The General American Politics Thread

[Pelly <3's U]

I'm talking about firing people for doing a bad job, their are many people at my job who literally /can not/ do the job they were hired for. I work at a technical support center where the vast majority of people are technically incompetent, but they got the job either through in-bidding since they were already in the union or transfers. Practically the only time we get technically competent people is when we get a emergency temp hire, in which they can pretty much hire anyone, which is all the time because we have a lot of full time positions that they can't fill for one reason or another. Of course the temp people usually are hired for 2 to 3 weeks, so in my time being here I've had 4 supervisors and I'm actually meeting a new one when I go to work tonight. 

 

I believe the union system we have in place now is also set up from an institutional level for corruption and greed (I don't think joining a union should be mandatory). I do think their needs to be a force fighting for workers rights, but I'm not sure unions are an ideal solution. 

[Patticus]

Perhaps, then, the union system needs to be overhauled and reformed; root and branch change with government-style checks and balances put in place, enforced by a watchdog organization with real teeth, rather than being abolished outright?

 

If unions are simply abolished with the promise of another workers' rights force being created later (which isn't what I'm saying you said, hear me out), even just a few months down the line, such a force won't in the end be created (without several dozen Elizabeth Warrens in charge, anyway) because corporate lobbyists and their governmental cronies on the state and federal level will step in as soon as they can to put a stop to it altogether. If that happens, the American worker is going to lose out in a big way.

 

Incidentally, Oglive, I think decent employee benefits are a necessity in modern day America, because they are all that stands between many people and falling into (or deeper into) abject poverty; into a state where they cannot get medical treatment for fear of the cost, where they have to get food stamps despite working hard on long shifts (which is what some large companies want, and achieve, with alarming regularity),

[Pelly <3's U]

Oh I forgot to mention that as far as protecting the 'low-wage' employees, the only reason the support center at my school is able to run is a few (one) good full time tech who actually loves his job and cares about his student workers, and the student-workers who are out of the lowest paid employees and also outside of the union. This means that the student workers end up doing the vast majority of the work with almost no compensation or power. Luckily this fact means that we're not totally disposable, but in many other positions such as this student workers are an easy workforce to use and turnover with no repercussions. 

 

Considering that most of the people I work with get paid above average wages and have extremely good benefits, the unions are certainly not mobilizing in my or the other low earners favor.

 

And I'm also for abolishing corporate-paid benefits. If anything, this to me is worse off for the general health of the low wage earner, as the drastic inefficiancy in the system drives up healthcare costs and makes it inaccessible for anyone without said benefits. You can look at the cost of things such as an MRI in the US compared to other equally established countries and see that there is a lot that's not right with our healthcare system. 

 

I do think a drastic retooling of the healthcare system needs to happen, as almost any system is better than our current. 

[Patticus]

Let me get this straight... you don't support paid maternity leave, sick days, vacation time, dental plans and such?

 

America's already behind the rest of the world in these departments. It doesn't need to fall further back.

[Pelly <3's U]

I don't support employer paid benefits such as dental and healthcare....other types of insurance I don't see as detrimental to the same extent. 

 

Sick leave, vacation, and such are fine but I really think strongly that employers paying for medical expenses are one of the top if not the main factor in the US's over inflated healthcare costs.

[Patticus]

So it would be fair to say that you would agree with a single-payer system, which removes the burden of medical expenses from employers entirely?

[Pelly <3's U]

Actually I'd love to see the cost of healthcare and insurance be paid for by the consumer, ie the patient, the way that it works in other insurance industries. I feel like one of the best ways to eliminate stuff like a $7 charge for an alcohol wipe before receiving a shot would be to remove the opacity between treatment and cost. I'd love the whole industry move away from insurance for most basic care, relying on it more for medical emergencies.

 

Although I would be for single-payer above our current system yes, but then I'd still think there should be a premium charge for beyond the basic care level...but personally I don't feel with the way medicare is handled that this would do enough to diminish the cost of healthcare.

[Patticus]

Wouldn't that be burdening the patient with more costs? How would that lower them? I'm trying to understand your point of view, but this is confusing me.

[Pelly <3's U]

The healthcare costs in the US are high compared to other developed nations, and many who study this consider it to be the fact that their are not sufficient free market forces keeping the costs in check. The problem is that people with good insurance are the ones who tend to use the most healthcare, often with no regard for what they're paying because nothing is coming out of their pocket.

