Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 112

Thread: I guess the ACA replacement discussion has already been exhausted...?

  1. #1
    Creep-er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    childhood :D
    Posts
    1,671

    Default I guess the ACA replacement discussion has already been exhausted...?

    This seems pretty concerning, though.

    Major changes are projected to happen in 2017-2018, but everything about the bill is still pretty up in the air. It truly feels like we're entering the Wild West.
    "I'm not lost for I know where I am. But however, where I am may be lost."

  2. #2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Creep-er View Post
    This seems pretty concerning, though.

    Major changes are projected to happen in 2017-2018, but everything about the bill is still pretty up in the air. It truly feels like we're entering the Wild West.
    I predict vast amounts of medical debt incurred by Americans.

  3. #3
    Philosopher cofc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Back to Oz.
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Summer View Post
    I predict vast amounts of medical debt incurred by Americans.
    Like the last 6 years?

  4. #4
    Consul The Burninator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Great Garden State
    Posts
    8,618

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Summer View Post
    I predict vast amounts of medical debt incurred by Americans.
    Retrodict? Remember? I feel like there's a better word for this than "predict."

  5. #5
    Consul The Blazin1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Murica... **** yeah
    Posts
    7,320

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Summer View Post
    I predict vast amounts of medical debt incurred by Americans.
    As opposed to??
    Quote Originally Posted by Baron D'Holbach View Post
    You should quote yourself. It's like liking your Facebook status or high-fiving yourself in the mirror.

    It's what I would do if I didn't have to keep mine exactly how it is for madsquirrels and erazer.

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    Retrodict? Remember? I feel like there's a better word for this than "predict."
    So basically status quo, but more intense medical debt.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Blazin1 View Post
    As opposed to??
    As opposed to the federal government subsidizing healthcare costs or even covering healthcare via medicaid for the very poor, the new healthcare reform would transfer the burden to induviduals and families, the inability to pay will increase household debts.
    Last edited by Summer; 03-22-2017 at 12:38 AM.

  7. #7

    Dan Chak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Syracuse, baby!
    Posts
    8,177

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Summer View Post
    I predict vast amounts of medical debt incurred by Americans.
    Been increasing for decades now. Obama was as bad, or worse, than his predecessor.

    Quote Originally Posted by cofc View Post
    Like the last 6 years?
    Math is hard. Has been increasing rapidly for decades now. Is it just easier to blame a Liberal for all things, or can you acknowledge that they all suck?
    Quote Originally Posted by gebne View Post
    St. Chak, glorious atelier, faithful servant and bearer of thong,
    the stain of the troll has caused you to be forgotten by many,
    but the true forum invokes you universally as the patron of things despised of;
    pray for me, that finally I may receive the alterations and the couture of thongs in all my fripperies, ornamentations, and trimmings,
    particularly those of purple hue, and that I may read Chak with the thong throughout Eternity.

  8. #8
    Creep-er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    childhood :D
    Posts
    1,671

    Default

    Sure, medical debt has been increasing, but you can't really blame it all on politics. Look at all the specialty drugs that have come out:

    OMoQLEy.png

    There is focus on these chronic and progressive conditions wracking up a ton of spending. Other considerations: The cost of certain physician visits, the increasing cost of medical school, baby boomers all transitioning into Medicare, the rise of obesity and metabolic syndromes, the opioid epidemic, etc.

    The effects are certainly exaggerated in America due to the fragmentation and relatively for-profit nature of our healthcare system, but it's a global trend.

    (I pulled that chart from Express Scripts' 2016 commercial population. Only specialty treatment category whose spend has gone down is Hep C, and that's due to the revolutionary cures that started coming out in the past five years. Incidentally, those Hep C drugs are the ones pushing Gilead into the headlines for drug pricing lawsuits, scandals, etc. Their blockbuster is around $90k per full regimen per patient in the US.)

    Anyway, what concerns me the most when reading these daily headlines is how dissent among politicians is delaying the passing of a finalized bill, yet they still want to push the proposed changes starting this year. Sounds like they're practically setting themselves up for failure.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Chak View Post
    Is it just easier to blame a Liberal for all things, or can you acknowledge that they all suck?
    Have you been following the specific headlines for New York? Honestly this tax distribution stuff is a bit convoluted for me to follow.
    Last edited by Creep-er; 03-22-2017 at 01:43 AM.
    "I'm not lost for I know where I am. But however, where I am may be lost."

