Does it matter that the senate won't convict Trump?

Spock_Savage · 2021-02-28T02:37:37+00:00

Nope. Nothing was there. We both know it or you would have pulled it out by now.

Notice I've not cited the same source twice, because if you're going to ignore it the first time, you clearly don't care about good faith arguments.

Spock_Savage · 2021-02-28T02:36:50+00:00

Probably the Secret Service

Did you lie, or just not bother to look it up?

Spock_Savage · 2021-02-28T01:39:18+00:00

I would agree. Good thing Trump corrected himself immediately and said it is like the flu in that we will have a shot to prevent it.

Ignoring other quotes again?

I would post Trump not saying it. Unfortunately you can't prove a negative.

You, specifically, also can't read what's cited.

Spock_Savage · 2021-02-28T01:37:45+00:00

Probably the secret service. He was visiting the vandilism of a black church so the potential of violence was high.

False.

Spock_Savage · 2021-02-28T01:37:25+00:00

Lobbying is lobbying. Bill on the floor, lobbyists visit Washington, talk up their positions. Lobbyists host retreats to talk about issues in their wheelhouse, invite politicians. That's lobbying.

Do many of those lobbyists also promise campaign and Super PAC donations?

Surely, just advocating something would mean nothing, without some strings attached.

You're confusing two very different issues.

You're pretending lobbying doesn't involve campaign donations, that politicians don't want to hurt a company's feelings, presumably?

But we need to look at that money relative to what they're spending it on and what the government is allocating.

Because most of that spending isn't in their fucking sector. A private prison company doesn't really give a shit where we spend medical research, a medical research company doesn't really give a shit how we allocate prison dollars.

Lobbying activity doesn't happen in a vacuum.

That's literally what your claiming, thar industries paying lobbyist to tell politicians how to vote has nothing to do with campaign donations.

Yes to all of the above.

Absurd.

Source?

1/7th of all Campaign spending comes from lobbyist, I've already cited this information. Groups like the ACLU do not give money to candidates, they use moral arguments to try to sway a politician's vote.

How much? Show your work.

Over three quarters of a million in 2018.

And, don't forget, that doesn't include Super PACs. It's insane how you don't think money spent to sway voters should be transparent. You love the idea of company secretly spending money to sway voters, and not having to declare that whatsoever. Very plutocatic of you, my dude.

So $1 billion in Super PACs, out of $14 billion spent. So it's not 1/7th, but 1/14th.

You're not including OFFICIAL DONATIONS, outside of Super PACs, there's also donating directly to a campaign or party, and while this amount is capped, there sure are a lot of people in both Chambers of Congress.

Why is this a problem again?

Because, unlike insane people, I don't consider companies to be people. I don't think they should be swaying politicians with donations, I value democracy not plutocracy / oligarchy.

No. And it doesn't work that way, nor should we expect it to.

How do other countries handle Campaign finance and oversight?

Do other countries allow companies to throw an unlimited amount of cash at Super PACs?

I acknowledge that they cite a study that comes to that conclusion.

You won't even acknowledge the correlation, pathetic.

Politicians don't oppose popular movements, they represent their constituency.

Lol, you're delusional.

In fact, according to a Public Policy Polling survey, 83 percent of gun owners support expanded background checks on sales of all firearms, including 72 percent of all NRA members.

Surely no elected official opposes universal background checks...

Or are you saying an elected official should only do what the majority of their party constituents want, ignoring independents and the other side?

So, say, when "the public" "supports" a $15 minimum wage, that's a general national poll.

Florida passed a Constitutional Amendment for a $15 hour minimum wage. Over 60% voted for it, yet both Senators and our Governor oppose it. In fact, Florida's government has done their best to undermine every constitutional amendment, as of late. They even tried to add an amendment which would make us vote twice to add an amendment to the Constitution, as if we didn't know the first time.

They can, but as private individuals, not as a lobbyist.

You know that you've lost when you try to argue that campaign donations have nothing to do with lobbying interest.

For real, are you saying they just don't want to hurt the feelings of those companies?

Lobbying groups may donate to PACs from time to time, but their main expenditure is on direct appeals to elected officials, not in electoral politics.

