The debate "The political spectrum has gone too far left leaving many liberals to be seen as right wingers" was started by
January 30, 2019, 6:06 pm.
31 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 30 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
MrShine posted 14 arguments to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 6 arguments, historybuff posted 8 arguments to the disagreers part.
millennialmale, MrShine, untoyou2000, marco, yeojjang_v, JDAWG9693, chrissurvivor and 24 visitors agree.
nativeRepublican, historybuff, Nemiroff, TD, SMNR, oklagija and 24 visitors disagree.
The middle men that need to be removed are the ones standing between poor people and access to basic health services. We are argue what constitutes basic health services, but in my opinion insurance companies that prey on the sick to turn a profit are despicable.
The current system is already wildly wasteful. You spend double what most other countries spend per person and get way less coverage. There isn't a system on earth as wasteful as yours. Hypothetically, a government could conceivably do worse, but given that it looks like every other modern country does it better there is no reason to think that would happen.
I'm not asking for all or nothing, I'm not saying that it is wrong to have less middle men, I'm asking what decides which middle men stay. If the insurance companies aren't gutted, are there "winners and losers" that will benefit from cutting a deal? Otherwise, simply saying middle men are cut might close the market to a specific, crony system.
Which isn't to say insurance providers are evil or unnecessary, either. Middle men can be important for distributing and representing a product or negotiation. Waste will always exist, and I applaud efforts to reduce wastefulness... but I don't see a criteria on which providers must all follow, or which companies must be subsumed.
Furthermore there should also be an expectation of waste. That is in line with most of my arguments against the changes proposals. Police do help against crime, but inadequate application is wasteful. For example, the Kansas City Preventative Patrol experiment found that increasing or decreasing patrol rates had little effects on crime or citizen's perceived safety. It was a management failure, and not because the change should have had an effect (that much was assumed, but our assumptions are taken for granted and sometimes thought to be fact) but because Management wasted resources.
Point being, it isn't an argument to if it is wasteful in itself, but if the efficiency will degrade. If the government tells insurance companies they must toe the line on a new law, is that aimed towards reducing prices, removing inappropriate insurance companies, or making lawmakers feel good? So I would like to know which middle men and why. I don't need a foolproof essay, nobody here is foolproof or perfect, and I can agree that each step is a potential raise in cost... If you need a bit of direction, I could also ask how it would address an iron triangle.
are you asking me to write the whole healthcare in full detail? even if i were to make my ideal plan it probably wouldn't be representative of anything. that would require much debate and research I havent done.
if we can eliminate all the middlemen then bravo. if some are necessary well that's how they've made a living thus far. I am not demonizing their purpose in the economy, just saying needless anything is waste. we will cut down on middlemen, we will cut down on waste. if we get to 0 yay, if not, it's still lower and therefore yay.
not eliminating all crime doesnt mean we should give up on policing. I think our officers are generally doing a fine job even with the continued existence of crime dont you?
But that doesn't answer my question either. If you aren't going to eliminate the insurance company middle man, he'll still exist. So do we cut a deal with only some companies and pick winners and losers, or do these insurance companies only cover the burdens of certain services? I didn't imagine healthcare services coming straight from the teat of the dollar.
I do think both of our goals include effectiveness. It's also a fallacy to say change in one direction is "doing something" and disapproval is "doing nothing". If the companies decide to change their models in response to legal changes, those should be anticipated, but so far they are dismissed. If they are greedy then that greed should be included in how they deal with the government.
just a quick comment on 1 part:
"So if it isn't cutting out the middle man, what does it mean cutting a deal?"
there are numerous middlemen, especially in something as complicated as healthcare. each middleman you cut reduces cost. even if you cant eliminate all of them, shouldnt you try to eliminate as many as you can?
the point is efficiency, not perfection. just because police dont eliminate all crime doesnt mean we should give up on policing. we should get as close to zero as possible. all or nothing is a fallacy.
So if it isn't cutting out the middle man, what does it mean cutting a deal? I'm not sure that the calculation has considered how that would work out. Just 2 trillion is a lot, but in comparison to the whole cost it is a 5.88% cut. If prices rose by just $6 per $100 it works at a loss, which doesn't meet just a 6% change because balancing costs after they've been made will result in rising prices overall, not the final cost. In any case, insurance company changes would be irreversible, a bad result means less investment and less coverage.