  9. #9
    Philosopher cofc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Back to Oz.
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Chak View Post
    Been increasing for decades now. Obama was as bad, or worse, than his predecessor.

    Math is hard. Has been increasing rapidly for decades now. Is it just easier to blame a Liberal for all things, or can you acknowledge that they all suck?
    What do you replace a cancer with? The answer is simply you just remove the cancer.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Creep-er View Post
    Sure, medical debt has been increasing, but you can't really blame it all on politics. Look at all the specialty drugs that have come out:

    OMoQLEy.png

    There is focus on these chronic and progressive conditions wracking up a ton of spending. Other considerations: The cost of certain physician visits, the increasing cost of medical school, baby boomers all transitioning into Medicare, the rise of obesity and metabolic syndromes, the opioid epidemic, etc.

    The effects are certainly exaggerated in America due to the fragmentation and relatively for-profit nature of our healthcare system, but it's a global trend.

    (I pulled that chart from Express Scripts' 2016 commercial population. Only specialty treatment category whose spend has gone down is Hep C, and that's due to the revolutionary cures that started coming out in the past five years. Incidentally, those Hep C drugs are the ones pushing Gilead into the headlines for drug pricing lawsuits, scandals, etc. Their blockbuster is around $90k per full regimen per patient in the US.)

    Anyway, what concerns me the most when reading these daily headlines is how dissent among politicians is delaying the passing of a finalized bill, yet they still want to push the proposed changes starting this year. Sounds like they're practically setting themselves up for failure.



    Have you been following the specific headlines for New York? Honestly this tax distribution stuff is a bit convoluted for me to follow.
    That is all true, the costs of healthcare is very expensive and each one of those issues deserve its own thread.

    Much like pension systems such as Social Security, a comprehensive health system would require a payment system that is universal to alleviate the costs of those actually using health coverage - everyone will eventually need healthcare at sometime, so a universal payment system is subsidizing others as much as it is investing into one's own future.

    Pharmaceuticals is quite a topic in of itself, innovation goes through a costly process of development phases, drug start-ups require expensive labs and a professional staff, these start-ups rely on grants and investors for funding, if they are lucky they may be bought by a larger company early on and the research is financed. If successful, the drugs are either bought by companies or brought to market.

  11. #11
    Creep-er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    childhood :D
    Posts
    1,671

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Summer View Post
    Much like pension systems such as Social Security, a comprehensive health system would require a payment system that is universal to alleviate the costs of those actually using health coverage - everyone will eventually need healthcare at sometime, so a universal payment system is subsidizing others as much as it is investing into one's own future.
    I don't think there's any disagreement that a single-payer, universal healthcare system would be more efficient and cost-effective overall. I'm not sure if that's what most people in the US want, though. It's one thing to start out with high taxes and stricter regulation of resources in the initial development of modern healthcare, but we're already like decades in...would the majority ever be willing to make personal sacrifices for the promise of overall efficiency in the long run?

    I also just recently read an interesting article about this one HIV patient's prolonged fight against NICE to allow HIV prophylaxis onto the national formulary in the UK. The names and details escape me, but the gist of it is that this man is still dirt poor while running a website with tons of traffic that provides HIV patients in the UK with means of getting generic Truvada from overseas (I think India), since it isn't offered by any public providers. A very different species of healthcare problem from what we face in the States.

    Quote Originally Posted by cofc View Post
    What do you replace a cancer with? The answer is simply you just remove the cancer.
    May you and your loved ones never be affected by cancer.
    Last edited by Creep-er; 03-22-2017 at 04:28 AM.
    "I'm not lost for I know where I am. But however, where I am may be lost."

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Creep-er View Post
    I don't think there's any disagreement that a single-payer, universal healthcare system would be more efficient and cost-effective overall. I'm not sure if that's what most people in the US want, though. It's one thing to start out with high taxes and stricter regulation of resources in the initial development of modern healthcare, but we're already like decades in...would the majority ever be willing to make personal sacrifices for the promise of overall efficiency in the long run?