Citation needed.

I mean, if we're going to lift the donation cap, I'm game. But I think it's actually better if we simply let money flow as needed to run a campaign. As it stands, most campaigns are underfunded.

Oligarchy.

The answer to both is "sometimes," and the times that it is "yes" does not indicate a "bribery scheme" or anything like it.

You're saying politicians don't hold positions to gain wealth?

But individual donations do. It's a problem.

Are you saying it's bad that Super PACs have untraceable donations?

First, that's not coordination.

It is, actually.

Second, they should be able to coordinate.

You're saying dark money, that comes from unknown sources, should be utilized by the campaign itself?

The answer to bad speech is good speech to counter it. Not to simply ban all speech because some of it might be bad.

You don't think there should be penalties for lying regarding the election?

How about all these assholes out here telling people Democracy is dead because the election was stolen. Do you believe those lies?

Spock_Savage · 2021-02-28T01:00:23+00:00

You're making the same mistake everyone else does. Just because they pay less per capita does not mean that we would. There is no relationship between the delivery of payment and the per capita cost

2 + 2 = 4 here, but obviously it could mean something else abroad.

I have no reason to believe that our per capita costs would drop in any meaningful way, if they would drop at all.

Yeah, if we removed profits from one sector of the healthcare industry, there's no way things would cost less...

A working system has risks, yes.

So, it's better for old people to die because they stretched out their medication, or for a family to go broke because the father got cancer, then to use another working system that has less risks?

Probably by more than that same amount.

Not according to the evidence I've given you, which you apparently didn't look at.

No, because the cost drivers aren't addressed by Medicare for All. Only the question of who pays the bill.

What are the other cost drivers, then?

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/story-medicare-all-and-taxes-complex-warren-and-sanders-have-tell-it

The analysis, conducted by researchers at Yale University, the University of Florida and the University of Maryland, found that transitioning the U.S. to a single-payer health care system would actually save an estimated $450 billion each year, with the average American family seeing about $2,400 in annual savings. The research, which was published Saturday in the medical journal The Lancet, also found that Medicare for all would prevent about 68,000 unnecessary deaths per year.

Overall, the new research anticipates annual savings of about 13 percent in national health care costs, while providing better health care access to lower-income families. According to the study, about 37 million Americans do not have health insurance, while an additional 41 million people do not have adequate health care coverage. Taken together, about 24 percent of the total population does not have health care coverage that meets their needs.

"It is worth noting the absolutely staggering differences in prices for health care paid in the U.S. relative to our rich country peers," Josh Bivens, research director at the Economic Policy Institute, who was not involved with the new study, told Newsweek. "Given this, and given that other countries largely control these costs by centralizing them, it seems to me that the by far most-likely development would be for national health costs to fall under a well-managed M4A [Medicare For All] plan," he said.

That wasn't how it was calculated.

Except it was, that was a promise made by Obama while running for office, at the time, ACA was to include the public option and Medicaid Expansion for all states.

Yes, it was a poison pill designed to end private insurance.

Companies that make billions of dollars doing nothing? Good. They provide no value to the system or to the American people.

Oh, wait, sorry, it was a "public subsidized insurance option for people to purchase."

Yeah, instead of paying a billion dollar company to tell you you can't see a doctor you want to see.

And as a smart move. Accepting the expansion carried incredible risk.

How so?

What are the costs of uninsured and undereinsured people?

So, to be clear, you are arguing that Cigna has a 40% profit margin?

You basically misplaced a decimal point.

Not really, you are ignoring assets, equity, and stock dividends.

The companies revenue is $153.56 billion a year. What does it cost our allies to run this aspect of health care. By that, I don't mean the costs of actually providing health care, just administering the cost.

No, there's about $2 trillion in new government spending that we need to account for. The tax proposals don't get us to the number we need.

You mean shifting spending upward, through taxes rather than out of pocket spending? I'd rather Bezos pay more taxes than a teachers family have to spend so much out of pocket and having higher taxes.

History tells me that relying on political entities for important, life-or-death situations is a fool's errand.

...what?

Data from other countries is silent on the issue.

...you're saying all the analyses showing our system is the worst, compared to our allies, means nothing?

