With single payer, there could be massive cost-savings,
Indeed. One of my largest objections to Bush's expansion was the government paying essentially full retail price for drugs. What a waste. I don't know if Obamacare addresses this or not.
One difference is that a government "shutdown" is a lot closer to the ideal Tea Party role of government than to the Democratic ideal. In other words, the Tea Party would actually like the Federal Government to stay shut down forever. It's not the horrible end game to them that it is to the Democrats.
a hike in taxes or an end to GitMo.
Might this have anything to do with the fact that, even when in charge, they kept GitMo open and kept renewing the Bush tax cuts? They only became an issue again when the Republicans retook the House, and even now we still have most (half?) of the Bush tax cuts.
shutting down the entire government until very very recently.
They were catching a lot of flak for their "symbolic" votes. Their constituency demanded action. Their constituency doesn't like big government and might even welcome a default. You have to be very careful with these people - they are pretty extreme. One can only hope that the moderates will finally jump ship - which I give even odds prior to a default. But if I were the Democrats I would not be comfortable with those odds.
This line of reasoning terrifies me.
It's not really "reasoning" - it's just plain facts. Congress can change Obamacare at any time they like, and you can make judgements about playing dirty, but that doesn't help the ground war. If the Democrats want to keep Obamacare and they want the government open, it might have to be at the expense of something else. That's just the way it is. I certainly wouldn't mind some compromise that closes the deficit - at least something should come out of this.
second a lot of ambitious people who are actually good at politics will have to join them.
I suspect moderate Republicans might make that jump if they had a realistic 3rd party option - especially in the Northeast.
Right now third parties attract a lot of people who have proven incompetent in the big leagues
I'll go even further than that - they tend to be nutballs. When I lived in NYC, all of the third party candidates were calling for investigations into 9/11. "Truthers".
To be fair, Obama did expand single payer to 1/3 of the uninsured population. But then, Bush expanded Medicare as well, so it isn't really a difference between them.
I agree. But the Republicans seem more wild-eyed and mean-spirited about it. "Food stamps are BAD!" I mean come on, guys...
I'm torn. I mean, I disagree with them on more things than I thought possible, but on the other hand I at least know what I'm voting for. I never would have guessed that Obama would be Bush II on almost any issue that matters.
And the Republicans don't want to be seen as "caving" by their "base" either, and they also only control half of congress.
Exactly! They both just... suck. But at the same time, I can't really fault them - they are all just responding rationally to the incentives put in front of them.
It's like when William F. Buckley died, the Republicans lost their mind.
I agree. I've never felt really comfy with the social conservatism part. Bush made me feel even less of an affinity. But this recent detachment from reality has really made me feel detached. It sucks because while I tend to vote for both Democrats and Republicans, I can't align myself with the Democratic Party either. I can't even figure out what their platform is.
because that's what they used when they started
No need to defend the use - it is pretty funny. But I don't think this is true. They are clearly referencing the Boston Tea Party, and I don't see how that would shorten to "teabagger" unless someone is being funny.
GOP, and especially Tea Party, resistance to Obamacare has been consistent.
Why would I want to live in a country where the GOP does it?
You act as if congress has the same makeup as it did then. Elections took the guys out of power who implemented Obamacare. I understand why the Dems want to protect it, but why pretend it won't be expensive to protect? They are no longer in charge of 100% of congress, and they are going to have to pay dearly if they want to protect their pet programs. Obamacare was enacted by a law, and can be changed by law - it's not magic or special in any way. I happen to think that it replaces a terrible system. It may not be great, but repealing it without another solution is a terrible idea. Going back to our unfunded socialism is the Tea Party's plan and I oppose it.
n a two-party system approval voting is identical to plurality voting.
We don't have a two-party system, though - we just have two successful parties. Every election I've ever voted in had third parties on the ballot, but they get few votes. Third party candidates don't get votes now because the vote is "wasted", but with approval voting there is no harm in casting both your strategic vote (the one "against" the guy you hate) and your third-party vote. It would also be easier for third parties to stay on the ballot since they would likely get more votes each cycle. Once you have other parties getting some significant portion of the vote, the current GOP-Dem bickering is unsustainable.
This "The Democrats Won't Negotiate" talking point is complete nonsense
No it isn't. Neither side has done enough negotiation, and so we are at a stalemate. I am 100% certain that the Democrats could lure the moderate Republicans over without hitting Obamacare, they just don't want to be seen to "cave". That is a ridiculous position when you only control half of the congress.