I suppose saying America is different isn't enough of an argument, but suppose it operated similarly to social security. 1936 is a long time ago, and one of the biggest issue in America is that since it was operating at a loss eventually there won't be money to pay out. Because it is working now doesn't mean it is extremely effective, or that it will last. Rebuilding from the ground up isn't long term success.
Certainly it is better to be treated than die, but patients will get there when they get there. If it's too late to treat by then, at least they'll be comfortable with a new chronic condition or dead anyhow. Projections and factors considered in American and Canadian studies may be different, I haven't looked too much into it, but "better waiting than dead" grossly simplifies how waiting can be a problem of health too https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/effect-of-wait-times-on-mortality-in-canada Also, America is a population somewhere around 10x larger, so at the very least there will be differences that scale differently. If we don't at least look to isolate these factors, they would be blindsiding when implemented. And I like good plans.
Universal healthcare does not require eliminating all insurance companies. Government healthcare doesn't cover things like dental or in many cases medication.But I never said the Canadian system was perfect. We do need a government drug plan.
Why would I think it wouldn't work when the history of most other 1st world countries shows that it works? If it can be done everywhere else, it can be done in America.
Agreed, both sides in your system have major problems with campaign contributions.
Wait times are annoying, granted. But I have never been unable to see a doctor same day if I needed to. Specialists do require more time to get in to see. But I will take slightly longer wait times than dead poor people.
sorry to start a tangent, but with competing claims of "too far left" and "too far right", can we have a goalpost of what is considered too far in either direction?
Full disclosure is fair, and I do thank you for that. No system is perfect
If we did continue the military debate in a separate conversation, it wouldn't be about either of the two points I outlined. In no way did I say that America cannot afford healthcare due to outragous military spending, I pointed to other countries lack of spending (due to America). As for the government money, 'gutted' is one perspective, 'sinkhole' is another.
You seem very certain about it working, since countries can do it short term, but viability is an issue. If it becomes an issue at a loss forty years down the road it will need to be rebuild from scratch, however long that would take. I know it would, because "cutting out the middle man" removes all insurance companies. If the middle man is still there, perhaps your solution would not remove the crony capitalist, but I'll assume it's cutting out the middle man.
Money in elections isn't exclusive to republicans you know. It's suprisingly how many people believe the NRA is government funded. That given, I can agree to a certain extent, but money isn't a vote either.
It's also very easy to say tax the rich more and new spending bills for trillions will be met. Not just medical, free college too. I don't know about your tax returns, I shouldn't assume American, but I could at least point to slight changes. You may not attribute certain factories staying in America to a specific economic change, but at the very least the quality of life hasn't dropped. Certainly, business models change with time, less Sam's club for more Wal-Mart's, less bulk buying... Europeans must think we are marching in the streets with yellow vests.
I suppose Canadians are guaranteed a look from a doctor, but I suppose the wait times don't give same day visits. A quick Google search alone shows 56% of Canadians must wait at least 4 weeks for specialists, the average being 36% internationally. I suppose if we are being optimistic about those in need either Other European countries just do it better, or half the country's medical specialists are plastic surgeons. They'll get there when they do, or maybe they'll be dead.
Of course, that isn't forgetting that Canadian health insurance is private sector in regards to prescription drugs, home care, or dental care. You know, through a business, even if the business itself deals with the government that middle man still exists.
In the name of full disclosure, we don't have a universal drug plan. So that still does cause poor people to suffer if they can't afford medication.
The US spends more on their military than China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, India, France, The UK, Japan and Germany combined. Let's reiterate, you spend more than the next 8 top spending countries COMBINED. And 4 of those top 8 are your allies. So don't give me that tired line about how you are spending so they don't have to. Of the top 15 spending countries 8 of them are your allies. There is absolutely no need for the US to spend the kind of money it does. You could cut your spending by half and still be the #1 spender, by a huge margin. I'd be willing to continue that in a separate debate if you'd like.