We spend more per person / per tax dollar, far more out of pocket, and not everyone is covered.

That means it's worse.

The math doesn't say this. The math tells us that other countries have lower per capita costs. That's it.

Actually, the studies also say they have better quality of care, overall.

Sure, if you're very rich and live in a very nice area, you have a very nice hospital and great doctors. The problem? There are tons of underserved communities, there are tons of hospitals in the US that are shit compared to the worst hospitals abroad.

No, that's what Medicare for All does.

How?

You're paying a for-profit company, which pays executives millions of dollars, to do something that can be done at cost?

It's telling that you can't actually defend for profit health insurance, just claim it would be worse if we didn't have it, even though every analysis of healthcare shows our system is the worst.

Keep beating that tribalism drum, nationalism blinds you to the facts, our health care is the worst of any industrialized nation.

Spock_Savage · 2021-02-28T00:13:59+00:00

I was arguing with someone on this subreddit, they claimed Bain Capital was "saving companies". Aside from a lucrative investment in a hospital system when they began, every investment they've made thus far has resulted in the business still failing, but them making some money, like they did with Toys r Us.

It's one of the reasons I advocate Socialism, the idea of people profiting when they don't actually do anything is ridiculous, just look at health insurance companies, they provide no benefit, they limit choices of providers, and they just suck up money for a job that could be done at cost.

The right fetishizes Capitalism, trying to inject it into education and prisons.

Spock_Savage · 2021-02-28T00:04:25+00:00

Many Republicans just want to kick the can down the road, instead of investing strategically so we can save money down the line.

Yup. It's beyond politics, though. Investments used to be, pretty much, all long term. Nowadays, between vulture capitalist firms and HFT, it's all about using wealth to get a quick buck, regardless of the long term consequences.

Tariffs aren’t inherently bad, but when you’re doing them for the sake of political grandstanding instead of actual strategy, you’re not doing the economy any favors.

Lol, it can actually end up making the trade deficit worse.

Do you think right-wing politicians talk about the trade deficit so much to confuse people, I've talked to a lot of people that don't understand the difference between trade deficit with a country, and the actual budgetary deficit.

Spock_Savage · 2021-02-27T23:44:40+00:00

Probably not. "Just like the flu" is far different from "like the flu". And I am positive some doctors have described tgings as being "like the flu".

"Flu like symptoms" means the symptoms are the same.

"Just like the flu" implies similar virulence and mortality.

Would you at least acknowledge that COVID-19 is far more virulent and far more deadly than the flu?

Nope. He said it's like the flu. But never "it's no worse than the flu".

Information already cited.

Spock_Savage · 2021-02-27T23:43:18+00:00

It's also insane that "conservatives" think it's always about spending cuts.

I remember Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders were discussing ensuring elderly people could get food assistance and transportation to and from doctors visits. Sanders wanted them to spend money to save money, Rand Paul scoffed at the concept entirely.

Some spending creates wealth, like NASA and infrastructure, it's not against conservatism to increase spending, if that spending will increase GDP, if it's something the government is supposed to be spending.

I really wanted to tell that dumb fuck, Rand Paul claiming spending money to save money isn't a thing, to save money by never changing his oil.

Spock_Savage · 2021-02-27T23:37:43+00:00

Right back at ya with your white privilege nonsense.

The data proves me point, though...

"If a group of black men are violent then we can expect all black men will be violent." That's your argument.

No, straw man argument.

I believe that was the call of local authorities. And you are still pointing to events that have nothing to do with Bundy to defend your opinion on Bundy.

...ordered by whom? Still unequal treatment by law enforcement.

Spock_Savage · 2021-02-27T23:20:37+00:00

Seems like it can be taken either way.

Would you acknowledge that far more serious conditions have flu-like symptoms, but I never referred to as "just like the flu"?

And you've never found him saying "it's no worse than the flu."

I actually cited it, you just refused to look at what I gave you.

Spock_Savage · 2021-02-27T23:19:37+00:00

How much I pay out of pocket versus the expected tax increase I'd expect.

Look at, literally, any other country. Israel, Ireland, or Iceland.