Don't take this as a defense of Republicans - they are living in dreamland if they think they can damage Obamacare. That is a ridiculous demand and they deserve the blame that they are getting - but the Dems deserve blame as well. They don't seem to understand their opponent's position. The Tea Party is already winning as far as their base is concerned, so I'm not sure why the Dems are acting as if they will back away from that position. The only way out is to give something to the moderate Republicans, IMHO. And I don't mean a 6-week implementation of a small part of Paul Ryan's budget.
Picking out one event in an entire fiscal year is not really fair. The whole congress is to blame. Obama is not being helpful, but he also hasn't actually vetoed anything so I won't be too harsh other than to say it feels like he needs to be a little less aloof.
If you banned donations completely (which would be unconstitutional) they'd still fight battles like this because slightly more then half of them think their job is to represent the people who got creamed in the Presidential election.
I wouldn't go after individual donations, though I would go after corporate donations. I agree that they are doing the bidding of their constituents.
The solution that makes the most sense would be to move towards a more Parliamentary system
I think that more subtle reforms could do the trick:
First, I'd stop gerrymandering. It might mean less minority representation, but oh well. If it really gets pushed, we could let the redistricting algorithm take race into account.
Second, switch to approval voting. Check the boxes of all of the candidates you like and let the computer figure out the candidate that the most people wouldn't object to. This plurality-winner garbage has got to go.
Third, end the feedback cycle of corporate and union money flowing back to the federal government. Strip them of their ability to get involved politically. Make it so that if you want to be involved politically, you have to be a political party - corporations are for economic activity. I'm not talking about Citizen's United - I'm talking about donations and lobbying. I'm not smart enough to have figured out how to solve the problem of free press, but fixing the problem created by Citizens United. I'm all ears:)
First of all, the Democrats do not have a majority in congress - they have a majority in one house of congress. That means they have to compromise, and both parties are trying the tough-guy talk. Second, we don't have a simple "majority rule" democracy. A substantial minority has political power, and pretending otherwise is to ignore reality.
US political tradition of combining 100s of unrelated things into a single bill
A budget IS 100s (actually thousands) of things all combined together.
All of what you said is true, and proof positive that the whole mess needs to be reformed. All of the nitwits in legislature need to go if they can't function together. We need to seriously rethink the incentives they operate under - they are actually raking in donations right now - we are rewarding them!
You are writing as if they didn't have a whole goddamn year to do this. You want me to "rest" because they are finally doing the inevitable? These people are not competent to do their jobs, even if they are simply responding to the incentives we have set up. We need to seriously reconsider how we handle electing these clowns.
So they just... give up? Try harder. If there is a car in your lane coming straight at you, you don't say, "Well, he's in the wrong lane, so I'm not moving!"
And this is without even considering why we are talking about failure to pass a last-second CR, when their job is to budget for the entire year and they have the whole freaking year to do it. No, this is a complete failure of Washington culture. I can't believe they got outsmarted by such a small minority.
They're all stupid, and so are the hardcore "rah rah" team party supporters now donating money. Just about the only winner right now is the Tea Party, who wants a government a lot more like the one we have during the shutdown. So good job Senators, good job moderate Republicans, good job Obama, good job House Dems - way to let the hard-liners win the day. Honestly, how hard would it be for the Dems to recruit a handful of Republicans over to their side for a funding bill? I suspect they would give away very little - maybe even get a tax increase out of it like last year. But then they would be "negotiating with terrorists". What a bunch of hooey. They aren't even being entertaining this time, like when the shutdown happened in the 90s - or maybe this isn't as much fun with "new media".
I was curious so I looked into some of your examples.
Emirates: The UAE is an odd bird in that only 13% of its population are natives - most are foreigners just working there. It seems that if you are one of the natives, you are covered by government-paid health insurance, and if you are a foreigner you are forced into a mandatory insurance system, like Obamacare. According to this article, it is far more socialist than the US: all citizens get free healthcare, free education, subsidized utilities, free land, zero interest loans for homes, etc. All told, citizens average $55,000 each in handouts. About 20% of UAE residents live below the poverty line, compared to 15% of Americans and 6% of the French.