No one is suggesting to be reckless. They are suggesting america should do what virtually every other 1st world country does. You have tons of other countries experience to draw on. If you can't make it work when everyone else can, that isn't because it can't work. That is either because the people implementing it are incompetent, or far more likely, it is actively sabotaged to make it fail. Like the republicans are doing right now to american health care.
As to why veterans get private health care, that sounds like the government provided health care is terrible. But given how hard republicans are working to undermine government provided health care that wouldn't surprise me. But I don't see how that is an argument against government provided healthcare. That is an argument that the current system is broken and needs to be completely replaced. Also, that politicians are in the pocket of private donors and you DESPERATELY need to get corporate money out of your elections.
Universal healthcare has existed in Canada since 1947 (only in 1 province at 1st). So saying that if it does well, America would follow is a nice sentiment. But you have had a working example on your border for over 70 years. And you still have a system where huge numbers of people avoid getting medical care because it would bankrupt them. The right wing in america has done a fantastic job of convincing people that if you just tax the rich a little less everything will get better. Well it hasn't gotten better. You have been cutting taxes on the rich for decades and poor people are getting poorer while the rich get richer. Millions of Americans die of preventable illnesses and treatable injuries because they are too poor to afford to go to the doctor. That should never happen in a 1st world country, and it doesn't happen in Canada.
We could continue arguing how effective medical treatments could be, but I realize this hardly addresses how polarized politics happens. I suppose one angle could be "It's just common sense, and those that don't see common sense are radicals".
It is an easy definition. In this conversation I could probably point that finger at myself too. I ask a lot of questions and make assertions. Sometimes I am wrong, and it's stupid of me. Generally though I like to think of it as a learning experience. If America finds that Europe is doing well, I think it would follow. I'm not sure that the circumstances are always similar enough, and maybe we should bring the conversation closer to this
It seems I would have to walk back some points. The Urban point is short but valid in your favor, so I will concede that difference.
What I wanted to point out with life expectancy is that there are at least a variety of factors, and if you want to focus on a factor of life expectancy with a medical instance,we should consider it through chronic or incidental. Granted, I didn't put forward the medical aspect, or what chronic issues are as a result of the culture. For example, heart disease is caused by clots, structural problems or diseased vessels. I can certainly walk back the gang aspect. Medicine can make loves easier, but it is also possible to continue suffering or just die of a stroke. "Treatment" will naturally lead to a result, but how treatment is done should be economically viable, because once it isn't it becomes difficult.
The military has two points, and I'll be sure they aren't missed. 1. Veterans tend to use private insurance though they are already given for their service. Possibly due to an insufficiency. 2. Other countries spend less on the military because America does it for them. Whether or not Military spending is done right isn't how effective medical is done, but certainly if you don't spend on the military as much there is more elsewhere, moreso if they aren't active.
I don't think expecting inefficiency to a degree is baseless, no plan should be made to go completely right, it should always have room for failure. If there is no room for failure, it can be pretty bad. I also feel like you don't focus on what working at a loss means. If this less-than-a-simulation calculation does cost slight more, it would be in magnitudes of trillions, compounding because the cost won't go on the debt clock, specialists must be paid on time even if hospitals are not. "Just spend it" or "we need to try something" is not a reason to be reckless. The government also has quite the reputation for inefficiency. So if there is a practical application or example in America that does better, that would be qualified.
And as a result, that coverage may not assist the patients, it may not cover conditions so they have 'insurance' but they cannot use it. It happened with Obamacare, and the patient had to pay out of pocket.
Why do you keep bringing up the military? it has nothing to do with this. We have already established that government healthcare would be cheaper and that the US pays WAY more per person for healthcare. So mentioning military spending is completely irrelevant.
All available evidence, IE studies by both "left leaning" and right leaning research groups say it will cost less. There is no way to be 100% sure until it is done, but at the moment the only evidence available says it will be cheaper. Even if you are right in your baseless assertion it would be more expensive, so what? it would cost the same amount? Maybe it could even cost a little more, but you would be saving alot of lives. And improving the lives of millions of Americans. wouldn't that be worth slightly more money than is already being spent?
For your 3rd paragraph, your argument appears to be that it might not work and need to be replaced, we therefore should do nothing. By that logic we should never change anything, ever, because there is the possibility of failure. The current system leaves millions of Americans to get sick and die with no access to medical care, it is already blowing up.
