Posts: 1,499
Threads: 16
Joined: May 2016
(03-11-2017, 10:44 AM)Odin Wrote: (03-11-2017, 10:30 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: (03-11-2017, 09:46 AM)Odin Wrote: (03-11-2017, 09:38 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Well as long as we're not stopping. Essentially I want to move all the stuff the Federals are doing now back to the States. Which was the original intent anyway.
ETA: Have I mentioned abolishing the 16th and 17th amendments yet?
Ah, all the usual insane reactionary wet dreams. 
For some strange reason I have a feeling that Odin here doesn't even know what the 16th and 17th amendments even do.
Income tax and the direct election of senators.
Yep. The first is a burden on everyone and has twisted the federal government into a monstrosity from a perpetual union of sovereign states (not surprising really), the other is a half-assed attempt to turn the Senate into the House. Both have wrought nothing but disaster.
But the repeal of both is neither insane, nor reactionary. You should travel in red circles more, you'd know that if you did.
Posts: 1,402
Threads: 17
Joined: May 2016
(03-10-2017, 06:19 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: (03-10-2017, 04:22 PM)Galen Wrote: (03-10-2017, 03:50 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: (03-10-2017, 04:22 AM)Galen Wrote: I mark the start of the fourth turning at 2008. While 2024 is a good date my own suspicion is that you will know the fourth turning is ending when it becomes obvious the American Empire is over. Whether that end looks the the end of the British or Roman empires remains to be seen.
Judging from Ryan's Obozocare light bill it is clear that the GOP elites also plan on business as usual. The problem with a fourth turning is that the business as usual is what got you here. It doesn't sound like the GOP base agrees with that plan. This rejection of business as usual is how they ended up with Trump.
As for Ryan I have a feeling that he won't pass his Obamacare 2.0 bill. It's already DOA in the Senate according to such persons as Paul, Cruz and Suzanne Collins. A Libertarian, a Evangelical and a Milquetoast Conservative respectively. In the House the Freedom Caucus won't vote for it, the Democrats are unlikely to (they like Obamacare 1.0 thanks) and there are some 30 other reps saying that they oppose it outside the Freedom Caucus.
When those three groups agree that something is a bad idea your bill is toast. The only thing all of them agree on is that Obozocare has to go so it seems most likely that is precisely what will happen. Indeed, Rand Paul reintroduced the same repeal that already passed last year. I like Rand better when he isn't running for President.
(03-10-2017, 03:50 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: As such he's down 70 votes from the 218 he needs to pass. Since it is such a major policy item for his agenda I suspect that he will likely be forced to resigned if he can't pass the bill out of the House. I honestly believe it is DOA in the Senate for various reasons (and would likely be vetoed if it by some miracle ended up on Daddy's desk).
I very much doubt Trump is going to get the debt ceiling increase he has hinted that he wants without some major spending cuts to go with it. The Liberty Caucus not to mention the fiscal and social conservatives really don't like Ryan because he is seen as being as spineless as Boehner was.
1. Well not only are those three disparate groups of the GOP against Obamacare 2.0 but so is the expanded base. The GOP establishment may not like it but the Democrats are collapsing and will be relegated to a fringe party soon. There is talk in some circles already that primaries are being planned based on how the votes line up on Obamacare 2.0.
2. I'd be fine with spending cuts. I'm sure there are plenty of things that can and should be cut. We can start with the CIA, NSA, and work our way down to the old New Deal infrastructure. When the water stinks the dam must be broken.
1. How would y'all handle health care, not health insurance? I think the employer based model is really broken. I think health care does not follow the free market model. There's a mismatch between the demand and ability to pay. I'd put the bans on drug imports/inability to get health insurance across state lines at the very top. I think Medicare works just fine, thank you very much. I'd just pull the plug, implement single payer, with Medicare starting at age 0, and repeal Medicare payroll taxes, abolish duplicate stuff like VA care, Medicaid, and CHIP. I'd also ding corporate money grubbing by setting copyrights way back to 20 years, and no special patent extensions for Big Pharma.
2. I agree that the Deep State/MIC/empire project needs to be trimmed way back. There's no reason the US military budget should be larger than the rest of the world's.
3. I'd get rid of corporate welfare like tax breaks and taxing rentier income at a lower rate than earned income.
4. What would y'all free marketers do about automation/outsourced induced unemployment? Moi? I think there's a happy medium between all out "free market" stuff and shit holes like Zimbabwe/Venezuela/former USSR. Growth for growth sake isn't a end all to be all. Economic growth can be high, but at what cost? Should we accept pollution, wealth disparity, and crony capitalism as the trade offs?
5. How would infrastructure be maintained? I don't think a nation of toll roads sounds nice.
6. Should old people work till they drop? I think the IRA/401K model is broken. There aren't very many stock/bond market experts out there.
7. I'd abolish all house buying subsidies like VA,Freddie MAC,Fannie MAE, and whatever other house buying subsidies are out there.
