U.S. Politics: Register to vote, the election is nigh

[SkynJay]

We have an amendment in Colorado to vote on this year. It looks simple enough, legalized gambling in one town( we have three mountain towns where it is legal but none in the metro area). The pro ads show that the revenue would go to schools without raising taxed. The ads against question what guarantees there are that the money would go to instruction. Both sets of ads are played for by groups with names like 'Coloradoans for education' and the like.

Who are these concerned citizens? Almost all the $ supporting the amendment comes from one Rhode Island Casino. Almost all the cash going against comes from big $ casinos already established in the mountain towns.

Ya, I am not a fan of secret money in this process.

[drawkcabi]

We have an amendment in Colorado to vote on this year. It looks simple enough, legalized gambling in one town( we have three mountain towns where it is legal but none in the metro area). The pro ads show that the revenue would go to schools without raising taxed. The ads against question what guarantees there are that the money would go to instruction. Both sets of ads are played for by groups with names like 'Coloradoans for education' and the like.

Who are these concerned citizens? Almost all the $ supporting the amendment comes from one Rhode Island Casino. Almost all the cash going against comes from big $ casinos already established in the mountain towns.

Ya, I am not a fan of secret money in this process.

exactly what happened in Maryland 2 years ago...gambling was made legal

[ThinkerX]

One year later, how the people on it rate the ACA:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/insurance/how-obamacare-rates-with-consumers-one-year-later/ar-BB820pH

Still plenty of severe issues. Some like it, some believe they are stuck, and some are hoping for better fixes.

[TrackerNeil]

One year later, how the people on it rate the ACA:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/insurance/how-obamacare-rates-with-consumers-one-year-later/ar-BB820pH

Still plenty of severe issues. Some like it, some believe they are stuck, and some are hoping for better fixes.

I see at least one of the people profiled was complaining about doctor choices, but that's up to the private insurers, and not the federal government. Not that these complaints are surprising; I find that relatively few people know much about the Affordable Care Act. Hell, some people don't even know that "Obamacare" is the Affordable Care Act.

[ThinkerX]

I see at least one of the people profiled was complaining about doctor choices, but that's up to the private insurers, and not the federal government. Not that these complaints are surprising; I find that relatively few people know much about the Affordable Care Act. Hell, some people don't even know that "Obamacare" is the Affordable Care Act.

To me, most of the complaints seemed legit.

I'll be finding out how legit first hand in another six or eight weeks myself.

[TrackerNeil]

To me, most of the complaints seemed legit.

Well, one complaint was about doctor choice, which has NOTHING to do with the ACA. Another was from a guy who preferred the policy he voluntarily abandoned when he quit his employer, saying that he did not like the plan he got from an exchange. (Also mentioned is the fact that the only reason he got the policy was because of the guaranteed-issue nature of exchange-hosted plans, something that did not exist before the ACA.) Sure, there are some administrative hassles, but those happened before the ACA as well. So although these things are no doubt annoying to those who experience them, they have little to do with the Affordable Care Act.

[The Undead Martyr]

I imagine most disclosure laws are perfectly constitutional, but in general, why shouldn't I be able to donate anonymously?

This all stems from the left's belief that all political opposition is insincere and illegitimate. That it only exists because of super rich anonymous donors brainwashing the moron citizenry into voting against their interest.

So they want to control what information the populace is exposed to, by regulating the means to produce that information.

This... just strikes me as woefully naive and needlessly polemic. "The Left" is not a monolithic bloc. I recommend reading Chomsky, Gramsci, or Foucoult, to get a different perspective on what a "radical leftist" really is. Hint- it isn't Obama, or anyone in Washington at the moment.

Information is already "controlled" by whomever happens to own the media. It is also "controlled" by the government. Look at what happened to Jill Stein when she tried to crash the presidential debates in 2012. How many people have even heard of the Green party let alone vote for it? I feel that the issue is that the entire system is too entrenched to accept change, and indeed was designed that way from the beginningby Madison. One can argue the merits of stmying rapid political change- while I sympathize with the conservative argument I feel that Popper's argument- that we should be more concerned with how to get rid of bad politicians than putting good ones in power- implies government should be responsive to the public will and not a bastion of "good citizens".

I would much prefer a unicameral, proportional representation legislature and a single six year term executive. The Senate's raison detre ceased to be valid with the popular election of senators, or conversely the HoR became redundant. Or, If tossing out the lower chamber is too much, then let's divvy up the seats according to a state-wide PR and keep the senate as is.