For your 4th paragraph, in Canada as in the US, the majority of our population lives in urban environments. But even if your assertion was true, according to the study linked below, urban life expediency is higher than rural life expectancy. In part because people in rural areas have less access to healthcare. It would therefore be beneficial to the overall life expectancy stats to have more urban population. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140123154752.htm
Here are the top 12 causes of death in america and how many people they killed in 2017. Crime is not on the list. Other than accidents and Suicide, these are all medical issues, not crime. So please don't reference drug gangs as affecting the average life span because it is barely even a blip in overall stats. Improving healthcare would save some of the millions of people who died of these diseases. Also, please note that pneumonia is 8th on the list.
Heart disease - 635,260
Cancer - 598,038
Accidents (unintentional injuries) - 161,374
Chronic lower respiratory diseases - 154,596
Stroke - 142,142
Alzheimer’s disease - 116,103
Diabetes - 80,058
Influenza and pneumonia - 51,537
Kidney disease - 50,046
Suicide - 44,965
Septicemia - 38,940
Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis - 38,170
Whoops, I forgot to add the factors of obesity related deaths. Silly me, but even among free societies I know Americans tend to have less self control in a land of plenty and social eating. So even among medically related deaths, it's not so much as the untreated cancer screening as it also is the preventable heart attack on the spot.
I believe that a nonsense argument wouldn't be heard out, so whether it is transitioning costs, the price of taking in the private sector (though the private sector costs are higher, the coverages and allowances are typically better. Notice how military veterans will oftentimes opt to get private insurance despite an available state insurance?), or how the examples of countries without proper military coverage rely on the US and save sweet sweet money -I don't think I would get a fair hearing.
Merely saying the government will cost less on a preliminary analysis is kind of optimistic. If I could use the proposed 5 billion for the border wall as an example - many Democrats have said there is no room for such spending because comparisons between preliminary calculations and actual costs walls have cost more. In a more complicated issue that provides insurance, a safety net, for all citizen spending medical, all citizens being more than what is in the government spending right now offset by the new public spending without the need to profit (i.e. willing to spend at a loss even, not even meeting zero sum). tl;Dr, this study isn't qualified enough to say it would be cheaper, just that projections of an ideal situation put this plan at 2 trillion cheaper. I doubt costs under the new net will all be in line with others.
Of course you can cite the out of pocket, but the real costs will come from taxes, and if they don't meet the zero sum, or even worse try to profit, that will force taxes to rise. Not too scary for some, but social security blew up the same way. Do we want a system that must be replaced 20 years from now?
Workplace deaths could be an easy explanation, and a higher density of Americans. Sure, Canada is pretty large, but how much of the country is unliveable ice and snow, or just without cities? That will affect crime rates. And if I may bring in border security, the Zetas still have an influence in America, albeit smaller. Prison gangs like the Aryan brotherhood kill disproportionate amounts of prisoners... point is, these deaths aren't from unchecked pneumonia. Perhaps there are social issues, but the lifespan is pretty good considering the freedoms allowed. When the socially damaged die in their mid 20's, of course the life expectancy is lower.
You're making the same cost argument again and I've already covered that. It will cost 2 trillion less than the current system. So don't give me some nonsense argument about how america can't afford it. they already afford it, they are just paying middle men. Changing it to paying the government would cost less.
Your wildly out of control military spending is a separate issue. You need to cut military spending by like 30-40%. it is completely out of control. but that is a different topic. You can't say you can't afford health case because you need to build 100's of vehicles that you aren't going to use. Or you need to build a new military base in some random place in the world.
Your argument about costs rising, on paper, sounds like it could make sense. But reality doesn't support it. Check out the link below. The US spends more than double the money per person on health care than most other developed countries. Canada spends about 48% per person of what americans spend, and we provide care to every single person in the country. And just in case you think that is because our care isn't as good or something, Canada's average life expectancy is 82 years. America's is 78.
Part of the problem (and there are many) with your system is that people will put off getting care because it is too expensive. They then allow a minor issue to become worse because they can't afford to have it taken care of. By the time they do seek care it is much more serious and requires significantly higher costs to deal with. It is much more cost effective to spend $100 on handling a cough than to spend thousands dealing with pneumonia and being hospitalized. Having people know they can deal with health issues without going bankrupt allows them to actually get care and deal with the problem when it is still minor.
