Presidential election, 2016

[Bob Butler 54]

(12-30-2016, 07:06 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: What values are you talking about? His working values or your retirement values? Talking values and using values without any knowledge explanation and clarification pertaining to the values in play appears to be par for the coarse. OK. Now quit and go away believing that your values won.

My values didn't change significantly when I retired. My position on issues related to this discussion did not change in the least when I retired. That's not a factor for me.

The Four Freedoms reflect basic progressive values, and are important to me.

There is the usual question on when regulations and entitlements might be beneficial, and when they become harmful. This is part of the usual red / blue conflict. In this case, I tend to think that wider health care coverage is worth the unintended consequence of a few contractors having to become full time employees. The impact on Warren's job status was significantly less than that of a death by denial of health care. This is important to me, seemingly less important to others.

I'm not sure winning or losing is pertinent, that Warren and I are locked in some contest. Both of our world views are well enough defended that significant change is unlikely. It seems vaguely useful to review Progressive Values 101, starting with the Four Freedoms as base premise. At a guess, clarifying base progressive values from bedrock will draw more attention and perspective change among progressives than among conservatives. I'm writing more for fellow progressives than for conservatives. Conservatives are unlikely to comprehend or sympathize.

I am sorry that you can't follow the discussion. I might try to make it even simpler and plainer, but really listening to other people's values is really hard and writing with sufficient clarity that it might possibly happen is no easier.

At core, people with strong world views don't want to have their world views changed. That's hard enough to overcome that one shouldn't expect it.

[Warren Dew]

(12-30-2016, 07:50 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-30-2016, 07:06 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: What values are you talking about? His working values or your retirement values? Talking values and using values without any knowledge explanation and clarification pertaining to the values in play appears to be par for the coarse. OK. Now quit and go away believing that your values won.

My values didn't change significantly when I retired.  My position on issues related to this discussion did not change in the least when I retired.  That's not a factor for me.

The Four Freedoms reflect basic progressive values, and are important to me.

There is the usual question on when regulations and entitlements might be beneficial, and when they become harmful.  This is part of the usual red / blue conflict.   In this case, I tend to think that wider health care coverage is worth the unintended consequence of a few contractors having to become full time employees.  The impact on Warren's job status was significantly less than that of a death by denial of health care.  This is important to me, seemingly less important to others.

Actually, people like Classic X and I merely realize there was no "death by denial of health care" going on, since ever since the 1980s, emergency room services could not be refused based on ability to pay.

This is in contrast to progressive systems like the British NHS, where the health care system had an explicit "liverpool care pathway" that involved purposely denying food and water to patients to hasten their passing.  That's  what the progressive value system actually leads to in practice.

[Warren Dew]

(12-30-2016, 08:36 PM)taramarie Wrote: "That's  what the progressive value system actually leads to in practice."
I do not know about England but ever heard of something like that in my country and we are probably more than likely a Republicans living nightmare. Consider the differences around the world to gain a wider view of how progressive systems are approached.

New Zealand has a population less than 1/10 that of the UK and barely more than 1% of that of the US.  You also have a tremendous amount of natural resources per person, including twice as much land area per person as the US.  Unfortunately, New Zealand cannot be used as a model for the rest of the world, not unless you're planning genocidal depopulation first.

[Bob Butler 54]

(12-30-2016, 08:30 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Actually, people like Classic X and I merely realize there was no "death by denial of health care" going on, since ever since the 1980s, emergency room services could not be refused based on ability to pay.

They can't turn away an emergency, but they sure don't provide the preventative medicine that could have prevented the emergency from happening. There is also a financial scramble that results from the government mandating services without providing funds to pay for it. Somebody pays, whether it is in terms of bad unpaid for coverage or increased expenses for those who can pay bills.

I do, however, believe that people like you and Classic X wouldn't realize this.

[Eric the Green]

(12-30-2016, 06:48 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-30-2016, 06:39 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-30-2016, 05:56 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-30-2016, 05:46 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(12-29-2016, 09:01 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Me, I'd rather everyone do as well as possible.

But what does this mean?  Possible covers a lot of territory. Put bluntly, are there any economic outcomes that could occur in the next four years that would cause you to revolt against the party in power that you current support? Or is any outcome acceptable if under your team, because you will assume that was all that was possible?

I don't vote based on party; I vote based on policy.  You have a reasonable idea of the policies I support.  If the Democrats were to switch to my preferred policies, while Trump switched to yours, then I'd switch my vote - but then, you'd probably switch your vote too.

I'm less likely to switch parties at this point. I don't trust the Democrats at all at this point.