Hong Kong: Provides universal healthcare to citizens through public-run hospitals. While it is true that Hong Kong is known for being a bit stingy with welfare, they do offer free public education for 12 years and subsidize college. They provide subsidized rents to 30% of the population and subsidized home purchases for another 18%. Still, their total social spending compared to GDP is roughly 1/3 that of ours - but ours has gone from around 24% in 2008 to around 30% as a result of the recession. 20% of people there live under the poverty line.
Singapore: I've spent considerable time there. The health care is "free market", but heavily subsidized by a mandatory contribution from your pay check. The free market aspect is nice because it gets people shopping around, but the fact is that the bulk of the cost is still paid for by taxes. If you get really sick and you don't have enough money, the government steps in with a safety net. On the welfare side, they are a pretty good example, but the goverment owns something like 85% of the island and builds all of the housing. And while they do not have government-run social security, they do have mandatory pensions. I have to say that, aside from the whole "self reliance" mentality, the whole place has a "big brother" feel to it. The government is way more in your face... they own everything and they micromanage everything. There is only one real political party, and the newspapers aren't allowed to criticize it. It "feels" more socialist. Singapore doesn't even bother with a poverty line:)
Saudi Arabia: I don't think you meant to put this on the list. It has become a notorious welfare state. The locals get oil money and they bring in foreigners to do all of the work. There is no real economy there except for oil - though the government is working to change that.
I would also point out that of your 4 examples, 2 are oil-rich and 2 are these odd-ball city-states with a very unique history. Hong Kong is one city, yet it has the same population as all of Norway! Comparing the two is only instructive to a certain point.
You can put out a match by dipping it in gasoline.
That's probably true under certain conditions, but most of the time you hear that fact used for heavier fuels like diesel and kerosene/jet fuel. Gasoline has a pretty high vapor pressure compared to the other two, even including butane in the mix depending on the season.
I agree that this is cool stuff. It makes me wish I had a stronger background in chemistry. I went to a really crappy high school and so I was always behind with my chemistry, taking pretty much the bare minimum in college. For the most part I like it (well, maybe not organic), so it's too bad.
Slashdot Mirror
With single payer, there could be massive cost-savings,
Indeed. One of my largest objections to Bush's expansion was the government paying essentially full retail price for drugs. What a waste. I don't know if Obamacare addresses this or not.
so they didn't shut down the entire government
One difference is that a government "shutdown" is a lot closer to the ideal Tea Party role of government than to the Democratic ideal. In other words, the Tea Party would actually like the Federal Government to stay shut down forever. It's not the horrible end game to them that it is to the Democrats.
a hike in taxes or an end to GitMo.
Might this have anything to do with the fact that, even when in charge, they kept GitMo open and kept renewing the Bush tax cuts? They only became an issue again when the Republicans retook the House, and even now we still have most (half?) of the Bush tax cuts.
shutting down the entire government until very very recently.
They were catching a lot of flak for their "symbolic" votes. Their constituency demanded action. Their constituency doesn't like big government and might even welcome a default. You have to be very careful with these people - they are pretty extreme. One can only hope that the moderates will finally jump ship - which I give even odds prior to a default. But if I were the Democrats I would not be comfortable with those odds.
This line of reasoning terrifies me.
It's not really "reasoning" - it's just plain facts. Congress can change Obamacare at any time they like, and you can make judgements about playing dirty, but that doesn't help the ground war. If the Democrats want to keep Obamacare and they want the government open, it might have to be at the expense of something else. That's just the way it is. I certainly wouldn't mind some compromise that closes the deficit - at least something should come out of this.
second a lot of ambitious people who are actually good at politics will have to join them.
I suspect moderate Republicans might make that jump if they had a realistic 3rd party option - especially in the Northeast.
Right now third parties attract a lot of people who have proven incompetent in the big leagues
I'll go even further than that - they tend to be nutballs. When I lived in NYC, all of the third party candidates were calling for investigations into 9/11. "Truthers".
To be fair, Obama did expand single payer to 1/3 of the uninsured population. But then, Bush expanded Medicare as well, so it isn't really a difference between them.
That is a pretty hard position to defend isn't it? LOL.
I agree. But the Republicans seem more wild-eyed and mean-spirited about it. "Food stamps are BAD!" I mean come on, guys...
I'm torn. I mean, I disagree with them on more things than I thought possible, but on the other hand I at least know what I'm voting for. I never would have guessed that Obama would be Bush II on almost any issue that matters.
And the Republicans don't want to be seen as "caving" by their "base" either, and they also only control half of congress.
Exactly! They both just... suck. But at the same time, I can't really fault them - they are all just responding rationally to the incentives put in front of them.
