US Politics: Get Tested or Get Bested

[Guest]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

You think the people that were opposed to MFA are going to change their minds based on the pandemic?  The voters that are scared of losing their private insurers are now miraculously gonna say "ya know, now that I'm in significantly more danger of dying, I'll change my preferences on my healthcare provider"?

Idk, I think some of the estimated 30% newly unemployed Americans might find a newfound inclination to support an insurance system that isn't dependent on them having a job.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Idk, I think some of the estimated 30% newly unemployed Americans might find a newfound inclination to support an insurance system that isn't dependent on them having a job.

You were 'd by only like an hour, bruh.

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Depends, because losing one's job often also means losing your insurance, and the number I keep hearing projected is around 30% unemployment by the end of Q2. 

 

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Depends, because losing one's job often also means losing your insurance, and the number I keep hearing projected is around 30% unemployment by the end of Q2. 

 

8 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Idk, I think some of the estimated 30% newly unemployed Americans might find a newfound inclination to support an insurance system that isn't dependent on them having a job.

First, let's just ease up on the 30% projections.  Even if that is the case, a very large percentage of those people will expect to - and will - be re-employed once everything opens up again.  Second, a lot of that percentage of people also do not vote.  I'm not trying to write them off or anything but that's an empirical fact.  Third, a lot of younger people that disproportionately compose that 30% don't give a shit about healthcare in the first place - and in terms of service workers many of them do not have employer-based insurance as is. 

Fourth, and most importantly, partisanship still reigns supreme for the vast majority of the electorate.  This country is still polarized.  If we had a halfway competent president, maybe she could use this crisis as an opportunity to change that, but that's obviously not happening.  We're still talking about the tiny percentage of swing voters and/or 3rd party voters and/or non-voters in 2016 that voted in 2008 and maybe we can turnout.  Assuming they're gonna move on presidential vote choice based on MFA is, again, a premise or assumption I am very..highly skeptical of.

26 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

In reality it was just because he largely had a shit time spot to begin with, and his brand of politics doesn't appeal to older audiences who would have been watching him.

Alternatively, it's because Cenk Uyger is a moronic douchebag that belongs at the end of the bar until he gets kicked out rather than in front of a TV audience.

[Jace, Extat]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

I'm inclined to think all expenses will have to be forgiven. And I do mean all. Again, like half the adults in this country say that they can't handle an unexpected $400 bill. Well, those exact people are about to get an unexpected bill that vastly exceeds that while probably losing their jobs.

HA! 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

26 minutes ago, DMC said:

 

First, let's just ease up on the 30% projections.  Even if that is the case, a very large percentage of those people will expect to - and will - be re-employed once everything opens up again.  Second, a lot of that percentage of people also do not vote.  I'm not trying to write them off or anything but that's an empirical fact.  Third, a lot of younger people that disproportionately compose that 30% don't give a shit about healthcare in the first place - and in terms of service workers many of them do not have employer-based insurance as is. 

Fourth, and most importantly, partisanship still reigns supreme for the vast majority of the electorate.  This country is still polarized.  If we had a halfway competent president, maybe she could use this crisis as an opportunity to change that, but that's obviously not happening.  We're still talking about the tiny percentage of swing voters and/or 3rd party voters and/or non-voters in 2016 that voted in 2008 and maybe we can turnout.  Assuming they're gonna move on presidential vote choice based on MFA is, again, a premise or assumption I am very..highly skeptical of.

And you're right to be skeptical. I wasn't trying to suggest it has a good chance of happening, but a meltdown can make people reassess their world view, as shown by the trillions Republicans just spent, and deep down they know they'll have to spend trillions more. If we're spill drinks over the bar, who knows, and we exist in a space where the leader of their party is not ideological. 

Like really, if Trump saw a series of polls that showed 60% of Americans wanted him to the left of Obamacare, do you think he'd refuse because of ideology? I doubt it as much as I suspect Republicans would rally around him and say how wise it was and that this was always where they stood anyways.

We live in odd times. The past may not be a good predictor of the future.

Quote

Alternatively, it's because Cenk Uyger is a moronic douchebag that belongs at the end of the bar until he gets kicked out rather than in front of a TV audience.

Oh that too, but he was put up against Beck IIRC and the same can be said doubly of him, and Beck rolled him. I was in a psych research lab at the time and media studies were a part of what we did (and I got stuck watching Beck every day for a semester). 