They'd have to show that they would actually work toward sensible policies; promises would not be sufficient.  I don't expect this to be put to the test; political parties can't change their platforms that easily, as it's easier to lose votes than to gain them.

Democrats have been accomodating to Republicans and trying to be Republicans too often. I sure hope that the Democrats never adopt the policies that you two guys consider "sensible." We already have a Party that advocates those policies; we don't need two. As a matter of fact, we don't really need one.

[Classic-Xer]

(12-30-2016, 07:50 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-30-2016, 07:06 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: What values are you talking about? His working values or your retirement values? Talking values and using values without any knowledge explanation and clarification pertaining to the values in play appears to be par for the coarse. OK. Now quit and go away believing that your values won.

My values didn't change significantly when I retired.  My position on issues related to this discussion did not change in the least when I retired.  That's not a factor for me.

The Four Freedoms reflect basic progressive values, and are important to me.

There is the usual question on when regulations and entitlements might be beneficial, and when they become harmful.  This is part of the usual red / blue conflict.   In this case, I tend to think that wider health care coverage is worth the unintended consequence of a few contractors having to become full time employees.  The impact on Warren's job status was significantly less than that of a death by denial of health care.  This is important to me, seemingly less important to others.

I'm not sure winning or losing is pertinent, that Warren and I are locked in some contest.  Both of our world views are well enough defended that significant change is unlikely.  It seems vaguely useful to review Progressive Values 101, starting with the Four Freedoms as base premise.  At a guess, clarifying base progressive values from bedrock will draw more attention and perspective change among progressives than among conservatives.  I'm writing more for fellow progressives than for conservatives.  Conservatives are unlikely to comprehend or sympathize.  I am sorry that you can't follow the discussion.  I might try to make it even simpler and plainer, but really listening to other people's values is really hard and writing with sufficient clarity that it might possibly happen it is no easier.

At core, people with strong world views don't want to have their world views changed.  That's hard enough to overcome that one shouldn't expect it.

The Four Freedoms didn't include healthcare. The Freedom from Want  focused on the basic needs for food, clothing and shelter. Evidently, progressives WANT more than just them today. Progressives appear to always want more and expect everyone else to pay for what they want as well.

[Galen]

(12-31-2016, 03:00 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: The Four Freedoms didn't include healthcare. The Freedom from Want  focused on the basic needs for food, clothing and shelter. Evidently, progressives WANT more than just them today. Progressives appear to always want more and expect everyone else to pay for what they want as well.

That is just it, they expect everyone else to pay for their wet dreams.

[Bob Butler 54]

(12-31-2016, 03:00 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: The Four Freedoms didn't include healthcare. The Freedom from Want  focused on the basic needs for food, clothing and shelter. Evidently, progressives WANT more than just them today. Progressives appear to always want more and expect everyone else to pay for what they want as well.

In 1941's State of the Union speech, FDR declared the Four Freedoms, not quite a year before the US became active in World War II.  In 1948 Eleanor made them more specific in the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, otherwise known as General Assembly Resolution 217 A.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25 Wrote:(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

While FDR in 1941 was too busy getting the nation ready to enter World War II to go into the same level of detail that Eleanor later achieved, Article 25 seems to me to be a pretty good summary of 'Freedom from Want'.

Do you not believe the above to be reasonable goals?  Are there any of the above that you do not believe necessary for yourself?  Does it matter to you that we technically are bound by treaty to strive towards these goals?  At any rate, while you can quibble on whether the above ideals and principles should be attributed to Franklin or Eleanor, they remain important to me and to many progressives.

Anyway, the thought at the time was that if the Universal Rights could somehow be provided, that there would be a lot less violence in the world. Today, we Boomers are thought of as idealistic.  The Missionary and GI generations had us beat in that department.  The GIs aren't called the 'Greatest Generation' for nothing.  They were really really ambitious, and would throw themselves and their government at any and all problems, all at once.  That was the time that America was Great.

Today, their dreams and goals are forgotten by many, everywhere in the world.

FDR Wrote:In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.

The first is freedom of speech and expression -- everywhere in the world.

The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way -- everywhere in the world.

The third is freedom from want, which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants -- everywhere in the world.

The fourth is freedom from fear, which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor -- anywhere in the world.

That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and generation. That kind of world is the very antithesis of the so-called “new order” of tyranny which the dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb.

[David Horn]

(12-29-2016, 09:01 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-29-2016, 02:57 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-29-2016, 12:15 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(12-28-2016, 09:36 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-28-2016, 02:39 PM)David Horn Wrote: There are many types of contractors in this world, and I've employed some and been some as well. I have a hard time believing that your status became illegal under BHO, but was OK prior to that.