It's like when William F. Buckley died, the Republicans lost their mind.
I agree. I've never felt really comfy with the social conservatism part. Bush made me feel even less of an affinity. But this recent detachment from reality has really made me feel detached. It sucks because while I tend to vote for both Democrats and Republicans, I can't align myself with the Democratic Party either. I can't even figure out what their platform is.
because that's what they used when they started
No need to defend the use - it is pretty funny. But I don't think this is true. They are clearly referencing the Boston Tea Party, and I don't see how that would shorten to "teabagger" unless someone is being funny.
It did this at the last minute.
GOP, and especially Tea Party, resistance to Obamacare has been consistent.
Why would I want to live in a country where the GOP does it?
You act as if congress has the same makeup as it did then. Elections took the guys out of power who implemented Obamacare. I understand why the Dems want to protect it, but why pretend it won't be expensive to protect? They are no longer in charge of 100% of congress, and they are going to have to pay dearly if they want to protect their pet programs. Obamacare was enacted by a law, and can be changed by law - it's not magic or special in any way. I happen to think that it replaces a terrible system. It may not be great, but repealing it without another solution is a terrible idea. Going back to our unfunded socialism is the Tea Party's plan and I oppose it.
n a two-party system approval voting is identical to plurality voting.
We don't have a two-party system, though - we just have two successful parties. Every election I've ever voted in had third parties on the ballot, but they get few votes. Third party candidates don't get votes now because the vote is "wasted", but with approval voting there is no harm in casting both your strategic vote (the one "against" the guy you hate) and your third-party vote. It would also be easier for third parties to stay on the ballot since they would likely get more votes each cycle. Once you have other parties getting some significant portion of the vote, the current GOP-Dem bickering is unsustainable.
Both sides compromised - that's why taxes went up last year and federal government spending (if we ignore entitlements) went down.
This "The Democrats Won't Negotiate" talking point is complete nonsense
No it isn't. Neither side has done enough negotiation, and so we are at a stalemate. I am 100% certain that the Democrats could lure the moderate Republicans over without hitting Obamacare, they just don't want to be seen to "cave". That is a ridiculous position when you only control half of the congress.
Don't take this as a defense of Republicans - they are living in dreamland if they think they can damage Obamacare. That is a ridiculous demand and they deserve the blame that they are getting - but the Dems deserve blame as well. They don't seem to understand their opponent's position. The Tea Party is already winning as far as their base is concerned, so I'm not sure why the Dems are acting as if they will back away from that position. The only way out is to give something to the moderate Republicans, IMHO. And I don't mean a 6-week implementation of a small part of Paul Ryan's budget.
Picking out one event in an entire fiscal year is not really fair. The whole congress is to blame. Obama is not being helpful, but he also hasn't actually vetoed anything so I won't be too harsh other than to say it feels like he needs to be a little less aloof.
If you banned donations completely (which would be unconstitutional) they'd still fight battles like this because slightly more then half of them think their job is to represent the people who got creamed in the Presidential election.
I wouldn't go after individual donations, though I would go after corporate donations. I agree that they are doing the bidding of their constituents.
The solution that makes the most sense would be to move towards a more Parliamentary system
I think that more subtle reforms could do the trick:
First, I'd stop gerrymandering. It might mean less minority representation, but oh well. If it really gets pushed, we could let the redistricting algorithm take race into account.
Second, switch to approval voting. Check the boxes of all of the candidates you like and let the computer figure out the candidate that the most people wouldn't object to. This plurality-winner garbage has got to go.
Third, end the feedback cycle of corporate and union money flowing back to the federal government. Strip them of their ability to get involved politically. Make it so that if you want to be involved politically, you have to be a political party - corporations are for economic activity. I'm not talking about Citizen's United - I'm talking about donations and lobbying. I'm not smart enough to have figured out how to solve the problem of free press, but fixing the problem created by Citizens United. I'm all ears :)
Agreed. This is going to push me towards approval-based voting advocacy.
That's just killing democracy.
First of all, the Democrats do not have a majority in congress - they have a majority in one house of congress. That means they have to compromise, and both parties are trying the tough-guy talk. Second, we don't have a simple "majority rule" democracy. A substantial minority has political power, and pretending otherwise is to ignore reality.
US political tradition of combining 100s of unrelated things into a single bill
A budget IS 100s (actually thousands) of things all combined together.