[ThinkerX]

100,000 deaths a 'good outcome?'  Is Trump channeling 'Doctor Strangelove?' Did a briefing finally sink in?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-moves-the-coronavirus-goal-posts-pre-spinning-100-000-deaths-as-a-very-good-job/ar-BB11UGik?ocid=ob-fb-enus-580&fbclid=IwAR2RpGiBzeicMWxBmsv5elxuLWwetEnFrfQLysu5FectrxeRWkS-5FFDV88

 

s The Washington Post’s Philip Rucker reported, Trump pointed no fewer than 16 times to the most dire projections of 2 million or more U.S. deaths in the Sunday briefing. This was most prominently projected in an Imperial College London study that spurred a more aggressive response in the United States and Britain two weeks ago.

“So you’re talking about 2.2 million deaths, 2.2 million people from this,” Trump said. “And so if we could hold that down, as we’re saying, to 100,000 — it’s a horrible number, maybe even less — but to 100,000. So we have between 100 and 200,000, and we altogether have done a very good job."

Trump added, “But to point to up to 2.2 million deaths and maybe even beyond that, I’m feeling very good about what we did last week.”

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

HA! 

That would go to the super rich too, Wombat Princess. Go talk to Micky Arison.

[DMC]

29 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

We live in odd times. The past may not be a good predictor of the future.

Well sure, you could say that at anytime - and idiots on television consistently get paid for doing so.  And you're right, right now it's more important to acknowledge that, but it's all we got.  But just because the GOP/Trump passed a $2 trillion stimulus does not mean the party in government is going to change their position on MFA.  Which means the GOP party as an organization is not going to change their position.  Which means the GOP party in the electorate is not going to change their position.  Until you have, ya know, actual evidence of that changing, it's all just talking out of your ass.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

9 minutes ago, DMC said:

Well sure, you could say that at anytime - and idiots on television consistently get paid for doing so.  And you're right, right now it's more important to acknowledge that, but it's all we got.  But just because the GOP/Trump passed a $2 trillion stimulus does not mean the party in government is going to change their position on MFA.  Which means the GOP party as an organization is not going to change their position.  Which means the GOP party in the electorate is not going to change their position.  Until you have, ya know, actual evidence of that changing, it's all just talking out of your ass.

Point of clarification. Obviously they wouldn't actually say they supporter Sanders or Warren's plans, but if they were then allowed to offer up The Donald Trump Amazball Best Healthcare Ever Act, idk? Especially if it also carried the Donald Trump Absolutely Has A Huge Penis Amendment? 

They follow him. The sample size is large enough, and damn near everywhere he goes, so does the party, and we have ample evidence that the right will do all the mental gymnastics in the world not to break rank with their Dear Leader. 

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Obviously they wouldn't actually say they supporter Sanders or Warren's plans, but if they were then allowed to offer up The Donald Trump Amazball Best Healthcare Ever Act, idk? Especially if it also carried the Donald Trump Absolutely Has A Huge Penis Amendment? 

Ok, then you're arguing from a top-down position.  In that case, what incentive does Trump and the GOP leadership have in adopting MFA?  Why would they change tack and try to convince their voters that this is the best way to reform healthcare?  Why would they ignore the privileged interests that fund them and ardently oppose socialize medicine for the last half century just..cuz?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

Ok, then you're arguing from a top-down position.  In that case, what incentive does Trump and the GOP leadership have in adopting MFA?  Why would they change tack and try to convince their voters that this is the best way to reform healthcare?  Why would they ignore the privileged interests that fund them and ardently oppose socialize medicine for the last half century just..cuz?

When you boil it down to that, actually yes, cuz Trump said so. 

Now, it needs to be stressed, this is assuming that things are going badly. That's why the 30% number was cited. 

So let me ask you this, and I am really curious as to what you'll say, what matters more to Republican elites, power or ideology? I personally think recent behavior says it's overwhelmingly power. Ideological purity still matters in a few areas, like religion, abortion and gun rights, for example, but after that? Nah, not en masse. Republican elites can do a 180 on healthcare and their voters won't care so long as they think they'll be better off (or really, less worse) than black and brown people, and we both know that. And beyond that, there's a lot of ways for the elites to profit off of this change. Especially in a crisis. I'm not saying this will happen, but when you game it out, there are viable scenarios. 

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

what matters more to Republican elites, power or ideology?

Of course it's power, ideology is just a tool.  It always has been and always will be.  The reason for achieving that power is to perpetuate a status quo that ensures their interests are best sustained.  Which means making sure "socialized medicine" is verboten electorally.  Which is, btw, also why they can get away with being against most of the American public on not only social safety net programs, not only education, but also abortion and gun rights.  The GOP messages in broad themes in order to get their voters to ignore the fact they support Democratic policies.  That's what "asymmetric politics" is all about.  