Independent software contracting.  The issue is that there's a lot of regulatory flexibility regarding how much pressure is put on employers to provide employee style benefits like health care to contractors.  Under Obama, that pressure rose high enough that many software employers simply stopped using independent contractors, even when those contractors had their own health insurance and such.

I tend to agree that those changes were warranted.  Companies love to use the mantel of 'contractor' to avoid the responsibilities they have to employees.  Uber is a prime example.  When the companies punt, and their not-employees need healthcare, the taxpayer pays.  That's just wrong.

Being a former software guy, I'm also not weeping over how poor off you are.  Poor guy, having to survive on an engineer's salary.  The Democrats working to assure benefits for those who really need them while the Republican look out for those who don't need looking out for seems par for the course.

So basically you're saying you want to tear down everyone who does better than you.  Got it.

Me, I'd rather everyone do as well as possible.

Ok, but not at others expense.  Structuring the economy to benefit the top 5-10% is what we've been doing for 40 years.  The rest are getting mad (see Trump, Donald J).  When they find themselves in worse shape rather than better, Katy bar the door.

[David Horn]

(12-30-2016, 08:00 AM)Odin Wrote:

(12-30-2016, 01:09 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: private sector's (Republican/Libertarian voters) and the public sectors (Democratic/Progressive voters).

This is complete nonsense.

Nonsense, certainly.  However, it is the public sector that has been systematically underfunded ever since Richard Nixon managed to win in '68.  It's been through periods of better and worse, but, frankly, we're so far outside the norm now that we're embarrassing ourselves.  We need a massive infrastructure program because we have allowed personal greed to underfund roads, bridges, electric grids, communications (fiber and 5G) and so much more.  We need more housing in cities, because the demand is pushing the price envelope right off the page.  We need expansive rail networks, including hi-speed, that will reduce the pressure to live in the city to work in the city. 

Most of all, we need a 21st century version of the rural electrification project to allow 21st century jobs to exist outside the dense urban areas.  Until 10Gbps internet connections are ubiquitous, there will be decline in the less populated areas.  Coal is dead and most extraction industries are declining.  The people in areas dependent on those industries can either flee or change careers.  This decline is due entirely to the world economy.  It has noting to do with the EPA or regulations, and the sooner the right comes to understand that, the sooner we move ahead.

We're never going back ... not ever.

[David Horn]

(12-30-2016, 05:22 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-30-2016, 01:58 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I don't want to do stuff to knock you down economically as I'd likely be knocking myself down in the process.

And yet you just said you were happy about policies that knocked me down economically.  Granted they didn't knock you down, you being retired and all.  That makes it pretty clear where you stand.

Let me try this.  I'm opposed to letting you  have free reign if, in the process, 100 others are hurt.  That's especially the case when you are not in any danger of penury and they are.

[David Horn]

(12-30-2016, 05:48 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-30-2016, 05:40 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(12-30-2016, 05:33 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-29-2016, 09:38 PM)taramarie Wrote: I do not think that is what he is saying. The way I see it he wants to help people who need it. For me that would qualify people who have certain disabilities, mental and physical, women or men with small children or those who have lost jobs. Just to name a few. Note he says "benefits for those who really NEED them." This I do agree with.

Since I have three small children, I would qualify by your definition.  Perhaps you should modify your perception of what he is saying?

Not at all. Single people who have to care for tiny ones cannot work. That was the case with my mother for instance. Unless you are hiring people to look after the wee ones. If they are below kindergarten age those people should qualify. If you are hiring someone to look after the wee ones I have to say you are not really there for the kids physically.

Ah, so you think the government should only worry about single parents, thus encouraging single parenting.  I think that's terrible social policy, and it would be better to facilitate day care affordability for all parents, but I guess that's one of the red/blue divisions, that those on the red side think traditional families are also acceptable.

I'm all for free and available daycare for all -- just like public education, police protection and healthcare.  Two of those are opposed by your side, not mine.  So which is it? 

FWIW, I ran a small business with my former wife.  We had no living parents, so no built-in support.  We struggled and nearly crashed more than once.  During those times, a broader commonweal would have been the difference between basic survival and getting ahead -- to the benefit of me, my family and society in general.  I would have paid more in taxes, hired more workers and no downside I can see.

[pbrower2a]

(12-30-2016, 06:39 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-30-2016, 05:56 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-30-2016, 05:46 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(12-29-2016, 09:01 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Me, I'd rather everyone do as well as possible.

But what does this mean?  Possible covers a lot of territory. Put bluntly, are there any economic outcomes that could occur in the next four years that would cause you to revolt against the party in power that you current support? Or is any outcome acceptable if under your team, because you will assume that was all that was possible?