    I also just recently read an interesting article about this one HIV patient's prolonged fight against NICE to allow HIV prophylaxis onto the national formulary in the UK. The names and details escape me, but the gist of it is that this man is still dirt poor while running a website with tons of traffic that provides HIV patients in the UK with means of getting generic Truvada from overseas (I think India), since it isn't offered by any public providers. A very different species of healthcare problem from what we face in the States.
    Better late than never. The American Health Care Act does remove the mandate, well, removes the fees, and attempts to incentivize the purchasing of insurance by allowing insurance companies to raise rates on those that had a gap in coverage - in my opinion this will not be enough and single-payer will eventually happen. In the California legislature is a bill to make statewide program, and other states may follow.

    In terms of the costs of research and development of drugs, in theory the relaxation of the FDA and tax breaks could theoretically expedite drugs to market and reduce their costs, reduced costs in drugs and medical equipment would theoretically bring medical costs down. Albeit, some drugs that have been around for years have increased their prices... and FDA safeguards are there for a reason, to protect against unwanted side-effects. but some patients maybe willing to take the risk, especially if the illness is terminal.

    Another avenue is how will Trump's wall effect the many people who rely on buying pharmaceuticals from Mexico? There is also a lucrative smuggling system that involves purchasing drugs from India and smuggling them into Guangdong, China - which involves unsuspicious, educated, perhaps underpaid millennials as drug runners.

    India seems to be very relaxed on drug regulations, I guess the real wild west where drugs either kill or cure, the ones that cure could come out the winners, but at what cost on the testing grounds?

    Quote Originally Posted by Creep-er View Post
    May you and your loved ones never be affected by cancer.
    I think he implied Obama/liberals was the cancer and needed to be removed. If you were a Trump voter you would find that Hi-la-ri-ous.
    Last edited by Summer; 03-22-2017 at 05:07 AM.

  13. #13
    Philosopher cofc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Back to Oz.
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Summer View Post
    I think

    he implied Obama/liberals was the cancer and needed to be removed.
    When that happens you embarrass yourself. Stop doing it.

    PPACA is a cancer. Again, you remove cancer, you do not replace it with a different disease.

  14. #14
    Philosopher н-υ-п-т-ε-я's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    in my body of course
    Posts
    2,050

    Default

    Why the US doesn't learn and adapt good practices from other healthcare systems around the world that do actually work, Canada, Australia, new zealand, many EU countries are way better than the US, even Qatar is better according to some news!

    Quote Originally Posted by cofc View Post
    PPACA is a cancer. Again, you remove cancer, you do not replace it with a different disease.
    capitalism is a cancer too, and you don't replace it with socialism.
    http://static.pokemoninfinity.com/im..._forum_sig.png

    trooper? recruit an army and get two recruits from me for your army...

    teacher?
    first five would receive 50 extra coins don't miss the chance...

  15. #15
    Consul Sirveri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    6,331

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by н-υ-п-т-ε-я View Post
    Why the US doesn't learn and adapt good practices from other healthcare systems around the world that do actually work, Canada, Australia, new zealand, many EU countries are way better than the US, even Qatar is better according to some news!
    Because socialism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joshyyy View Post
    There is some serious misquoting potential above.
    The rep system should be abolished.

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirveri View Post
    Because socialism.
    It's evil!!
    Quote Originally Posted by Mod Dark Tower View Post
    *Sigh*, I'm such an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Blazin1 View Post
    I'm not very bright.

  17. #17
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    9,061

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sapient View Post
    It's evil!!
    Makes the population happy, though. Can't be having that I guess.
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  18. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by н-υ-п-т-ε-я View Post
    Why the US doesn't learn and adapt good practices from other healthcare systems around the world that do actually work, Canada, Australia, new zealand, many EU countries are way better than the US, even Qatar is better according to some news!



    capitalism is a cancer too, and you don't replace it with socialism.
    This thread made me watch C-Span, a channel that livestreams congressional debates and is very boring usually...