Anyway, you're arguing against yourself.  You're saying the Republican elites guide their voters' attitudes on policy.  As long as you maintain a top-down viewpoint, there is no rational argument you can make that the GOP will change their position on MFA. 

Now, the more interesting argument is if the GOP's reelection constituency demands socialized medicine based on the radical rise in unemployment we're going to read about on Friday.  Will they?  Maybe, this is indeed unprecedented.  But until I actually see that happen, I will remain not only skeptical, but distinctly doubtful.  These people get their information and/or cues from state news.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

12 minutes ago, DMC said:

Of course it's power, ideology is just a tool.  It always has been and always will be.  The reason for achieving that power is to perpetuate a status quo that ensures their interests are best sustained.  Which means making sure "socialized medicine" is verboten electorally.  Which is, btw, also why they can get away with being against most of the American public on not only social safety net programs, not only education, but also abortion and gun rights.  The GOP messages in broad themes in order to get their voters to ignore the fact they support Democratic policies.  That's what "asymmetric politics" is all about.  

But when the mere fact of having power is the sole interest? It creates a loop.

And Republicans have evolved a lot with socialized medicine since Raygun called it that back in '64. They just don't want to call it that. Well, I take that last bit back some. They want to brand that they are while also repealing it, but when push comes to shove, they live with it. We just can't have abortions paid for by socialized medicine now. 

Quote

Anyway, you're arguing against yourself.  You're saying the Republican elites guide their voters' attitudes on policy.  As long as you maintain a top-down viewpoint, there is no rational argument you can make that the GOP will change their position on MFA. 

Now, the more interesting argument is if the GOP's reelection constituency demands socialized medicine based on the radical rise in unemployment we're going to read about on Friday.  Will they?  Maybe, this is indeed unprecedented.  But until I actually see that happen, I will remain not only skeptical, but distinctly doubtful.  

Again, I think with Trump, it's a bit of a circular loop. Trump hears something he thinks might work and tests it out. And if he thinks it does work, he runs with it, and his supporters eat it up regardless and Republican/conservative elites moan and go along with it because they're terrified of the rubes they need to trick to keep the gravy train going. 

Quote

These people get their information and/or cues from state news.

And who do they want to please most? 

[DMC]

24 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

But when the mere fact of having power is the sole interest? It creates a loop.

No it doesn't.  This is like Government 101.  The entire concept of parties is to build a majority/plurality coalition in order to gain power.  And then sustain that power through satisfying your constituency.  As long as the latter is quelled - which is where the argument is to be made - all that's left is to advance your interests by that power attained.

28 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And Republicans have evolved a lot with socialized medicine since Raygun called it that back in '64. They just don't want to call it that.

Uh, what alternative universe are you living in?  The GOP doesn't and won't use the term socialized medicine?  They do want to call it that, and will.  It's preposterous to think otherwise.

32 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Trump hears something he thinks might work and tests it out. And if he thinks it does work, he runs with it, and his supporters eat it up regardless and Republican/conservative elites moan and go along with it because they're terrified of the rubes they need to trick to keep the gravy train going. 

This perspective assumes Trump is actually in control of the emergent radical right.  He's not.  He's a symptom, not the cause.  The right is not going to down with MFA no matter what.  The village idiot - and therefore Trump - understands that.  You think Trump gives a shit about what judges to appoint?  Of course not.  He lets the Federalist Society tell him who they want and they give him votes.  He's entirely transactional.  What interests are there for Trump to change course on MFA?  He's obviously terrified of the unemployment figures that will come out soon, but that in no way means he's going to all of a sudden listen to people that have zero influence on policymaking.

38 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And who do they want to please most?

This is either a rhetorical or really dumb question.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Sometimes it's fun to start from the end:
 

Quote

This is either a rhetorical or really dumb question.

Dude, really? 

Quote

No it doesn't.  This is like Government 101.  The entire concept of parties is to build a majority/plurality coalition in order to gain power.  And then sustain that power through satisfying your constituency.  As long as the latter is quelled - which is where the argument is to be made - all that's left is to advance your interests by that power attained.

And yet Trump won defying that logic. He never tried to expand his reach. 
 

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

Uh, what alternative universe are you living in?  The GOP doesn't and won't use the term socialized medicine?  They do want to call it that, and will.  It's preposterous to think otherwise.

For our policies. If they could copy and paste them and call them the most capitalistic adventure ever thought of for all they'd do it if they thought they could spin it their way. Or have you forgotten that you live in a country in which the most popular programs reflect socialism, but we all say we're capitalists?  