I don't vote based on party; I vote based on policy.  You have a reasonable idea of the policies I support.  If the Democrats were to switch to my preferred policies, while Trump switched to yours, then I'd switch my vote - but then, you'd probably switch your vote too.

I'm less likely to switch parties at this point. I don't trust the Democrats at all at this point. I do feel sorry for the honest Democrats who are going to find themselves being caught up in the middle of a mess that they had nothing do with and relatively no control over politically.

This is not the Republican Party that I knew as a kid, the Democratic Party that had room for liberals. This is a clique devoid of conscience, one that honors power and neglects service. It has morphed into a semi-fascist monstrosity. Politics for the contemporary GOP is about enforcing the will of economic elites and not about serving people outside those elites.

[Bob Butler 54]

(12-31-2016, 09:55 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(12-30-2016, 05:22 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-30-2016, 01:58 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I don't want to do stuff to knock you down economically as I'd likely be knocking myself down in the process.

And yet you just said you were happy about policies that knocked me down economically.  Granted they didn't knock you down, you being retired and all.  That makes it pretty clear where you stand.

Let me try this.  I'm opposed to letting you  have free reign if, in the process, 100 others are hurt.  That's especially the case when you are not in any danger of penury and they are.

That's...  interesting.  It's also kind of vague.  I don't have a good enough feeling for what you want to do to give it a blanket endorsement.

I would like to endorse and push for implementation of UDHR Article 25 -- basically the Roosevelt's Freedom from Want -- which broadly defines a floor below which those in danger of penury ought not to be allowed to fall.  This is not a trivial task, nor a cheap one.  Obama's goal of getting more people health care is part of it.

I have no interest at all in a ceiling above which the rich are not allowed to rise.  Zero interest.  None.

However, paying for UDHR 25 will make a lot of the very rich less very rich, a lot more than 100 of them.  I'm thinking that the very rich might define 'hurt' differently than one in danger of penury.  Having fewer yachts, in my opinion, shouldn't count as 'hurt'.

I'm not a Marxist, out to destroy the capitalist investment class.  I do see the excessive wealth and power of the capitalist investment class as a problem, though.  Marx described the problem well enough, but his solutions stank.  

If you can agree that UDHR 25 is a reasonable goal, I'd be pleased to talk to you about how to achieve it with as small an impact as possible on the capitalist investment class, software contractors, or any other group you'd care to bring up.  If you insist that we ought to strive to get something for nothing, I'll call shenanigans.

[Warren Dew]

(12-31-2016, 09:55 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(12-30-2016, 05:22 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-30-2016, 01:58 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I don't want to do stuff to knock you down economically as I'd likely be knocking myself down in the process.

And yet you just said you were happy about policies that knocked me down economically.  Granted they didn't knock you down, you being retired and all.  That makes it pretty clear where you stand.

Let me try this.  I'm opposed to letting you  have free reign if, in the process, 100 others are hurt.  That's especially the case when you are not in any danger of penury and they are.

In this case, though, no one would have been hurt, if the administration had merely kept the policy of requiring proof of health insurance.  In fact, with Obamacare, they wouldn't even had to require proof of health insurance, since that was verified through tax law.

Instead, they used excessive regulatory enforcement to force people into employee status and take away peoples' control over their own lives, because the progressive ideal is to require everyone to live the way the government thinks they should, rather than the way they personally would prefer.

[Kate]

(12-30-2016, 09:55 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-30-2016, 08:30 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Actually, people like Classic X and I merely realize there was no "death by denial of health care" going on, since ever since the 1980s, emergency room services could not be refused based on ability to pay.

They can't turn away an emergency, but they sure don't provide the preventative medicine that could have prevented the emergency from happening.  There is also a financial scramble that results from the government mandating services without providing funds to pay for it.  Somebody pays, whether it is in terms of bad unpaid for coverage or increased expenses for those who can pay bills.

I do, however, believe that people like you and Classic X wouldn't realize this.

Emergency rooms are only obligated to stabilize a patient. Say you come in because you blacked out? You have a horrible headache? A scan reveals you have a brain tumor. The ER does not treat that. They give you a high dose of steroids and a sheet of paper with referral information for oncologists. You call the oncologists office and they want to know what insurance you have before you can get an appointment. 

My BIL broke his leg in a car accident (car vs bike). The hospital ER put a cast on it and told my MIL she had to take him home like that, no weight bearing. She weighs about 90 lbs soaking wet. He is closer to 300. I don't know how they thought that was safe for anyone..

