which you haven't answered.

You didn't read prior, me saying that it spiked insurance costs, which rose 100% some years and were passed off as "normal", and was enforced by fine despite "paying the insurance" doesn't mean they can "afford to use the insurance with a thousand-dollar pay-in just to use it the first time". A lot of target people for the program to help, were actually unhelped and then charged or fined. Those people, turned against the program hard, in the form of voters.

The "pre-existing condition" clauses, were fine. Trump once spoke, that it's the only clauses he's considering keeping. So far, his order ruling can be interpreted as a company can reconsider preexisting conditions, but he could always change that. Or not. I did mention he's probably destined one way or another to botch things up.

North California, was willing to separate from "Hollywood California" over it, and California claims North California's produce as part of it's "magnificence", so it's really borrowing credibility from others for your own argument, when they do that. It's why California wasn't more than 62% Hillary, but was enough Hillary to "sway the national popular vote". Some people, want LA to have the deciding vote, and some people make fun of California for it's liberal authoritarian oppressive nannystate government of the rich by the right for the rich. So there are two of many possible types of people.

Ask for the angst... when this thread gets like this, I interpret what you want from me. I understand, loud and clear, that you, have selected...

I never pretended the Act was perfect. And yes, it affected costs. But a lot of this was down to how it was changed due to the Republicans stonewalling the entire government process over the bill.

It has affected some people negatively. Other people it has affected positively. Try portraying the whole picture, instead of the picture that benefits you.

And yes, a lot of people were categorically, factually, worse off before it was introduced.

@thetrophysystem Ya...got me partner!


Tell Auntie Em to let Old Yeller Out!

Tell Tiny Tim I won't be coming home this Christmas!

*cough* *wheeze*

Tell Scarlett I do give a damn!

*keels over and dies*


I do find myself at times wondering how old you are even though I know deep down you're much older than
what I picture you. But FYI you do systematically reproduce childlike psychology to the letter. I.E. if I morally back you against a wall your immediate response is to attempt to wound.

That topic again. Today I got a letter from my insurance company that summarized what I spent over 2016 on health insurance. Made me wonder: in the end of all these long discussions of who pays what for whom and who profits from it stands that single number. How much does a person pay for health insurance per year. If it is low everyone ought to be fine with it for themselves personally. If it is high one might reasonably ask "why?".

I am wondering: Do people in the states pay less than I do at some point somehow? You don't have to carry the weight of everyone after all, especially before ACA.

Let's compare what we get from the system where we live like we'd compare any other product: What do we pay, what do we get?

So for Germany:

Right now I am a student and as such am on a reduced payment "student" plan that cost me ~80€ a month.

For normal employees the health care insurance is split 50:50 between the employee and the employer.
It's in the ballpark of 15% of the income of an employee.
So since it is split 50:50 the employee pays ~7.5% and their employer has to pay the same amount extra.
On top of this comes the care-insurance which is another 1% or so, again for both employee and employer.

So for the feeling some numbers: For example somebody may have as gross income of 2100€. The health care cost then are in the ballpark of 180€ a month by the employee and another 180€ by the employer.

All of this is very similar for all public health care insurance institutes, there are many, but the prices are fixed by law within a small margin.

I dunno the price of the insurance in case somebody has no income and is no student, but it is likely similar or less than the student insurance cost and payed by the state obviously.

All of this is completely independent on how healthy you are. Everyone is insured and everyone who is on the "government-plan" pay this much and that's it. There are alternatives of "private insurance companies", but they are mostly for groups of people with higher income and special situations (for example public officials), the vast majority of people are not in that group.

Another thing that may not be that way everywhere is that when you are in the "government plan" to pay at the doctor all you do is you show them your insurance card. The price is not shown to you, you simply don't have to know, that's a thing between the doctor/hospital and the insurance company.

So that's the price. What do you get for this price?

Depending on the insurance company one goes with there may be some extra perks, but those aren't really that important, the important core is the same for all of them by law.

It states that "Anyone insured (so everybody) has a right to get treated for any illness. This includes treatment by a doctor, dentist or psychologist, the necessary supply of medication, etc, pp. needed for treatment, home care, hospital stays, hospital treatment and medical rehabilitation"
Additionally many illness-prevention measures are also included. Keeping people healthy is the most cost efficient way to deal with all this after all.

The patient has to pay medicine of not-so-important medical issues themselves. For example caugh syrup or the like.
The patient has to pay 10-20% of costs of more important medical supplies themselves. However if you happen to be poor (income lower than 11000€ a year) or you have very high medical supply requirements that are higher than 1% of your per-year gross income due to some bad illness you can go and demand this payment to be reduced to 0%.
An exception is at the dentist: If your teeth are really bad and you can't proof you brushed them correctly you'll have to pay 50% of teeth replacement yourself.