8. In short, I think a base living standard folks should have so folks that fall on hard times don't go stealing, become infectious disease vectors due to hunger, and yeah, just me trying to be a decent human as it pertains to US citizens. As long as citizens are fed, housed, and health is maintained, I'm OK. No a bought house, Ishits , pay TeeVee, aren't part of the package. I have no pay TeeVee and a cheap 25$/month flip phone work OK for me.
---Value Added 
Posts: 1,499
Threads: 16
Joined: May 2016
(03-11-2017, 03:35 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: 1. How would y'all handle health care, not health insurance? I think the employer based model is really broken. I think health care does not follow the free market model. There's a mismatch between the demand and ability to pay. I'd put the bans on drug imports/inability to get health insurance across state lines at the very top. I think Medicare works just fine, thank you very much. I'd just pull the plug, implement single payer, with Medicare starting at age 0, and repeal Medicare payroll taxes, abolish duplicate stuff like VA care, Medicaid, and CHIP. I'd also ding corporate money grubbing by setting copyrights way back to 20 years, and no special patent extensions for Big Pharma.
I don't think there is a Y'all here in this regard. However, I would say we first have to determine if the problem is health care provision (as in are there enough doctors in the right fields for sick people to go to?--bear in mind most people need only a GP for most things).
If the answer is provision I'd start by hiring more doctors. Perhaps getting rid of the AMA would be a good start as they restrict the number of spaces in medical schools. And of course that assumes we he have the problem of a shortage of doctors.
If the problem is insurance, then I would liberalize the insurance markets and abolish employer based health care insurance. Insurance in my view should follow the patient and not be tied to their employment..you know because people quit/get fired/get their job sent of to Chi-nah. (Sorry every time I think of the word China, I immediately think of how Daddy says it.)
On top of that I would clear out the ERs by creating free/low cost clinics for the poor and destitute.
I do not support either medicare or a single payer like Britain though it could be made to work it would just be highly inefficient. Like the VA only worse cause it would involve more people.
In another thread I propose turning over Health Care/Health Care Insurance over to the states. That way Commiefornia can have whatever the hell they want, Florida can have what it wants, Vermont can do its Single Payer thing and so on. [It's a concept I like to call federalism.] The states are closer to the people and can handle this better. One-size fits all leaves one wearing a moo-moo and another a midriff shirt that rips when you move.
Quote:2. I agree that the Deep State/MIC/empire project needs to be trimmed way back. There's no reason the US military budget should be larger than the rest of the world's.
I think there are a whole departments that can be scrapped. The CIA/NSA/DEA are just the top of my list. Basically anything that isn't an enumerated power the Feds can't do.
Chief Justice John Marshall Wrote:This government is acknowledged by all, to be one of enumerated powers. The principle, that it can exercise only the powers granted to it, would seem too apparent, to have required to be enforced by all those arguments, which its enlightened friends, while it was depending before the people, found it necessary to urge; that principle is now universally admitted.
Quote:3. I'd get rid of corporate welfare like tax breaks and taxing rentier income at a lower rate than earned income.
I want to abolish the 16th amendment which would suck all the money straight out of the coffers for such shenanigans.
Quote:4. What would y'all free marketers do about automation/outsourced induced unemployment? Moi? I think there's a happy medium between all out "free market" stuff and shit holes like Zimbabwe/Venezuela/former USSR. Growth for growth sake isn't a end all to be all. Economic growth can be high, but at what cost? Should we accept pollution, wealth disparity, and crony capitalism as the trade offs?
There is. It is called Economic Nationalism. For all the good free markets do internally, attempting to impose a free market model in international markets wherein other countries do not likewise have free markets merely opens one's own economy to exploitation by foreigners. One of the reason why Free Market purists are called "Lolbertarians".
We can have a free market between California and Indiana, and Alabama and Wisconsin but between the US and Chi-nah or Bangladesh not so much.
Quote:5. How would infrastructure be maintained? I don't think a nation of toll roads sounds nice.
Unless you have a easy source of cheap crude the interstate system and suburbia is a white elephant. I of course would promote rail, and do so through private enterprise. State and local roads are of course the province of the States. Construction and maintainence of air port and harbor infrastructure would be the province of either State or Local government, though I do think there is a need for the FAA due to the Commerce Clause.
Quote:6. Should old people work till they drop? I think the IRA/401K model is broken. There aren't very many stock/bond market experts out there.
I don't see why not? That's what boomers expect from Xers and Millenials. Not to sound heartless but the idea of retirement is something that was unheard of a century ago. I'm convinced that retirement killed my grandfather.
Quote:7. I'd abolish all house buying subsidies like VA,Freddie MAC,Fannie MAE, and whatever other house buying subsidies are out there.
Done. The government shouldn't be in the business of giving anyone money to buy durable consumer goods be they a house or a washing machine. Why? Because it distorts the market and causes mal-investment. The less the government (and the Federal Government in particular) is involved in the economic processes of the country the better.