You don't seem yo understand how hard this is.
All of what you said is true, and proof positive that the whole mess needs to be reformed. All of the nitwits in legislature need to go if they can't function together. We need to seriously rethink the incentives they operate under - they are actually raking in donations right now - we are rewarding them!
Give it your outrage a fucking rest already.
You are writing as if they didn't have a whole goddamn year to do this. You want me to "rest" because they are finally doing the inevitable? These people are not competent to do their jobs, even if they are simply responding to the incentives we have set up. We need to seriously reconsider how we handle electing these clowns.
Which has been subverted several times just this year.
So they just... give up? Try harder. If there is a car in your lane coming straight at you, you don't say, "Well, he's in the wrong lane, so I'm not moving!"
And this is without even considering why we are talking about failure to pass a last-second CR, when their job is to budget for the entire year and they have the whole freaking year to do it. No, this is a complete failure of Washington culture. I can't believe they got outsmarted by such a small minority.
They're all stupid, and so are the hardcore "rah rah" team party supporters now donating money. Just about the only winner right now is the Tea Party, who wants a government a lot more like the one we have during the shutdown. So good job Senators, good job moderate Republicans, good job Obama, good job House Dems - way to let the hard-liners win the day. Honestly, how hard would it be for the Dems to recruit a handful of Republicans over to their side for a funding bill? I suspect they would give away very little - maybe even get a tax increase out of it like last year. But then they would be "negotiating with terrorists". What a bunch of hooey. They aren't even being entertaining this time, like when the shutdown happened in the 90s - or maybe this isn't as much fun with "new media".
Cool, thanks for the info. This is why I hang around here. :)
I was curious so I looked into some of your examples.
Emirates: The UAE is an odd bird in that only 13% of its population are natives - most are foreigners just working there. It seems that if you are one of the natives, you are covered by government-paid health insurance, and if you are a foreigner you are forced into a mandatory insurance system, like Obamacare. According to this article, it is far more socialist than the US: all citizens get free healthcare, free education, subsidized utilities, free land, zero interest loans for homes, etc. All told, citizens average $55,000 each in handouts. About 20% of UAE residents live below the poverty line, compared to 15% of Americans and 6% of the French.
Hong Kong: Provides universal healthcare to citizens through public-run hospitals. While it is true that Hong Kong is known for being a bit stingy with welfare, they do offer free public education for 12 years and subsidize college. They provide subsidized rents to 30% of the population and subsidized home purchases for another 18%. Still, their total social spending compared to GDP is roughly 1/3 that of ours - but ours has gone from around 24% in 2008 to around 30% as a result of the recession. 20% of people there live under the poverty line.
Singapore: I've spent considerable time there. The health care is "free market", but heavily subsidized by a mandatory contribution from your pay check. The free market aspect is nice because it gets people shopping around, but the fact is that the bulk of the cost is still paid for by taxes. If you get really sick and you don't have enough money, the government steps in with a safety net. On the welfare side, they are a pretty good example, but the goverment owns something like 85% of the island and builds all of the housing. And while they do not have government-run social security, they do have mandatory pensions. I have to say that, aside from the whole "self reliance" mentality, the whole place has a "big brother" feel to it. The government is way more in your face... they own everything and they micromanage everything. There is only one real political party, and the newspapers aren't allowed to criticize it. It "feels" more socialist. Singapore doesn't even bother with a poverty line :)
Saudi Arabia: I don't think you meant to put this on the list. It has become a notorious welfare state. The locals get oil money and they bring in foreigners to do all of the work. There is no real economy there except for oil - though the government is working to change that.
I would also point out that of your 4 examples, 2 are oil-rich and 2 are these odd-ball city-states with a very unique history. Hong Kong is one city, yet it has the same population as all of Norway! Comparing the two is only instructive to a certain point.
Thanks, that makes sense. What about the other side of the heat exchanger? I imagine that water is pretty filthy. Isn't that side just as important?
You can put out a match by dipping it in gasoline.
That's probably true under certain conditions, but most of the time you hear that fact used for heavier fuels like diesel and kerosene/jet fuel. Gasoline has a pretty high vapor pressure compared to the other two, even including butane in the mix depending on the season.
I agree that this is cool stuff. It makes me wish I had a stronger background in chemistry. I went to a really crappy high school and so I was always behind with my chemistry, taking pretty much the bare minimum in college. For the most part I like it (well, maybe not organic), so it's too bad.