If you get sick for a long time the first 6 weeks by law your employer has to continue to pay your full wage.
After that your insurance company will pay you 70% of your gross income or at most 90% of your net income.

Dunno what the conditions are if you get so badly sick that you can never work again. Let's hope I never will

Could be summarized as "You pay maybe 8% of your income to the insurance and for that you get a no-worries care-package"
Although obviously people may see their wage be a little reduced, as the employer has to pay as well for the employee.

So what exactly are the typical conditions in the US?

If I am honest all I know is that apparently "medical costs dept" is a thing there and that, especially before ACA, some people were not insured at all. Sounds pretty bad compared to what I know, so makes me go "wtf are you doing?"

Instead of going all drama about evil socialism and free markets and all that stuff, just comparing what service we get and what we pay for it seems like a way for a somewhat objective debate?

You okay tatsu? Don't worry, I gotchu. Lemme just go get an adult to help you real quick.

Uh... @elodea
Yeah! He seems like a responsible enough person who also seems to be willing to put up with you. No need to thank be, you're very welcome. Don't worry tatsu, just know that, no matter what anyone says, I'll be here to get someone to pick you right back up, dood.

"momy momy!"

falling for the republican ploy :


(you don't see bernie telling you it was the poor guy's fault)

Don't have time today for a major reply. But one question why is socialism evil? Obamacare has socialistic ideas, but it's not fundamentally socialist. In fact, he should have went all the way or none of the way is my compliant. It's an inefficient system that doesn't improve America or its healthcare system(besides preexisting conditions which could have been handle better).

Don't ask me, I just made a little colorful statement there to describe the kind of discussion we already had many pages ago and that didn't lead to anything.

So yeah. Please don't push us down that road again.
Socialism is probably not evil, just like totally uncontrolled free markets probably are also not evil. Both sides clearly have used quite colorful words in the past of this thread, I am definitely guilty of that in some posts.

No. People it benefited, vote in favor of it. People it borked over, voted against it. We took a vote, and Trump won.

That pretty much sums up the ACA. If it benefited so many people, the 80% would have voted and in a landslide elected another democrat. They certainly wouldn't have tried their damnedest to nominate a real ******* liberal, what you'd call a "social democrat", Bernie.

What you want, is for it to have benefited more people than it did, and for people to accept it's fucked up effects on their lives, for the sake of the few it helped.

"Yep, it's true! This unbiased scientist even says she diagnoses him with early symptoms of autism. Since it's a professional giving the diagnosis through a DAMNED COMPUTER MONITOR HAVING NEVER BEEN IN PERSON, you know it's a 100% true diagnosis, they must be autistic."

Sorry, making fun of "professionals" who hopped aboard the anti-Trump bandwagon and diagnosed him with mental disorders having never met him. Because they're professionals, to argue with them would be "alt facts".

You ever think, for a moment, you might be wrong about the "childlike psychology to the letter", like you're wrong about politics or political division or common and routine U.S. Government and History? Remember the Trump signing 297 executive orders a year thing you were laughing at, when Obama signed at a rate of 310 a year in his first 10 days? That, was childish. Hey, Tatsu. Scrotum. I bet you laughed.

Naming no names, I would like to gently remind forum users of a couple of things; their application has been incredibly lax in this thread so far, but I'm really not enjoying the tone of this discussion.

Choice excerpts:

Over the years this forum has managed to maintain an exceptionally positive atmosphere and the PA community has been one of the friendliest I've ever been a part of.

I know political discussions can get heated at times but I've come to expect better of all of you, and I sincerely hope we can raise the bar and return to our previously high standards of decorum.

First, I predate PA, and my tone is a result of grandfather-clause from the Monday Night Combat, which the GAME ITSELF has more crude dialog than I do in these forums. Just remember, if you have a problem with my tone, one day, Uber may just return to make a sequel to MNC and every user will get toxic and be throwing shade all over again, and it'll be new to you so I expect you to freak out a little bit.

Secondly, you expect little out of me at this point, this was established in PA Alpha when I was more involved in the community and "tried". Now, why try to dress up a septic situation with a cliche pine-tree air-freshener?

Lastly, to address the concern, I feel I react appropriately, not always "nicely". This is a dramatization of me acting "nicely" instead of "appropriately", while talking like Surfer-Bro Brad with a terrible Bill Clinton impersonation, as someone chews me out over the forums, naming no names:

I've moderated several forums in my time, I'm sure I'll manage. I don't care what game people are talking about, there is no excuse for toxicity (we're not even talking about a game in this thread). Those same rules were in place on this forum before PA.

Because basic common courtesy isn't a lot to expect of someone.

I am aware that it takes two to tango. That was an appeal to everyone in this thread, and not specifically aimed at you.