Quote:8. In short, I think a base living standard folks should have so folks that fall on hard times don't go stealing, become infectious disease vectors due to hunger, and yeah, just me trying to be a decent human as it pertains to US citizens. As long as citizens are fed, housed, and health is maintained, I'm OK. No a bought house, Ishits , pay TeeVee, aren't part of the package. I have no pay TeeVee and a cheap 25$/month flip phone work OK for me.
Well intentioned, but it ultimately would fail. If everyone had a guaranteed income of just 12K per year (which is about poverty line) it would cost 3.6 TRILLION (with a T) dollars. Or approximately 25% of the current economy. And that is without figuring out the overhead which would likely eat up an other 25% of the economy.
Personally I think we have seen where the welfare state has lead us--decadence, dependence, and destruction. If there is a need for charities I'm sure that religious, civic and fraternal organizations will spring up to fill the need. Just like they did before the old New Deal came along and started wrecking everything.
Posts: 1,015
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2016
I have long thought that more healthcare provision should be handled by PA's/nurses, leaving doctors for specialty work, except for perhaps a few GPs under whose license the other healthcare providers could operate under. You know, like the military.
Posts: 1,499
Threads: 16
Joined: May 2016
(03-11-2017, 05:19 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: I have long thought that more healthcare provision should be handled by PA's/nurses, leaving doctors for specialty work, except for perhaps a few GPs under whose license the other healthcare providers could operate under. You know, like the military.
We could do that with those free/low cost clinics for the destitute/poor. Of course that assumes provision is the problem and not insurance. I think we have to determine what the problem really is first.
One of the reasons why I think Obamacare is failing. There wasn't an exploration of what the real problem is, only the assumption that health care and health care insurance are the same thing. But I really didn't expect better from politicians (left or right).
Posts: 1,015
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2016
Honestly, I suspect it's an issue of pricing. Opaque, arbitrary, inefficient pricing.
Posts: 1,499
Threads: 16
Joined: May 2016
(03-11-2017, 05:37 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: Honestly, I suspect it's an issue of pricing. Opaque, arbitrary, inefficient pricing.
Possibly. The whole idea behind employer based health care insurance was during WW2 there were caps put on the wages employers could offer employees. Naturally since wars cause full employment, and there were these caps employers started to offer "other benefits" to their employees to either attract workers or keep them from going to the war plant down the street. (Not much that could be done if they got drafted unless they were in a vital industry--my Interbellum Great Uncle got called up four times but was not conscripted because he was a semi-skilled laborer in an ice plant that produce dry ice for shipping out perishable rations or some thing to that effect. Never got the details from him.)
As such since it was a matter of adjusters, corporate bureaucrats and accountants all talking to each other that leads to tons of loopholes, tricks and twists and turns and other instruments to make it too complex for someone without specialist training to understand. This of course leads directly to Opaque, arbitrary and inefficient pricing--exacerbated because the charges for services are now paid not by the consumer to the producer but by a third party to the producer on behalf of a consumer.
Over all I think if we're talking about health insurance alone as being the problem the quick, clean and not dirty way to do it is to simply open up all the markets to everyone, across state lines, and allow people to buy their own plans. At the same time we should abolish the employer based health insurance program...it add to corporate overhead and makes it far more difficult to run and start businesses.
On top of that if people buy their own insurance, it follows them whether they work for company ABC or company XYZ. It would definitely end the cycle that many blue collar workers have (or at least had) of suddenly losing their insurance when the Plant laid off for retooling or whatever.
Failing such a solution, turn the issue over to the states. I think attempting to tackle this on the federal level will result in a system that doesn't work very well, costs too much and makes everyone unhappy.
Posts: 1,402
Threads: 17
Joined: May 2016
(03-11-2017, 05:37 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: Honestly, I suspect it's an issue of pricing. Opaque, arbitrary, inefficient pricing.
Yes. We have a winner here.
http://kfor.com/2013/07/08/okc-hospital-...es-online/
---Value Added
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
(03-11-2017, 06:52 AM)Galen Wrote: (03-10-2017, 06:19 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: 1. Well not only are those three disparate groups of the GOP against Obamacare 2.0 but so is the expanded base. The GOP establishment may not like it but the Democrats are collapsing and will be relegated to a fringe party soon. There is talk in some circles already that primaries are being planned based on how the votes line up on Obamacare 2.0.
2. I'd be fine with spending cuts. I'm sure there are plenty of things that can and should be cut. We can start with the CIA, NSA, and work our way down to the old New Deal infrastructure. When the water stinks the dam must be broken.
Not a bad set of choices for spending cuts which I could easily get behind. Not quite the destination that I wish for but still a damn fine start.
The survival and success of the USA and the world depends totally on us NOT arriving at the destination that you seek.
"It’s harder to build than to destroy" (from Odin's quote).
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
(03-11-2017, 05:19 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: I have long thought that more healthcare provision should be handled by PA's/nurses, leaving doctors for specialty work, except for perhaps a few GPs under whose license the other healthcare providers could operate under. You know, like the military.
Kaiser-Permanente operated that way, as I recall. One did not get to see a specialist unless one needed one.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
|