Not that I disagree with price control, I do believe some things are price gouging, as some lending agencies and banks also try. However, I bring it up as a consideration because it is something easy to mess up, hard to fix, and easily ignored as a problem.
Yet this cost analysis assumes that cost control is possible while the new system in place does not receive a higher frequency of use, and on top of that disregards that the money must be spent on top of what is already available. So it still costs 32 trillion more, whether or not the 2 trillion is *estimated less* because it will transition out on top of what is spent. I would also like more cited in this because it does promise a bit on the outset, but at a glance it relies on heavy assumptions, such as the complete removal of insurance providers as merely "middle men", more on that at the end.
Insurance is more like protection rather than a membership too. If there is a need to visit the doctor in suspicion of something rather than a check-up visits are less frequent, which does put responsibility on the individual but in many cases a responsible person takes care of themselves fine. In denser communities heath does tend to decline, and several of the low population countries that have this are protected by America so they don't need to spend on military costs either. In short, medical expenses aren't as much of an inconvenience already in places where this is true. Whether or not that can be done by state, a federal mandate would pool resources into a federal fund. Ideally, would and should every state agree anyhow?
And yet how would the government properly control the price, I wonder. Admittedly some insurance experiences will have you fight to get coverage on an issue, but operating for a profit or on the insurance plan that was selected does not make profit of selective coverage evil. If there needs to be a committee to ensure it is not being abused or a program that would be fine, but most times either the government cuts a deal with heath care providers and medical that ups the prices and operates at a willing loss (which is recompensated by higher prices) or by their own metric that does not allow for others to provide. With no comparison or competitor, the price could easily rise without the proper oversight. Assuming a perfect government can balance it's books, perhaps... but where do we see this?
The cost argument doesn't make sense. A right wing group came up with as estimate that said that Bernie Sanders' plan to provide healthcare for everyone would cost 32 trillion over 10 years. That is 2 trillion less than the projection for what the current system will spend. So by the admission of a study from a conservative group, you would provide healthcare to more people for less money. How is at that a bad fiscal policy? That sounds like a fantastic deal.
Your argument that it wouldn't work in america doesn't really have anything to back it up. You admit it works for other countries with lower populations. If it were a problem you could just create federal law that requires every state to provide healthcare for their people. Then it is managed in smaller sizes. I reject the size argument as irrelevant, but if it were valid then this would fix the issue.
I've already shown how the cost argument is invalid as americans would be saving money, not spending more. They would be paying less money for more coverage. they would just be paying it to the government instead of an insurance company that is trying to rip them off.
I think I have conceded that government has necessary roles for public good, at the very least security is required, and I suppose the roads argument goes here too. But I just don't put every collective good under a leftist, socialist, or communist blanket. Even republicans would acknowledge more than an Anarchist.
I also don't see centrists being accused of being liberal as often as alt right, because it is full sale or no sale on some policies, no matter that actual cost. Or rather I see the American left being told they are fake left in comparison to Europe and need to toe the line harder. I think Americans owe no cultural or financial obligations to any country they do not live in, as other countries should not either.
And greed is a simple argument, yet it doesn't acknowledge how broken of a solution these healthcare programs are. They thrive well in countries that don't have a high population, rely on other country's militaries, and still have issues with waiting periods and price hikes. One of the reasons why modern medicine is so expensive is because the providers know their prices will be met, because the consumer is not who pays right out of pocket. Wouldn't it be just as greedy to implement a program that profits from the government, which itself has also had oversight issues? I imagine we would debate the effectiveness of Obamacare, but it's hardly sabatoge if it is compulsory and it still didn't cover much. But what kind of social program do you think works better for medical?
I do think at that point there are some regulations that can be placed in big pharma and other medical procedures (shocking, right?). But the moral high ground isn't my argument, effectiveness is my argument- Brainwashed and distracted are hardly terms I could call half of the civilized west. It's a rather self-righteous belief, as though such righteousness couldn't be doubted.
this wasnt a suggestion of cultural simulation. it's about providing decent healthcare at usable cost.
yes we should emulate Europe in this! it is harmful, ridiculous, and the result of greed that we dont have this. it's amazing how many people who badly knee this are so brainwashed or distracted by other issues to notice.