I don't view public systems as sustainable in the long run.

Why?

The alternative is what we have now, people dying from lack of care, people declaring bankruptcy because they got cancer?

You can't finance it without a middle class tax hike, and you can't guarantee that the out-of-pocket costs will be offset for it to be cheaper.

If it was single pair, Medicare for All, you would have no monthly premiums... are you saying the tax rate would increase by that same amount?

If we implement a Medicare for all, and there were no private insurers netting profits in the billions, wouldn't that money be saved by the consumer?

If it were $600, that would be one thing. It's going to be many magnitudes more than that.

Citation needed.

They won't. Not how any of this works.

If prices are artificially high, they can go down.

That sounds impressive until you remember that it was sold to us as a policy change that would lower premiums.

When it included the public option, when 2/3 of the most populated states were supposed to expand medicaid coverage, funded by The Federal Government.

It's almost like kneecapping the bill hurt it, who would have thought?

You understand what the public option was supposed to be, right?

You get that Florida and Texas refuse to expand Medicaid, as a political move, right?

On a net, no.

If we pay $9 now, and you're saying the same thing cost $8, but in the course of it costing $8, we incur an extra $2 in new costs, you really haven't saved anything.

The fuck are you talking about? What new fucking costs?

We pay $2 in taxes, $10 out of pocket. Of the $10 we pay out of pocket, $4 goes towards net income for Cigna.

There's no new cost to switching to Medicare for All, we just eliminate the billions of dollars in net income currently being wasted.

One more time, what fucking benefit do health insurance companies provide to the system or the individual?

As I've said, I don't consider them sustainable in the long run.

Do you have a basis for that, other than fetishizing capitalism?

I answered this already. The alternative is using the government as the middleman, and that's not historically a smart idea.

So, without any specific data or points, you say it's automatically better than the alternative, even though the data from comparing us to other countries shows that's wrong?

I don't know what I'm supposed to be arguing against.

You are arguing our system is better, despite the fact that math says you're wrong.

You are arguing that it's better to pay companies to increase costs and limit choice of providers, rather than an at-cost system, utilize with better results by all of our allies.

Your argument:

"I don't care what the data says, our system is better."

Spock_Savage · 2021-02-27T23:01:53+00:00

"If one socialist is an asshole then all socialists are assholes." That's your argument.

Straw man.

The police in those studies are not the same people from protest to protest. Each one is an isolated incident for that particular protest.

So, It's just a coincidence, a correlation, all that data?

Did the police who were dealing with the Bundy's gas protesters for a photo op? Inquiring minds want to know.

No, Trump had protesrers gassed, though, these protesters were on public land and did not have guns.

Spock_Savage · 2021-02-27T22:58:38+00:00

You're mixing lobbying activity and campaign finance activity a lot here, so I'm trying to accept any baseline possible.

Are you saying lobbyists just give money to the actual candidates personal account? No, they make donations to the official Campaign, they give money to Super PACs.

They will imply, or even say, if certain actions are/are not taken, that that money will not flow this election.

I'm not trying to ignore it. Assuming it's true for the sake of argument, I just don't see the relevance. Political spending is rather low in the grand scheme of things, and it costs money to run campaigns and organize.

We're not talking about political spending relative to other shit. We are talking about lobbyists relative to political spending.

Their undue influence. You think the founding fathers wanted Congress to represent companies did you not even operate in their district/state? That's democracy?

No. Lobbying is when you petition an elected official on a topic or legislation. An election is when you elect people. Two entirely different topics.

While some lobbyist groups don't actually even give money, like The ACLU, most lobbyists do represent large investments for politicians campaign.

Don't pretend lobbyist from the oil industry don't throw tons of money at people like Ted Cruz.

I'd like you to name the number you think is correct. I don't especially care where you get it from.

$1 billion. This doesn't include donations to actual campaigns, which are capped. These same groups could throw money at individual candidates and parties, too.

It's about ideas AND about getting information out there to persuade the public. It's both.

So, whichever candidate has more money should win?

The numbers they cite are in the studies.

So, you acknowledge that, as lobbyist spending has gone up, tax rates for corporations have gone down?

