This is a long video (and maybe should be over in your yt topic about learning rather than here), but if you have 30 minutes to spare than you can learn in 30 minutes why people are leaving California. This guy is building sheds in his backyard (for extra bedrooms) and decks into his backyard (for extra living space) because in his area, 50 miles north of SF, just applying for a building permit is $60k. That’s before building costs and final inspection fees. $60k just to turn in the application form.
California has managed to regulate its way out of the good life for anybody but the very wealthy. I think this video is relevant to the issue of “socialized medicine” in the US because it’s a case study in just how intrusive “good, responsive” government can become when it becomes entwined in a basic human need like healthcare (or in this case housing).
Instead of playing the blame game for why some people couldn’t keep their doctors with ACA, why not admit a single payer system would have eliminated all of those concerns, but medicare for all have been blocked repeated in Congress for decades?
Regardless of which side is more to blame for this, why not focus on which politicians are against a single payer system now and what can we do to elect someone else?
If you or the politician you support is against a single payer system, then there will always be people who couldn’t keep their doctors when there’s a change to their insurance, and this whole blame game is just meaningless political posturing.
One, because Americans who have more intimate experience in dealing with government regulation directly, year in and year out, tend to be business owners and they tend to be Republicans. Have you ever paid quarterly income taxes, or collected/submitted FICA tax for employees, or had some building project you’re invested in heavily unilaterally shut down by a county building inspector for a code violation?
Second reason is because many Americans, R and D alike, look around and see just how little energy and attention American citizens invest in their own health. It’s pretty easy to see that jumping into a single payer system would pass untold trillions of $ in healthcare costs along to those who do take good care of themselves, or who are simply younger and in better health.
Single payer is surely the lowest $ cost solution to healthcare in the long run, but proponents studiously avoid any discussion (let alone examination) of the short- and medium-term costs of surviving the change. Anybody who’s worked with government regulators tends to harbor serious doubts about the move and about the result - and for good reason. For example, see the chaos that ensued after enacting ACA.
It’s going to take a long and sober national conversation to lay the necessary groundwork before single payer can be born.
Any new (2019) comprehensive change to American healthcare were significantly delayed by the events of 2009-2010, when Democrats rammed ACA through unilaterally, then arrogantly took their eyes off the ball and lost control of Congress in the 2010 midterms - and then blamed the GOP for their own screwup.
As was pointed out way above in this thread, a change as profound as the ACA is going to consume all political capital for a good bit. The Democrats screwed up by ramming through the legislation without GOP input (eschewing compromise), and then failing to move right far enough (in compromise) in 2010 to prevent the election of Republicans in order to hold control of Congress.
Comprehensive changes to US healthcare are monumental in size and in scope, and Democrats flat out failed to compromise enough to save the law. As a consequence of Democrats screwing this up, new comprehensive changes may have been punted a generation into the future.
While I can see how the rhetoric of lowering taxes could sound enticing to small business owners, Republican tax cuts in the past 2 decades weren’t targeted at small business owners, they were targeted at the super rich.
As for the regulations, especially on the code violation thing, may I point you to this building…
Now, that’s something worth discussing. I don’t know enough about the short to mid term impact of doing something like medicare for all. I’d love to hear what are some people saying, regardless of which sides.
At the same time, shouldn’t we also look at what’s gonna happen if we continue the current way of doing things in the long run as well?
A damning indictment yet reams and reams of warnings and excuses here about not changing it.
America is ‘special’. It must be like this. Ah , OK.
There are different systems already in operation.in the US e.g. Massachusetts. What they need to do is take a single payer or universal healthcare model that is working there and expand it nationwide.
China is good like that they experiment in cities and provinces and if it looks like it’s feasible they will roll it out nationally (unfortunately they did this with the social credit system too).
I thought the whole idea of ACA is that since the Republicans won’t back a single payer system, so let’s model after the Massachusetts system (set up by Mitt Romney)
Probably, I don’t follow it much. Anyway it seems national politics there is a.disaster at the moment. Not helped by distrust of every institution being promoted constantly.
If the political system is set up for failure, it’s time to do some modifications. We need to end gerrymandering, there are fair algorithms that can divide districts fairly. We also need to take money out of politics. That’s the least we can do, if we are serious about changing national politics.
I’m going to take it that your answer is “no,” you’ve never “partnered” with the US or local government in a business venture.
It is not exactly a pleasant experience. It’s also not an experience to be taken lightly.
Yes, that was the Democrat idea. The one that was rammed through Congress without Republican input.
Keep in mind that Massachusetts is among a handful of the most liberal states in the US, and Romney is among the most liberal Republicans in the GOP. Massachusetts is to the US as NYC is to the US, important but nowhere near representative.
In the minds of Democrats they chose a compromise, but as events have shown the compromise they chose was not the compromise that would have been reached had Republicans been involved in the legislative sausage making.
It’s debatable. Keep in mind that whatever algorithm you use, a human will decide what defines “fair.”
I think that gerrymandering as a spoils of war forces Democrats to stay engaged in “flyover” states where, if they retreat, they will lose all input into control over redistricting. Control of redistricting forces Democrats to listen to Americans everywhere, or lose valuable Congressional representation.
Debatable. I think replacing the passion in politics with reasoned thought is far more important. In fact, taking the money out of American politics probably depends on taking the passion out first.
Republican’s mission statement after the 2008 election was to obstruct Obama and not compromise.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell summed up his plan to National Journal: “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”
So spare me with the if Obama had consulted with the Republicans the Republicans would have supported ACA line.
Compromise is how US government works, it’s the engine. As events have shown, it was incumbent on Democrats to find a way.
I think this is a popular sentiment among most Democrats. It also goes to show what happens when Democrats define a valid agreement without actually checking with the party with which they would be compromising - if they were willing to compromise.
Science and numbers will define what’s fair. You can come up with fairer algorithms than shortest splitline or Polsby-Popper test, but you can’t argue that the current trend of gerrymandering is more fair than these algorithms.
I simply don’t think the politicians should be spending most of their time thinking of ways to manipulate the system to get re-elected.
If that’s all they are doing, so they can do whatever they want, as long as they have support from a small portion of people, then there’s something wrong with the system.
I agree, and I think this brings in your other point about money in politics. $$ is top of mind for all Federally elected officials, for sure.
Redistricting only takes place every ten years, however. Democrats tend to forget about it (see ACA and 2010 elections); the evidence is strong that it does not tyrannize Democrat thinking.
I still think getting the WWE (i.e., passion pushing out reasoned thought) out of politics comes first. Doing that first makes campaign spending seem needless.