    Through the usual delays and filibusters of a Republican thanking individually every attendee in slow spoken pace, there were some remarkable notes, when the a Democratic congressperson noted that HIV patients are in peril, the Republicans objected - as if HIV patients were negligible - this made me personally disgusted. The hearing entered until late into the evening, a congressman noted that this bill will impact the lives of many Americans and change healthcare dramatically in America, and Republicans are frivilously making last minute changes to win over support for tomorrow's vote.

  19. #19
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    9,061

    Default

    Urban Institute’s Health Policy Center and the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, looked at the combined impact of changes proposed under the Republican plan
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  20. #20
    Philosopher cofc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Back to Oz.
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    Urban Institute’s Health Policy Center and the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center
    These two leftist organizations found that their leftist polices are better? Now that is news.

  21. #21

    Default

    Looks like the Freedom Caucus saved Obamacare.

    A faction of hard-right anti-government ideologues of the Republican party refused to back Trumpcare because it "didn't go far enough" to repeal Obamacare.

    So my hat is off to these hard lined Freedom Caucus members, Thank You Freedom Caucus, thank you.

  22. #22

    Default

    If the Republicans were smart, they would offer every American a catastrophic HC plan with maybe a couple of sick/wellness visits per year. This could probably be done for less money than the ACA disaster, and the Democrats would find it difficult to oppose it.

    The only real problems with this idea is that the Republicans aren't that smart and the corporatists in both parties really don't want the ACA to go away.

  23. #23
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    9,061

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DevilAnse View Post

    The only real problems with this idea is that the Republicans aren't that smart and the corporatists in both parties really don't want the ACA to go away.
    I know, right? P pol actually getting health care coverage wil roooon the nation!
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  24. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    I know, right? P pol actually getting health care coverage wil roooon the nation!
    Well, if I want anyone writing a HC plan, the last people that I'd trust to do it is the government.

  25. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DevilAnse View Post
    Well, if I want anyone writing a HC plan, the last people that I'd trust to do it is the government.
    So try electing capable people?

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

  26. #26
    Consul Lurk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Midwest U.S.
    Posts
    5,688

    Default

    Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit.

    [7:32 AM] Jason (Al Bundy raidslave): Who the **** loses an arti to 18 phalanx
    [7:32 AM] Old Timer US1: The same faction that loses one to 66 legos

  27. #27
    Senator Mouse-Keyboard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    The country with the world's longest official name
    Posts
    3,721

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DevilAnse View Post
    Well, if I want anyone writing a HC plan, the last people that I'd trust to do it is the government.
    Who are the first people you would trust and why?

  28. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Summer View Post
    So try electing capable people?
    We can't do that in America. Nearly every voter in America is tied to their corrupt party of choice, which is how we get stuck with Donald Kardashian vs the corrupt serial liar in the general election. People sit around and complain about how messed up politics are and then do nothing but vote for the two parties that have created the mess and believe that their side will fix it. Aside from empty talk, we don't really have two parties anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mouse-Keyboard View Post
    Who are the first people you would trust and why?
    Definitely not the government. I'd personally start with health care professionals and people that have a clue about economics, and not corrupt bureaucrats that are simply looking to see how much money they can screw the taxpayer out of.

  29. #29
    Senator Mouse-Keyboard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    The country with the world's longest official name
    Posts
    3,721

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DevilAnse View Post
    Donald Kardashian vs the corrupt serial liar
    He was fighting himself?

  30. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mouse-Keyboard View Post
    He was fighting himself?
    No, he was fighting the corrupt liar that the DNC handed the nomination to over the empty-suited socialist.

  31. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DevilAnse View Post
    We can't do that in America. Nearly every voter in America is tied to their corrupt party of choice, which is how we get stuck with Donald Kardashian vs the corrupt serial liar in the general election. People sit around and complain about how messed up politics are and then do nothing but vote for the two parties that have created the mess and believe that their side will fix it. Aside from empty talk, we don't really have two parties anyway.