ETA: THe issue isn't you donating anonmymously. THe issue is the Koch Brothers donating millions anonymously.

This sort of broad equivalence is both frustrating and bizarre, but also understandable. You have bought into the hegemonic discourse hook line and sinker...

[daskool]

Well, one complaint was about doctor choice, which has NOTHING to do with the ACA. Another was from a guy who preferred the policy he voluntarily abandoned when he quit his employer, saying that he did not like the plan he got from an exchange. (Also mentioned is the fact that the only reason he got the policy was because of the guaranteed-issue nature of exchange-hosted plans, something that did not exist before the ACA.) Sure, there are some administrative hassles, but those happened before the ACA as well. So although these things are no doubt annoying to those who experience them, they have little to do with the Affordable Care Act.

What do you mean it has nothing to do with the ACA? Obamacare has mandated the formation of exchanges into a zero competition state based insurance cartel. You will be shunted into a preferred provider as a means to cut down on costs and to cross subsidize the chronically unwell, that's the whole point.

[TrackerNeil]

What do you mean it has nothing to do with the ACA? Obamacare has mandated the formation of exchanges into a zero competition state based insurance cartel. You will be shunted into a preferred provider as a means to cut down on costs and to cross subsidize the chronically unwell, that's the whole point.

Insurance companies, and not the federal government, decide which doctors are in-network and which are not. That's fact, not opinion. And I don't know why you think the exchanges are "zero competition." They're marketplaces in which price, terms and conditions are clearly set forth, for ease of comparison and selection. That sounds like a pretty competitive situation to me.

[Shryke]

Commodore,

Money buys influence. We are entitled to know who has influence over our public officals.

I think we deserve politicians who aren't influenced by money or for whom that influence is as limited as possible.

It's not enough to put the information somewhere if no one really cares. I mean, are you at all confused about who is buying whom in US politics?

[Commodore]

ETA: THe issue isn't you donating anonmymously. THe issue is the Koch Brothers donating millions anonymously.

This sort of broad equivalence is both frustrating and bizarre, but also understandable. You have bought into the hegemonic discourse hook line and sinker...

It is an issue, I just don't think it should be illegal. I don't want the government tracking my political donations.

I welcome any and all political speech. Where it comes from might be good to know (and perhaps I might insist on it before committing to vote for a candidate), but it shouldn't be a requirement. Some of the most influential ideas in history have come from anonymous sources.

One thing these laws have done is make it difficult for normal citizens to mount political campaigns. You need an accountant and a lawyer that understands election law (very few do). Trying to raise money and comply with hundreds of pages of regulations without committing a crime turns people off from the entire venture.

.

[TrackerNeil]

One thing these laws have done is make it difficult for normal citizens to mount political campaigns. You need an accountant and a lawyer that understands election law (very few do). Trying to raise money and comply with hundreds of pages of regulations without committing a crime turns people off from the entire venture..

As you are so eager to see "normal citizens" mount political campaigns, I expect you fully support public financing of campaigns, yes?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Tracker,

And the two parties will not stack the deck to gurantee only their favored candidates get funding? Or, more likely, the lion's share of the funding?

[Commodore]

giving the state the power to fund political speech is a scary thought

[TrackerNeil]

giving the state the power to fund political speech is a scary thought

Right, right...but putting the Koch brothers in charge is just warm and comforting.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Tracker,

I'm certainly not saying that. What about a low absolute spending limit for all candidates?

[Ramsay Gimp]

Tracker,

And the two parties will not stack the deck to gurantee only their favored candidates get funding? Or, more likely, the lion's share of the funding?

Exactly.

Right, right...but putting the Koch brothers in charge is just warm and comforting.

Right, right...because those are the only two options. If the Kochs are "in charge" under the current system than they are pretty ineffective puppet-masters

[Shryke]

Tracker,

I'm certainly not saying that. What about a low absolute spending limit for all candidates?

Now you have to define "spending"

Congratulations, you've recreated exactly the system that exists now.

[TerraPrime]

Right, right...because those are the only two options. If the Kochs are "in charge" under the current system than they are pretty ineffective puppet-masters

They are not as effective as they'd like, but they are plenty effectie. Look at, for instance, the gutting of public servants union in Wisconsin, and the economic fiasco of Kansas.

[TrackerNeil]

They are not as effective as they'd like, but they are plenty effectie. Look at, for instance, the gutting of public servants union in Wisconsin, and the economic fiasco of Kansas.

Yup. The way things are now, everyone has political speech, but people with money speak with the power of a million voices. That doesn't sound like the path to a responsive democracy to me.