[David Horn]

(12-30-2016, 06:48 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-30-2016, 06:39 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I don't vote based on party; I vote based on policy.  You have a reasonable idea of the policies I support.  If the Democrats were to switch to my preferred policies, while Trump switched to yours, then I'd switch my vote - but then, you'd probably switch your vote too.
I'm less likely to switch parties at this point. I don't trust the Democrats at all at this point.

They'd have to show that they would actually work toward sensible policies; promises would not be sufficient.  I don't expect this to be put to the test; political parties can't change their platforms that easily, as it's easier to lose votes than to gain them.

Both of you are engaging in a debate style that says, "Show me something better", but fails to define what qualifies as better ... except for you personally perhaps.  Public policy that focuses on benefits flowing to the least in need may make you happy personally, but they fail miserably in the 'general prosperity' department.  Personal advancement is the job of the individual.  A strong economy is the job of society as a whole and its prime agent: the government.

Success is not always achieved, but ignoring the issue leads to failure far more often than not.

[David Horn]

(12-30-2016, 08:30 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Actually, people like Classic X and I merely realize there was no "death by denial of health care" going on, since ever since the 1980s, emergency room services could not be refused based on ability to pay.

This is in contrast to progressive systems like the British NHS, where the health care system had an explicit "liverpool care pathway" that involved purposely denying food and water to patients to hasten their passing.  That's  what the progressive value system actually leads to in practice.

So you think that a policy that benefits you by hurting others is OK if the others are healthcare providers or taxpayers.  Free healthcare is oxymoronic.  It costs money to provide even cursory care.  Worse, sending the less than seriously sick and injured to the ER raises healthcare costs for everyone.  There is no healthcare delivery system that is more expensive than the ER.  You do know that hospitals just off-load the cost on insured patients or get taxpayer subsidies, right? 

And the NHS is not starving people to death.  That's nonsense.  Actually, the NHS rated #1 in the world for healthcare outcomes in 2015.  The US has never been in the running, and cost is not part of the evaluation.  Once cost is added, the NHS REALLY looks good!

[Classic-Xer]

(12-31-2016, 02:30 PM)taramarie Wrote: Jeeeeeez....glad I am in NZ.

In America, you'd receive the same level of healthcare that you receive in New Zealand for almost nothing. Right now, one third of your income goes to your government to provide you with healthcare and whatever else your government provides. It isn't like that in America. In America, you don't pay federal taxes until you hit a certain level of income (which you would be below at this time) and whatever you receive as far as support from the federal level wouldn't cost you anything. Right now, a substantial number of Americans don't pay taxes but receive all kinds of benefits/subsidies.


For the last time, you don't know America as well as I do. You don't know Americans as well as I do. You don't know Republicans at all because you have none. How hard would it be for China to step in with a similar system already in place? Me, I'm glad that I'm in the United States with at least 64'000'000 American who would give China all kinds of fits because its system is so much different than your countries. BTW, 64,000,000 at least is ten times larger than 6,400,000. Perspective.

[Classic-Xer]

(12-31-2016, 01:29 PM)Kate Wrote:

(12-30-2016, 09:55 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-30-2016, 08:30 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Actually, people like Classic X and I merely realize there was no "death by denial of health care" going on, since ever since the 1980s, emergency room services could not be refused based on ability to pay.

They can't turn away an emergency, but they sure don't provide the preventative medicine that could have prevented the emergency from happening.  There is also a financial scramble that results from the government mandating services without providing funds to pay for it.  Somebody pays, whether it is in terms of bad unpaid for coverage or increased expenses for those who can pay bills.

I do, however, believe that people like you and Classic X wouldn't realize this.

Emergency rooms are only obligated to stabilize a patient. Say you come in because you blacked out? You have a horrible headache? A scan reveals you have a brain tumor. The ER does not treat that. They give you a high dose of steroids and a sheet of paper with referral information for oncologists. You call the oncologists office and they want to know what insurance you have before you can get an appointment. 

My BIL broke his leg in a car accident (car vs bike). The hospital ER put a cast on it and told my MIL she had to take him home like that, no weight bearing. She weighs about 90 lbs soaking wet. He is closer to 300. I don't know how they thought that was safe for anyone..

I've never left a hospital without hospital assistance being involved with getting me into the car. If wanted healthcare for the poor, you should have passed healthcare for the poor and left it at that instead of FUCKING UP my healthcare with the piece of crap that a group of clueless DEMOCRATS (clueless as in did not read or did not know WTF they even passed). When I see an educated Senator say, I don't exactly know but I'm sure it'll be fine, hopefully. I begin to ask questions about the Democrats and there voters.