    Definitely not the government. I'd personally start with health care professionals and people that have a clue about economics, and not corrupt bureaucrats that are simply looking to see how much money they can screw the taxpayer out of.
    On an interesting note however, we are living in the most democratic era in American history. I get email updates on how my congressman and senators vote each time they do, on what they voted on and how they voted - collectively the citizens are able to hold them accountable. No other time in American history was information as transparent or instantaneous or accessible. There is really no excuse for us not to hold our representatives accountable. If you don't trust your congressperson and senators, then vote them out, it's the most patriotic thing you can do.

    If you don't like their financial backers, there are ways to disrupt that too... I may get on that later.

  32. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Summer View Post
    On an interesting note however, we are living in the most democratic era in American history. I get email updates on how my congressman and senators vote each time they do, on what they voted on and how they voted - collectively the citizens are able to hold them accountable. No other time in American history was information as transparent or instantaneous or accessible. There is really no excuse for us not to hold our representatives accountable. If you don't trust your congressperson and senators, then vote them out, it's the most patriotic thing you can do.

    If you don't like their financial backers, there are ways to disrupt that too... I may get on that later.
    And with all of that technology available, we still have historically low turnout, in large part because most people believe that their vote won't change a thing and that regardless of party politicians are all corrupt windbags.

    People in the DNC that supported Bernie should still be protesting over how their party colluded against him and essentially handed the nomination to Hillary. They're obviously too busy worrying about Trump and can't see the forest for the trees, and the GOP voters should be livid that their party that railed on about the ACA for 7 years couldn't seem to find the time to come up with a viable alternative to that garbage plan. It might simply be that they're incompetent, but my guess is that they're truly just fraudulent big government statists just like their DNC counterparts.

    As for me, I gave up on believing that either big party is worth my vote years ago. I don't vote for the lesser of two evils. Someone has to earn my vote or they won't get it.

  33. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DevilAnse View Post
    And with all of that technology available, we still have historically low turnout, in large part because most people believe that their vote won't change a thing and that regardless of party politicians are all corrupt windbags.

    People in the DNC that supported Bernie should still be protesting over how their party colluded against him and essentially handed the nomination to Hillary. They're obviously too busy worrying about Trump and can't see the forest for the trees, and the GOP voters should be livid that their party that railed on about the ACA for 7 years couldn't seem to find the time to come up with a viable alternative to that garbage plan. It might simply be that they're incompetent, but my guess is that they're truly just fraudulent big government statists just like their DNC counterparts.

    As for me, I gave up on believing that either big party is worth my vote years ago. I don't vote for the lesser of two evils. Someone has to earn my vote or they won't get it.
    Low turnout perhaps because people are more informed, in the past Americans had more faith in the two parties, these days, faith in the two parties is very low. I believe it's due to more information out there, whether the information is true or false is a major challenge, but citizens decide what to ultimately believe.

    As a person that voted for Bernie during the Democrat primaries, I displayed my protest by registering as Green party. It tells the Democratic party that they'd need to change if they wanted my vote.

  34. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Summer View Post
    As a person that voted for Bernie during the Democrat primaries, I displayed my protest by registering as Green party. It tells the Democratic party that they'd need to change if they wanted my vote.
    I applaud you for letting your voice be heard and not just falling in line like a lot of other Bernie supporters that I know did.

  35. #35

    Meherrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    In a universe of my own design
    Posts
    4,222

    Default

    It is always interesting to me to see the way third parties work - and are perceived - in American politics. It's not even a result of your being a republic-style democracy, as European countries using the republic model often have multiple and credible presidential candidates.

    In a parliamentary-style democracy, such as Canada, third parties can be very powerful. I've never voted for a candidate from one of the two 'main' parties in my entire life, and I've never seen it as a protest vote. And I have seen my candidate of chouce elected to federal and provincial legislatures on quite a few occasions.
    And now I'll tell you what's against us, an art that's lived for centuries. Go through the years and you will find what's blackened all of history. Against us is the law with its immensity of strength and power - against us is the law! Police know how to make a man a guilty or an innocent. Against us is the power of police! The shameless lies that men have told will ever more be paid in gold - against us is the power of the gold! Against us is racial hatred and the simple fact that we are poor.
    - The Ballad of Sacco and Vanzetti, Joan Baez

  36. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Meherrin View Post
    It is always interesting to me to see the way third parties work - and are perceived - in American politics.
    They are largely irrelevant in America. While you might see an example or so in local governments mostly, they are hardly represented in state or federal governments.