Quote

This perspective assumes Trump is actually in control of the emergent radical right.  He's not.  He's a symptom, not the cause.  The right is not going to down with MFA no matter what.  The village idiot - and therefore Trump - understands that.  You think Trump gives a shit about what judges to appoint?  Of course not.  He lets the Federalist Society tell him who they want and they give him votes.  He's entirely transactional.  What interests are there for Trump to change course on MFA?  He's obviously terrified of the unemployment figures that will come out soon, but that in no way means he's going to all of a sudden listen to people that have zero influence on policymaking.

Have we not entered full tail ways the dog territory? 

Also, as I typed the approve, I just killed a large spider as it dropped onto the book I'm reading. What a terrible time to maybe have to use a bug bomb. 

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And yet Trump won defying that logic. He never tried to expand his reach.

Because he satisfied his constituency.  Which is exactly what I said in the quote you're responding to here.  He may have defied Downsian/median voter theory, but he definitely didn't defy that.  In fact he precisely relied on that.

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

If they could copy and paste them and call them the most capitalistic adventure ever thought of for all they'd do it if they thought they could spin it their way. Or have you forgotten that you live in a country in which the most popular programs reflect socialism, but we all say we're capitalists?  

You still have yet to provide any reason for Trump and the GOP to do so.  Is the federal government and thus budget largely socialist?  Sure.  And in terms of corporate interests and big farming, that's because they're serving their privileged interests.  If you want to talk about any time the social safety net has been established and reinforced?  The people that currently compose the right are the exact people that fought tooth and nail to prevent it.  Which is plainly obvious they will do with MFA.  You're being insanely naive and I'm running out of patience.

[Lord of Rhinos]

4 hours ago, Mystical said:

How is this even going to work for you Americans, if I may ask? Since you don't have universal health care, what happens when you guys don't have jobs anymore to pay for insurance and then get sick?

American healthcare has a patchwork of different rules on a state by state basis so it can be hard to tell.  I believe for medicaid expansion states change in employment status is a trigger for an open enrollment period.  Assuming your unemployment benefits were low enough you'd qualify for free government healthcare.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

9 minutes ago, DMC said:

Because he satisfied his constituency.  Which is exactly what I said in the quote you're responding to here.  He may have defied Downsian/median voter theory, but he definitely didn't defy that.  In fact he precisely relied on that.

His constituency is whatever he wants it to be, that's the point.
 

Quote

You still have yet to provide any reason for Trump and the GOP to do so.  Is the federal government and thus budget largely socialist?  Sure.  And in terms of corporate interests and big farming, that's because they're serving their privileged interests.  If you want to talk about any time the social safety net has been established and reinforced?  The people that currently compose the right are the exact people that fought tooth and nail to prevent it.  Which is plainly obvious they will do with MFA.  You're being insanely naive and I'm running out of patience.

So naive as to overlook them happily spilling $2t over the bar as the third round of many to come? 

Yes, they did fight them tooth and nail, but right now they'll fight tooth and nail to stay in power, policy be damned.

ETA: Anyways, if this is no longer fun for you, and it really isn't for me, we can agree to disagree. I have no interest in getting stuck in one of these long debates where no one will change their mind. I'm not even arguing that this has any high degree of occurring. But it could happen with an extreme spike in unemployment and everyone wondering how they're gonna get the rona test.....
 

[DMC]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

His constituency is whatever he wants it to be, that's the point.

No, it's not.  That's absurd.  He's not Neo.

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Yes, they did fight them tooth and nail, but right now they'll fight tooth and nail to stay in power, policy be damned.

Of course policy be damned, but what the hell does the stimulus bill have to do with MFA?  A quarter of it went to corporations, and then a lot of the rest went to direct payments, state aid, and small business.  The Dems had to fight for the unemployment benefits, which is exactly the point.  There's nothing from the stimulus that suggests the GOP is willing to cave on MFA.  You're just making shit up at this point.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

No, it's not.  That's absurd.  He's not Neo.

Ugh, ETA:

???

They are the walking dead for him.

 

Quote

Of course policy be damned, but what the hell does the stimulus bill have to do with MFA?  A quarter of it went to corporations, and then a lot of the rest went to direct payments, state aid, and small business.  The Dems had to fight for the unemployment benefits, which is exactly the point.  There's nothing from the stimulus that suggests the GOP is willing to cave on MFA.  You're just making shit up at this point.

You seem to be too fixated on the MFA part. They can do something similar, bait and switch the name, and get a lot of liberal support. Not hard from a messaging standpoint. And it can all be empty promises. Maybe that last part is the lost in translation aspect of this. I fully mean they'd lie, promise the moon and then deliver next to nothing. I'm talking about a political tactic, not a governing one.