Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Lord Liaden]

I think the Obama administration's intention was to get affordable health care in the door in the first place. The act was a patchwork compromise designed to get enough votes to pass; but once it was in place it would have been far easier to revise and correct to eventually get it to work better, than to try the first time for a perfect system that wouldn't have made it through Congress. If the current repeal process actually succeeds, any future government committed to the same ideal will have to start from scratch again.

[Old Man]

What's funny is that this bill is not a repeal of Obamacare. It's just a modification that happens to gut Medicare, reduce coverage, increase premiums, and give massive retroactive tax cuts to the wealthy. It's not a direct repeal, because a direct repeal would have immediate and visible consequences; instead some of the bad stuff is put off until the end of 2018.

[Ranxerox]

I think the Obama administration's intention was to get affordable health care in the door in the first place. The act was a patchwork compromise designed to get enough votes to pass; but once it was in place it would have been far easier to revise and correct to eventually get it to work better, than to try the first time for a perfect system that wouldn't have made it through Congress. If the current repeal process actually succeeds, any future government committed to the same ideal will have to start from scratch again.

 

 

What's funny is that this bill is not a repeal of Obamacare. It's just a modification that happens to gut Medicare, reduce coverage, increase premiums, and give massive retroactive tax cuts to the wealthy. It's not a direct repeal, because a direct repeal would have immediate and visible consequences; instead some of the bad stuff is put off until the end of 2018.

 

Old Man is correct.  All the structures created by the ACA have been left intact.  So if some future congress, wanted to refund Medicare, increase coverage, better subsidize premiums  and take back the tax cuts to the wealthy, they could do so.  Starting from scratch would not be required.  Indeed at least some of the these changes happening over time as voters complain about cost and lack of benefits is almost inevitable (assuming the Senate manages to pass the bill in the first place).  However, we may never make it back to ACA levels, which weren't perfect to begin with, and in the meanwhile, people will die from conditions that under Obamacare 1.0 would have been treated.

[Joe Walsh]

All of this just emphasizes how incredibly important it is -- and I can't stress this enough -- that everyone starts being really, really careful when it comes to picking their parents.

[Badger]

For me, opening up the insurance market across state borders would have been a sufficient reform to Obamacare. I keep hearing that all of the insurance companies are pulling out of the program. If that is true, then Obamacare may well collapse under its own weight. I think if there were more options and a larger pool of competing insurance companies, the consumer would have better options. It's sort of like when auto insurance became mandatory. A lot of policies got real expensive until competition brought prices back down. In some case, probably lower than before the mandate.

 

Bah. Healthcare. Who would have thought healthcare could be so complicated?

 

I couldn't understand why they didn't open borders in the first place if they actually wanted it to work.

[Badger]

I'm going to need a bit of information before I take a stab at answering your question.  What state do you live in?

 

 

I don't know about it much, but one of the things that were being thrown about was that all the insurance companies had pulled out of 94 of 99 counties in Iowa.  Someone should probably check on that, who wants to investigate this further, I suppose.

 

I have my insurance through employer, so I have no idea about my own county in VA.

[Badger]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/23/politics/dean-heller-health-care/index.html

 

Still likely to pass. Whatever his other record, I respect the choice to do what he feels is in the interest of his constituents despite an immeasurable level of pressure from his party.

 

Will be sad if this costs him his job in the election... assuming he doesn't cave to the pressure being brought to bear.

 

 

Don't mean to pick on you, specificially.  But, I only hear this about Republicans who go against their party.  Would the feelings be the same if a Democrat who felt this was a good bill and supported in contradiction to his party?  Usually, when that happens "traitor" and "sell-out" gets thrown about, in general (not necessarily here)

 

It isn't like the Republicans are any better.  And I am not too sure whether my own feelings would be consistent in the past (though these days I find myself disagreeing with both parties on too many things). But, it is something that draws my curiousity.

[Iuz the Evil]

Don't mean to pick on you, specificially. But, I only hear this about Republicans who go against their party. Would the feelings be the same if a Democrat who felt this was a good bill and supported in contradiction to his party? Usually, when that happens "traitor" and "sell-out" gets thrown about, in general (not necessarily here)

 

It isn't like the Republicans are any better. And I am not too sure whether my own feelings would be consistent in the past (though these days I find myself disagreeing with both parties on too many things). But, it is something that draws my curiousity.

Well, if there was a scenario where they felt they were standing up against their party to support the self evident interest of their constituents (maybe fighting a base closure that constituted a major economic driver for their state?), then yes I'd respect that choice.

 

I wouldn't hold "I don't agree with this party stance on a social issue" in the same light as things which materially impact the public like their state economy, constituent health care, or the like. So with that caveat, sure. Why not?

[Badger]

Thanks, I've just always wanted to know where one was coming from.  It is probably impossible to know what the "true" motivation is.  ANd I naturally mistrust politicians.

 

In any case, I cant really take the high ground, necessarily. I can think of a couple of past occasions where I've considered "Blue Dog Democrats" of merely being  liberals shrewd enough to get something in return for their allegiance. Don't know if it was cynicism, not giving those I oppose the benefit of the doubt in their beliefs or both.  (just trying to be honest here,  I try to be fair in these matters, but I know my biases take some effect, 2016 has kind equalized things for me a bit, though I don't know if it is a good thing or a bad thing that the equalizer is probably towards cynicism than anything else)

[DShomshak]

Well, for anyone who's interested in a bit of self-analysis I recommend The Righteous Mind by the aforementioned Jonathan Haight. It's his exposition of the "Moral Foundations Theory" he's developed through his years of research in political psychology. So far, he's identified six moral foundations -- standards of what constitutes good or bad behavior - that deeply, reflexively, and often unconsciously shape personal political beliefs and wider social narratives. Moreover, he finds that different self-described political orientations correlate very strongly with high valuations of different sets of moral foundations: Liberals fixate strongly on Care/Harm, to somewhat lesser degrees on Freedom/Oppression and Fairness/Cheating, and virtually ignore Loyalty/Treachery, Authority/Insubordination and Purity (or Sanctity)/Defilement. (I may not be getting these terms exactly as Haight labels them, but they are close enough.

 

(There's a complication with Purity/Defilement. Liberals score very low on conventional issues such as social limitations on sexuality, drugs, etc. But they often show a strong sense of reverence for the natural world, and disgust at its perceived defilement. So sometimes you need to look at a moral foundation obliquely.)

 

Libertarians fixate almost totally on Freedom/Oppression (no surprise), show some regard for Fairness/Cheating, and nearly ignore the other four foundations. Conservatives score about equally in all six -- which shows the frequent liberal accusation of moral simplicity is provably wrong.

 

Another of Haight's experiments involves asking people of different political persuasions to answer surveys as they imagine people of different views would, then comparing the results to the answers by people who really are of those political views. Social conservatives are consistently better at pretending to be liberals than liberals are at pretending to be conservatives.

 

Applying Haight's ideas to myself, I find that I don't fit well in any of the three political categories; the weight I give to the six moral foundations is, well, odd. (As best I can tell, anyway, from my attempts at introspection.) But people may be interested in trying to rate themselves in each of the six virtues, on a scale of 1-10, and ask how and why they feel as they do.

 

Dean Shomshak

[DShomshak]

Introspection is of course a flawed tool for psychological analysis. I've encountered too many people who seemed otherwise intelligent -- often more intelligent than me, on many topics -- but who were completely and, I believe, provably bonkers on one or two issues. An example would be a computer and robotics engineer of my forum acquaintance (not these forums) who is a very nice person, has enlightened me on a number of topics, but who presented transparent fallacies and wackadoodle conspiracy theories to reject any claim of anthropogenic climate change.

 

At least I am pretty sure they are deranged. The problem is that if -- as I have come to believe -- everyone is completely effing insane about something, and part of the insanity is that they can't see their own illogic, the unavoidable inference is that this must apply to me too. On something, I must be completely irrational; it's obvious to other people; but I can't see it and will not accept any attempt to point it out to me.

 

This disturbs me.

 

Dean Shomshak

[Lord Liaden]

There are a few things I know I'm irrational about, which frustrates me, because I try to take a (tempered) rational approach to most issues. I think for the most part I've managed to keep them out of my discourse on public policy matters; but as you say, I might be doing it and not even realize.

[Badger]

Well, for anyone who's interested in a bit of self-analysis I recommend The Righteous Mind by the aforementioned Jonathan Haight. It's his exposition of the "Moral Foundations Theory" he's developed through his years of research in political psychology. So far, he's identified six moral foundations -- standards of what constitutes good or bad behavior - that deeply, reflexively, and often unconsciously shape personal political beliefs and wider social narratives. Moreover, he finds that different self-described political orientations correlate very strongly with high valuations of different sets of moral foundations: Liberals fixate strongly on Care/Harm, to somewhat lesser degrees on Freedom/Oppression and Fairness/Cheating, and virtually ignore Loyalty/Treachery, Authority/Insubordination and Purity (or Sanctity)/Defilement. (I may not be getting these terms exactly as Haight labels them, but they are close enough.

 

(There's a complication with Purity/Defilement. Liberals score very low on conventional issues such as social limitations on sexuality, drugs, etc. But they often show a strong sense of reverence for the natural world, and disgust at its perceived defilement. So sometimes you need to look at a moral foundation obliquely.)