    I catch a lot of grief from friends and some family for not voting for the two big parties, but I pretty much consider them mostly the same aside from their talking points and find both of them equally corrupt.

    Many states have even put rules in place to diminish the potential for third-party candidates to have any legitimate chance.

  37. #37

    Meherrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    In a universe of my own design
    Posts
    4,222

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DevilAnse View Post
    They are largely irrelevant in America. While you might see an example or so in local governments mostly, they are hardly represented in state or federal governments.

    I catch a lot of grief from friends and some family for not voting for the two big parties, but I pretty much consider them mostly the same aside from their talking points and find both of them equally corrupt.

    Many states have even put rules in place to diminish the potential for third-party candidates to have any legitimate chance.
    I wonder why there is such antipathy in the mainstream toward third parties. I would have thought given the high value given by Americans to such ideals as individualism, democracy and the "marketplace of ideas" that multiple parties permitting citizens to support varied points of view on policy would be an obvious way of incorporating those values into the political process.
    And now I'll tell you what's against us, an art that's lived for centuries. Go through the years and you will find what's blackened all of history. Against us is the law with its immensity of strength and power - against us is the law! Police know how to make a man a guilty or an innocent. Against us is the power of police! The shameless lies that men have told will ever more be paid in gold - against us is the power of the gold! Against us is racial hatred and the simple fact that we are poor.
    - The Ballad of Sacco and Vanzetti, Joan Baez

  38. #38
    Senator Mouse-Keyboard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    The country with the world's longest official name
    Posts
    3,721

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Meherrin View Post
    It is always interesting to me to see the way third parties work - and are perceived - in American politics. It's not even a result of your being a republic-style democracy, as European countries using the republic model often have multiple and credible presidential candidates.

    In a parliamentary-style democracy, such as Canada, third parties can be very powerful. I've never voted for a candidate from one of the two 'main' parties in my entire life, and I've never seen it as a protest vote. And I have seen my candidate of chouce elected to federal and provincial legislatures on quite a few occasions.
    It' a result of first past the post. As for why it's worse than in the UK, I'm not sure whether that's a result of the US being a bigger country, having scummier politicians or something else.

  39. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Meherrin View Post
    I wonder why there is such antipathy in the mainstream toward third parties. I would have thought given the high value given by Americans to such ideals as individualism, democracy and the "marketplace of ideas" that multiple parties permitting citizens to support varied points of view on policy would be an obvious way of incorporating those values into the political process.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mouse-Keyboard View Post
    It' a result of first past the post. As for why it's worse than in the UK, I'm not sure whether that's a result of the US being a bigger country, having scummier politicians or something else.
    I agree with MK.

    America's form of government is relatively old compared to other systems of government worldwide. In place of coalitions the two parties have factions within them, in the Democratic party are the left-wing progressives such as Elizibeth Warren or Bernie Sanders (a registered independent and self-proclaim Democratic-Socialist) and then there are more centrist Democrats that tend to favor market solutions (privitization) as opposed to government programs. As we have just witnessed the Republican party also has its factions, which is arguably more diverse than the Democrats. In the Republican party are the oil and financial industry backed faction, there is the moral traditional faction, and the ideological tea party faction that opposes the idea of a federal government.

    The factions are somewhat identifiable by caucus, which are groups within the party that discuss legislation and how they will vote, even against party lines. It's somewhat common to have two or more democrats or republicans in a congressional race, usually they are backed by different factions or special interests.

    Perhaps there will be a shift towards more third parties, within California, I believe, the Green party has made the most gains in political seats within the state than in any other time in history.

  40. #40
    Consul The Blazin1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Murica... **** yeah
    Posts
    7,320

    Default

    Warren or Sanders... You limit yourself, consider what a hack Sanders turned out to be, a sell out and a hypocrit. Be honest and admit that at least, it might help your cause.
    Quote Originally Posted by Baron D'Holbach View Post
    You should quote yourself. It's like liking your Facebook status or high-fiving yourself in the mirror.

    It's what I would do if I didn't have to keep mine exactly how it is for madsquirrels and erazer.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •