Right of most republicans? Have you noticed how progressive Germany is on things like LGBT rights
You mean the country that widely discriminated against homosexuals for most of the 20th century and trailed years behind the US in most of its important gay rights legislation? A country that for years had government-financed priests preach against homosexuality? Is that what you mean by "progressive"?
and socialized healthcare?
You mean its privately run two-tier healthcare system, a system with strict limits on abortion, strong religious exemptions, and strong cost controls? A system without anything like Medicare/Medicaid? Conservatives and libertarians would love such a system in the US (I certainly would), but it would be far too right wing to even be considered in Congress.
Oh I know my history. I am just laughing that you think this has anything to do with the political system at play and even more so that you think that you are immune to it.
So you're saying that "descending into fascism and socialism and Europeans murdering many millions of people and dragging the world into two world wars" has nothing to do with the political system at play?
Since you can't even figure out what "repaying debt" means, I think any further discussion with you about financial forecasting, Keynesianism, or Austrian economics is pointless.
I don't recall the ACA having anything in it that would make insurance companies pay $2800 for a $15 treatment.
The ACA mandates prescription drug coverage and places limits on how much people have to pay for such drugs. As a result, it makes no difference to patients or doctors whether they get cheap or expensive drugs. And since insurance companies get to justify rate increases with cost increases, they don't care either.
We have a _very_ efficient single payer healthcare system. Medicare. All we need to do now is expand it to everybody.
Medicare/Medicaid spends $1.6 trillion dollars. For that money, a "very efficient single payer healthcare system" should cover every single American at German/Canadian/French/British rates and have money left over, yet Medicare/Medicaid only manages to cover 1/3 of the population. So, the problem with Medicare is that it is highly inefficient.
This is what we are talking about: Furthermore, the parliamentary system in Europe has resulted in numerous extremists and dictators taking over, foremost Hitler; people like that have no chance under the US system.
The complete self-destruction of the Weimar Republic and widespread political extremism in Germany make Germany a poster child for the failure of European parliamentary systems.
You picked the one who promised a Muslim ban, is trying to build a wall to keep foreigners who he accuses of being criminals out, and who locks children in cages.
So your complaint about Trump is that he tries to enforce US immigration laws?
At which point Nazis thought they were winning so hard they could openly march in Charlottesville.
Neo-Nazis walk openly on German streets all the time. In some German towns, you can't safely walk on the street if you are a minority or homosexual. And Germany has actual communists in parliament. Germany has extremely high levels of hate crimes, and the German government ignored murders by neo-Nazis for years. People who sit in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
The problem is that under government regulations, Medicare, Medicaid, and insurance companies have no incentive to provide you with the low cost version of the drug.
internationally is that you're buying from countries that have single payer healthcare and therefore can negotiate much, much better drug prices than private insurance companies can/do. The free market doesn't solve drug prices.
You can buy generic Nitrofurantoin in the US for $15 for 14 capsules. That's what the free market provides.
The reason American insurance companies pay $2800 for the same treatment is because under the ACA, they can get away with this crap and maximize their profits.
There really is only one solution and it's single payer.
The US has a large single payer system and it is horrendously inefficient. If you want to use single payer to lower drug prices, you need European-style nationalized healthcare.
The US has a presidential system where it comes down to a choice of two candidates, so the idea that Hitler could never happen when the last election gave you the option of either Hilary Clinton or Donald Trump is clearly wishful thinking.
Can you explain how a choice between Clinton and Trump amounts to "Hitler is just around the corner"?
You can't be both, at least in the classical and European sense of liberalism. Progressivism is the use of government powers to impose progress on the population; liberalism means individual choice, free markets, and personal responsibility.
No, no I do not.
You're right: you really do not "want" majoritarianism, you simply put it out as a convenient political tools: you favor eliminating the electoral college because it helps progressives and Democrats. Once in power, you dispense with democracy altogether.
constantly take up the causes of minorities.
Yeah, just like fascists and communists always do.
Laugh if you like, but Europe descended into fascism and socialism and Europeans murdered many millions of people and dragged the world into two world wars. The US throughout its history committed no crimes that are even remotely comparable.
No chance in the US? You're joking, right? Almost all of our local and state elections, and absolutely all of our Federal elections, are "first-past-the-post", which translates to "winner-takes-all".
That means that about half of voters need to actually approve of a candidate, while under a parliamenteray system, someone like Hitler can get into power through coalition making.
As for control by the corporations, you might wish to reconsider. Studies have been done, and in the US there is almost no chance of any law with popular support happening if the large corporate interests oppose it.
I know those studies, they are bullshit, and you don't have a baseline from Europe anyway.
n which country? As far as I know legislative power is with the parliaments only.
Legislative power is with parliament only, but the prime minister usually also controls their party and is a member of parliament. That's different in the US.
They usually have less power than theUD president, e.g. they can't impose tariffs, or do anything with international treaties. They also need the parliament's approval to go to war.
In many countries no single person could even get as much power as he got, nowadays.
The power of European prime ministers spans the executive and legislative branch. Trump only controls the executive branch, and even there his powers are checked.
It looks likea joke when you tell us that European election systems allow worse people to get in power.
Once the American Supreme Court is arranged right, extremists and dictators will be Constitutional,
SCOTUS has been a tool for abuse of executive power under progressive presidents, starting with FDR. Fortunately, that development seems to have been halted for now at least.
Riiiiight, liberal democracy is under threat from liberals like me who are agitating for more democracy, e.g. the abolishment of the electoral college. Now pull the other one.