 

Libertarians fixate almost totally on Freedom/Oppression (no surprise), show some regard for Fairness/Cheating, and nearly ignore the other four foundations. Conservatives score about equally in all six -- which shows the frequent liberal accusation of moral simplicity is provably wrong.

 

Another of Haight's experiments involves asking people of different political persuasions to answer surveys as they imagine people of different views would, then comparing the results to the answers by people who really are of those political views. Social conservatives are consistently better at pretending to be liberals than liberals are at pretending to be conservatives.

 

Applying Haight's ideas to myself, I find that I don't fit well in any of the three political categories; the weight I give to the six moral foundations is, well, odd. (As best I can tell, anyway, from my attempts at introspection.) But people may be interested in trying to rate themselves in each of the six virtues, on a scale of 1-10, and ask how and why they feel as they do.

 

Dean Shomshak

 

Hmm,  I do know I do tend to place high value on loyalty in regular life (though not towards political party, more country, family and friend oriented).  I might not rate high on Care/Harm.  It isn't so much that I don't care, but my feelings do tend toward a "if you try to save everyone, you might end up saving none". 

 

ANd yeah, Freedom/Oppression probably is big for me. As in life, I merely wish to be left alone to do my thing.  I know that simple desire affects me irrationally at times.

 

The other 2, I don't if it really impacts, at least conventionally for me. 

 

Course, I may be completely wrong on all of them, for all I know.

[Badger]

 

 

Another of Haight's experiments involves asking people of different political persuasions to answer surveys as they imagine people of different views would, then comparing the results to the answers by people who really are of those political views. Social conservatives are consistently better at pretending to be liberals than liberals are at pretending to be conservatives.

 

Dean Shomshak

 

In the interest of constructive criticism:   I will say from my experience, it does seem one way or another, the liberal side does seem to be better at avoiding the other point of view, in comparison to conservatives.   The one danger in that is that it does make one more vulnerable to demonization of the "other".   (course, I think some conservatives seek out liberal input for purely strategic purposes)

[Iuz the Evil]

In the interest of constructive criticism: I will say from my experience, it does seem one way or another, the liberal side does seem to be better at avoiding the other point of view, in comparison to conservatives. The one danger in that is that it does make one more vulnerable to demonization of the "other". (course, I think some conservatives seek out liberal input for purely strategic purposes)

Interesting. My experience has been the opposite.

[Iuz the Evil]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/26/politics/senate-health-care-bill-in-jeopardy-after-devastating-cbo-report/index.html

 

The CBO report is absolutely devastating.

[Pariah]

Boom.

 

Wisconsin GOP Sen. Ron Johnson, another holdout who has publicly blistered the process by which the Senate bill has moved through the upper chamber, said bluntly that it would be a "mistake" to move forward with the motion to proceed.

"If Leader McConnell says failure is not an option, don't set yourself up for failure would be my advice for the leader," Johnson told reporters.

 

[Enforcer84]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-gop-donors-health-care-taxes-20170626-story.html

 

 

Expect craziness in 3...2...1....

[Pariah]

Now we just need a different group of big-money donors to tell Republicans they won't get any donations until they chase out the Tea Party demagogues and put the grownups back in charge of the Party.

 

Yeah, like that's going to happen.

[Old Man]

I'm not shocked at the corruption, just the openness with which it is being conducted.

[pinecone]

I'm not shocked at the corruption, just the openness with which it is being conducted.

They simply don't see anything wrong. You can't feel shame if you are simply using your "god given" aristo nonsense powers.....

[Old Man]

I know.  Hell, Paul Ryan refers to Ayn Rand's "morality of capitalism" on his campaign website.  Talk about inventing justifications.

[Lord Liaden]

There's a widespread assumption within capitalist societies -- rarely spoken publicly, often not even recognized -- that equates money with quality. Implicitly, things that cost more are inherently better. Skills and jobs with which you can earn lots of money are superior to those which earn less. The logical(!) conclusion to this line of thinking is that people with a lot of money have it because they deserve it; and poor people would be richer if they were "better" people.

[BoloOfEarth]

Strange.  For decades, I've had a theory that, job-wise, a group's worth to society is in inverse proportion to their income.  If every CEO disappeared from the face of the Earth, for example, life would go on.  Same with every movie star.  But if, say, every fireman disappeared, things would not go well at all.  Same with police officers, teachers, farmers, etc.

 

The main exception I've seen to this are doctors (who typically have pretty good incomes, at least in the US, and have obvious worth to society).

[Lord Liaden]

I concur. For the record, I never said I agree with the assumption. Quite the opposite, in fact.