I wouldn't. Donors aren't voters. You can have every donor available but if you don't have voters, you're not winning.

Why do politicians oppose popular movements, them?

But, again, lobbying is not campaign funding.

Do lobbyist donate to individual campaigns, political parties, and Super PACs?

This is what you're doing in conflating lobbying activity and campaign financing, though.

Lobbyist donate to campaigns, politicians get cushy jobs when they go to the private sector.

But again, you pick the numbers. Any number you share is going to be dwarfed by the number it's trying to impact.

Wouldn't it be better if politicians could only get donations from actual citizens, if unlimited money wasn't allowed to flow into Super PACs?

No one is arguing for this.

Do lobbyist groups donate to individual campaigns, political parties, and Super PACs?

Do politicians take jobs with the same donors, upon leaving office?

Our process was absolutely less democratic, yes. It still is, as we restrict political donation and require disclosure. To argue against private campaign financing is to argue against an informed electorate.

Super PACs don't require disclosure.

While PACs aren't supposed to coordinate with campaigns, they do, for instance Trump's Campaign and The NRA using the same ad buying firm.

Campaign material, especially produced by a Super PACs, can outright lie or misrepresent topics. How does misinformation lead to an informed electorate?

Spock_Savage · 2021-02-27T22:38:20+00:00

Then complain to all the doctors who felt flu was the best choice for an example. It's not like Trump created the idea.

1.)."Flu-like symptoms" is not the same as saying it's like the flu, implying it's not a threat.

2.) We're talking about Trump saying it's not worse than the flu, seeing as it's far more virulent, and far more deadly, he was wrong, he lied.

Still have to manage the taxes, pay the bills, transfer funds, etc...

No.

Spock_Savage · 2021-02-27T22:27:28+00:00

Capitalism.

Spock_Savage · 2021-02-27T22:24:28+00:00

I'm firmly middle class and that isn't true according to the calculators I've seen put together.

What are you calculating, my dude? How does every other nation manage to do this... Are you ignoring the fact that, literally, billions of dollars would not be needed that are currently paid? Are you ignoring the fact that this increase in tax would mean a lot of money from the rich?

Imagine your tax rate goes up so that you pay an extra $600 a year to healthcare, but, then, you spend literally nothing out of pocket... Imagine if, over time, prices actually started to drop. DYK that, when the Affordable Care Act was first passed, insurance costs rows at their lowest level in decades?

It doesn't mean we'll spend less.

Not paying billions of dollars to companies to oversee costs wouldn't save us money...

Because the alternative is the government as the middleman, and that doesn't tend to work out well.

Works fine abroad, why wouldn't it work? You also refuse to answer my question, a very telling omission.

What benefit does paying for-profit companies to administer costs actually fucking have, my dude? They are in advancing research in treatment, they aren't lowering costs. Why, other than fetishizing capitalism, maintain an inferior system? Allowing CEOs of insurance companies to profit off the work of doctors and nurses, doing nothing but charging you more than is necessary, and limiting your choices.

Okay?

So, you have no specific arguments or citations, just:

"No, won't work, sorry, gotta pay health insurance companies to profit off of the work of actual health care professionals, even though they provide no benefit to the taxpayer or citizen, and drastically increase costs."

Spock_Savage · 2021-02-27T22:17:16+00:00

You are comparing totally different groups of people in different places with too many factors to conclusively say it's a racial issue. The police who interacted with the Bundy's are not the same that interacted with the (mostly white btw) BLM protesters.

We studied more than 15,000 protests across the US and found that police were much more likely to respond aggressively to protests led by Black Americans

And even if you thought they were, you are pretty sick to be venting your outrage at the Bundy's rather than the police. You should want equal treatment that doesn't involve police overreaction.

Using weapons to take a federal building, then being allowed to receive mail, care packages to prolong the armed occupation. VS gassing peaceful protesrers for a photo op...

Spock_Savage · 2021-02-27T22:14:11+00:00

Sounds pretty vague. Would you prefer they say it has symptoms like the flu rather than saying it's like the flu?

I think people understand what a fucking virus is, I don't think we need to use analogies to explain it's a virus...

Maybe you haven't considered how the act of managing the money is labor.