You're not a liberal, you're a progressive. And you don't want more liberal democracy, you want majoritarianism, a deeply illiberal form of democracy.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean the country that widely discriminated against homosexuals for most of the 20th century and trailed years behind the US in most of its important gay rights legislation? A country that for years had government-financed priests preach against homosexuality? Is that what you mean by "progressive"?
You mean its privately run two-tier healthcare system, a system with strict limits on abortion, strong religious exemptions, and strong cost controls? A system without anything like Medicare/Medicaid? Conservatives and libertarians would love such a system in the US (I certainly would), but it would be far too right wing to even be considered in Congress.
So you're saying that "descending into fascism and socialism and Europeans murdering many millions of people and dragging the world into two world wars" has nothing to do with the political system at play?
Do tell what you think it has to do with then!
Europeans have been laughing at Americans for centuries. That's because Europeans are illiberal and ignorant.
It's not a question of which is a "better measure": no debt was paid back.
Again, no debt was repaid.
Since you can't even figure out what "repaying debt" means, I think any further discussion with you about financial forecasting, Keynesianism, or Austrian economics is pointless.
The ACA mandates prescription drug coverage and places limits on how much people have to pay for such drugs. As a result, it makes no difference to patients or doctors whether they get cheap or expensive drugs. And since insurance companies get to justify rate increases with cost increases, they don't care either.
Medicare/Medicaid spends $1.6 trillion dollars. For that money, a "very efficient single payer healthcare system" should cover every single American at German/Canadian/French/British rates and have money left over, yet Medicare/Medicaid only manages to cover 1/3 of the population. So, the problem with Medicare is that it is highly inefficient.
Well, it certainly is strong! Stable? Have you slept through the last few years?
Whether it's "moderate" is in the eye of the beholder, but on social and religious issues, Merkel and her party are to the right of most Republicans.
And it was the predecessor of the CDU/CSU that cast the deciding votes making Hitler dictator of Germany. That's the kind of government Germany has.
This is what we are talking about: Furthermore, the parliamentary system in Europe has resulted in numerous extremists and dictators taking over, foremost Hitler; people like that have no chance under the US system.
The complete self-destruction of the Weimar Republic and widespread political extremism in Germany make Germany a poster child for the failure of European parliamentary systems.
And all of that amounts to a stronger separation of powers than in the US... how?
So your complaint about Trump is that he tries to enforce US immigration laws?
Neo-Nazis walk openly on German streets all the time. In some German towns, you can't safely walk on the street if you are a minority or homosexual. And Germany has actual communists in parliament. Germany has extremely high levels of hate crimes, and the German government ignored murders by neo-Nazis for years. People who sit in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
I didn't say that she was party leader, I said that prime ministers have a lot of control over the party.
Yes, retaliatory tariffs under a law created by Congress, not an inherent function of the executive.
Congress has given the president broad freedoms for military action, but the power ultimately still rests with Congress.
Correct: you want the solution that does not work at all.
You can already buy the drug for about $15 per pack.
The problem is that under government regulations, Medicare, Medicaid, and insurance companies have no incentive to provide you with the low cost version of the drug.
You can buy generic Nitrofurantoin in the US for $15 for 14 capsules. That's what the free market provides.
The reason American insurance companies pay $2800 for the same treatment is because under the ACA, they can get away with this crap and maximize their profits.
The US has a large single payer system and it is horrendously inefficient. If you want to use single payer to lower drug prices, you need European-style nationalized healthcare.
Indeed, single payer healthcare with nationalized health providers can lower costs dramatically.
And who would you suggest we vote for? None of the Democrats have actually proposed a European style single payer system for the US.
Yes, it's important not to confuse socialism and communism.
Socialism is when the left infiltrates democracies, destroys them, and then mass-murders their opponents.
Communism is the hypothetical utopia that is supposed to result from socialism.
For more info, read Marx.
Can you explain how a choice between Clinton and Trump amounts to "Hitler is just around the corner"?
The matter isn't settled yet, and within the EU, there are competing corporate interests that have different policy preferences.
You can't be both, at least in the classical and European sense of liberalism. Progressivism is the use of government powers to impose progress on the population; liberalism means individual choice, free markets, and personal responsibility.
You're right: you really do not "want" majoritarianism, you simply put it out as a convenient political tools: you favor eliminating the electoral college because it helps progressives and Democrats. Once in power, you dispense with democracy altogether.
Yeah, just like fascists and communists always do.
Laugh if you like, but Europe descended into fascism and socialism and Europeans murdered many millions of people and dragged the world into two world wars. The US throughout its history committed no crimes that are even remotely comparable.
There are more than two sides. The side I'm on is that of limited government; Democrats universally reject it, and most Republicans obviously do too.
That means that about half of voters need to actually approve of a candidate, while under a parliamenteray system, someone like Hitler can get into power through coalition making.
I know those studies, they are bullshit, and you don't have a baseline from Europe anyway.
Legislative power is with parliament only, but the prime minister usually also controls their party and is a member of parliament. That's different in the US.
Pretty much the same as in the US.
The power of European prime ministers spans the executive and legislative branch. Trump only controls the executive branch, and even there his powers are checked.
That's merely a reflection of your ignorance.
SCOTUS has been a tool for abuse of executive power under progressive presidents, starting with FDR. Fortunately, that development seems to have been halted for now at least.
You're not a liberal, you're a progressive. And you don't want more liberal democracy, you want majoritarianism, a deeply illiberal form of democracy.