"But if I think healthcare or college is outside the range or if the way it is proposed ineffective? At best I am centrist and at worst scary alt-right. The fishhook brings these two closer everyday."
and if you think that the government can or should do some public good even if in very minor ways? at best you would be centrist or at worst: a stupid libtard.
It's so close to the point I made, and yet not quite the connection it needs to be. Let me rephrase - Why does America need to become more like other countries? I don't see a specific good or shared outcome that demands this.
I don't argue that all progressive arguments are terrible, prison reform and drug reform are big contenders for our future I think. But if it's so sad that so many people believe, and peaceful disagreement isn't an indicator of a modern world, I think more people are actually, secretly scary rightwingers.
Perhaps you were going after my weakest argument, but that's if Americans are more like Europeans than other Americans. Which is why I say other countries aren't a litmus for change. Is it cause there is more of these countries? I'm sure that isn't a moral or cultural argument.
America is not like other countries is a ridiculous argument to make for why change isn't needed. Russia thought they weren't like other countries too in the 19th and 20th centuries. they didn't want to reform like the rest of Europe. The people with power liked the system they had. The result was increasing unrest until the moment revolutions began.
Saying that you are different so you can just ignore what the rest of the world is doing makes no sense. Republicans have done a remarkable job of painting anything progressive as somehow bad or communist for decades. The fact that so many people still believe it is sad.But saying the left is too far left when by world standards they are pretty average is also a ridiculous argument. They are just catching up to the modern world.
Of course America is generally more right, even among the American left. It appears like the American right is going extreme because the left is promising a further left future when there are still plenty of centrists. Looking forward to tax changes, gun rights, border security, and general political polarization the American left has continuously shot themselves in the foot.
*Socialist programs suggested have been all or nothing where either you save everyone's lives and make things cheaper or you're a heartless person. *Education can help disenfranchised communities, and if you don't provide it you are perpetuating disenfranchisement.
Certainly the arguments do become more nuanced, and the left still has valid arguments within these, yet it falls apart with oversaturation and a desire to be ethically right rather than factually right. I can believe that government's role in taxes is for the security of it's people, and perhaps that it needs to be better organized or funded. But if I think healthcare or college is outside the range or if the way it is proposed ineffective? At best I am centrist and at worst scary alt-right. The fishhook brings these two closer everyday.
There are also plenty of journalists that act as political pundits rather than factual reporters. Most recently national news has been on a kid and a native American, which was not quite national newsworthy, but it has been a fine litmus for how quickly, polarized, and detached from reality these programs have become. Reporting chants of build the wall (none) against a veteran (not quite, never left for Vietnam, claimed vietnam-time and his record never shows) where students trapped him (videos outside of 30 seconds, as much as 2 hours say otherwise). Just one instance, but for something that has easy fact checking to blow up, for no reason other than political posturing, I think it's a good example.
There is no reason for Americans to become more like other countries, so a political comparison to say, France and their riots would tell us nothing. An underhanded and unfair assessment, possibly, but because America is different there are certain bad things America will not need to deal with.
Speaking as a Canadian, America is one of the most right wing countries in the western world. Your left wing "extremists" would be fairly normal in Canada. Still left of center, but certainly not extreme. I mean the most "extreme" views I am seeing is universal heath care (which most modern countries have) a top tax bracket of 70%. That is a fair bit higher than Canadian top tax brackets, but with all the loopholes America has built in for rich people to avoid paying, they wont pay anywhere near that.
Your "centrists" would be considered pretty right wing. Your right wing are completely off the scale by Canadian standards. We have virtually no equivalent because that kind of bullshit would not be tolerated. Pure, unadulterated avarice and unrestrained corporate profiteering at the expense of the public good (which is pretty much what your right wing wants) is not something any party in Canada would publicly endorse.
Your entire political spectrum desperately needs to shift left. So the problem is not that the left has gone too far, the problem is that many of what you might call liberals are, by most standards, right wing. These fake liberals needs to take a look at the world and realize they need to move further left.
the american left looks like moderates in most first world countries. it is the right wing that is going extreme.