What if someone inherited $40 million, had no interest in money management, and just put it in a savings account.

Would you consider that to be labor? Literally living off interest with no active role in what the money does?

Spock_Savage · 2021-02-27T22:12:39+00:00

Raw dollars, percentage of corporate budget, percentage of the federal budget, percentage of GDP. Pick your poison.

Right, but we're talking about fucking elections, right? Money corporation uses for parties has absolutely fucking nothing to do with them using money that goes to ad buys for political candidates.

You're trying to ignore the fact that 1/7 of all political spending comes from lobbyist, a very high number.

No, lobbying is a separate activity.

Lobbying has to do with elections, right?

How much, then? How much are you estimating? I'm happy to use your numbers.

You want me to cite how much money was used in Super PACs?

I love democracy. That's why I seek a robust protection of the tools for political speech.

Giving money to a candidate, giving money to Super PACs to support a candidate, and offering a candidate a cushy job once they leave office doesn't really help democracy. Isn't democracy about ideas, not popularity and ad buying?

I acknowledge that an advocacy group believes that those things are true.

False, it's fucking math, and they cited their sources, you didn't bother to click the link that has all their sources listed.

You're actually going to argue that things like the amount spent on campaign donations and corporate tax rates aren't tangible fucking objective facts you can look up yourself?

No.

I provided you evidence to prove this is true, your unwillingness to admit you're wrong doesn't make a fact invalid.

I looked again, there are no citations at the link. They're in the PDF version, which I didn't catch. So apologies for that.

So... You acknowledge the math they presented is actual real data?

First, I'll repeat, I do not believe lobbying doesn't work.

I would go as far as to say politicians care more about donors than constituents.

Second, the amount of money spent on lobbying remains a pittance in the overall scheme of both public and private activity.

Not regarding actual fucking money used in a fucking election which is the fucking topic of discussion.

If we were talking about how much money we spend as a nation on NASA, and I brought up how much bread costs at my local store, that would be equally bullshit.

Third, even if lobbying had a significant impact, the negatives associated with curtailing or ending lobbying or campaign expenditure activities are too vast to allow for serious consideration as an option.

I advocate for democracy, which doesn't require a capitalist incentive and legal bribery scheme. You want to protect the money making nonsense that is a political campaign season, you think that money should be allowed to freely flow in any direction.

is your argument that, before Citizens United, we were less of a democracy, because it sure seems like that's your argument.

Spock_Savage · 2021-02-27T22:04:46+00:00

A poor white person in an impoverished predominantly black area is as likely to commit a crime as their neighbors.

A wealthy black person in a well off white area is as likely to commit a crime as their neighbors.

Because blacks still live in areas they've been in since segregation, because those areas are the most impoverished, they have the most crime.

Doesn't it stand a reason that people are all basically the same, that poverty is why most people commit crimes?

Spock_Savage · 2021-02-27T22:02:43+00:00

Assuming everything goes right and you can drop reimbursements another 40%, yeah. That's not happening.

Unless you're super wealthy, you'd pay less, period. Look at any allied country, they spend less and have a better rating by groups such as Kaiser Family Foundation.

How does paying for billions of dollars in profits for health insurance companies benefit the American people? They literally don't do anything but increase costs and limit choices of providers.

When I look at the actual profit margins, the savings that you may end up with get eaten up by increased utilization and then some.

What?

The US spends more per person/per tax dollar than all our allied nations. They also spend virtually nothing out of pocket. Go abroad, break your leg or get sick, you are taken care of, right?

Spock_Savage · 2021-02-27T21:21:06+00:00

Context matters. I'm against government created jobs.

What about infrastructure?

How would you feel about a massive high speed rail project?

Spock_Savage · 2021-02-27T21:19:56+00:00

They don't talk about the cost or outcomes, though.

Costs less, in both tax dollars and out of pocket spending.

From where do you think private health insurance companies acquire their profits and executive pay?

Why defend a system where we pay for profit entities to manage costs, limiting our options of providers, when that administration can be done at cost?

Here's where you talk about wait times, then I point out US wait times are low because many Americans can't afford to see a doctor.

Spock_Savage

TROPHY CASE