 

So persons A, B, and C all have great employer paid health insurance so they go to the doctor frequently, opt in for lots of optional medical care, and basically consume a large amount of resources without feeling any burden on their pockets.

 

Because of this the healthcare industry is able to charge extremely inflated prices for their services, with little pushback from the consumer because honestly most doctors and patients almost know nothing of the costs of what they're doing.

 

So when person D comes along who is uninsured, they are the only one who has to foot the inflated bill out of pocket, making healthcare for the uninsured extremely inaccessible. 

 

This really leads to all sort of weird situations, like the cost the same procedure being two local healthcare establishments being drastically different prices, not to mention the cost of healthcare in general in the US being high.

 

It's estimated right now that a third, around 700 billion in healthcare costs are unnecessary, in that they don't make the people getting the service any healthier. I think that all this waste could be better managed if consumers took more responsibility for their care.  (a lot of stuff on healthcare cost numbers can be seen in this document)

 

The problem I have with single-payer healthcare brings the union force back up again, because one of the biggest problems with medicare in the US is the fact that the costs of procedures are a set standard, that has been artificially inflated because of lobbying in big part of those in doctors unions and such. It may be a solution for those who can not afford healthcare, and getting healthcare more accessible to more people should be the goal, but it does so at what I consider a high price with extreme opacity. The US's problems are almost unique to the country (with our healthcare costs being much larger than similar countries who opt in for a single payer system), so I think any solution we apply to the problem should be with the mindset of also taking care of the rising cost of healthcare before it gets worse....which it is projected to get at this rate, with some projections stating that the cost of healthcare could be up to 1/3 of a households expenses by 2021. (A summery of many projections for the future of healthcare costs can be found here)

 

Time just ran a great article on this problem called 'Bitter Pill' which broke down a hospital bill, and also showed that people who are insured actually /pay less/ than those that are uninsured do to the insurance industries having a greater bargaining power than the uninsured individual. 

 

Healthcare paid by somebody else is not free, whether it's the corporation or the government footing the bill that money is coming from someone, and it's usually coming out of our pocket anyways. I'm not adverse to some of the cost of healthcare being spread around to help those who are in need, but right now the system is set up basically at the expense of everyone as it is...in a highly inefficient way. Personally, I'm all for putting more power into the consumer, and in this case I think it's the best thing to do for everyone. 

 

Edit: Since I working at a library right now and I have easy access to articles, I dug up the issue of Time. One particularly startling case is of a women without insurance who's bill for 3 CT scans coming out to $6,538 (coming out of pocket as part of even a larger bill) while the same 3 scans billed to medicare would be $825......Which seems like a bargain true, until you realize the same 3 scans in Canada would cost an average of $366, meaning that even with government subsidiaries we still have an increased cost of 44% vs a relatively comparable market.

 

Scary if you ask me.

[Tornado]

Do you work at a school Pelly?

 

 

Wouldn't that be burdening the patient with more costs? How would that lower them? I'm trying to understand your point of view, but this is confusing me.

 

Adding on to what Pelly said above, the way the system is set up, the costs paid when you have insurance are artificially set much higher than they are if you don't. Yes, you foot the entire bill yourself if you don't have insurance and that's obviously not an acceptable alternative for most cases as opposed to just paying a $10-50 copay; but the total amount paid is lower. And it's set up that way because it allows doctors/hospitals/whatever to make more money on insured patients (doubly so since insured people are far more likely to make frivolous doctor's visits for non-issues), and so the insurance companies can turn around and justify you paying higher premiums (especially when the insurance companies are basically all, through regulation on the part of lobbyists, given a de facto monopoly on the market since they only have to worry about regional competition). Kind of a two-part act. Everyone gets more money because everything costs more because everything is marked up because everyone wants more money.

 

That's also why Obamacare was welcome with open arms by the insurance companies, because it gave them more power and more money. Not less.

Edited March 14, 2013 by Tornado

[Pelly <3's U]

Do you work at a school Pelly?

 

Yes I work for my university, which has very much come to color how I see a lot of this stuff lately.

[Tornado]

Well, that explains everything for me. Teacher's unions can be downright nasty in the way they operate. I imagine somewhat less so in a university setting compared to a public school, but still.

Edited March 14, 2013 by Tornado

[Kuzu]

People without city jobs tend to be on the brunt of this healthcare fiasco, my Dad works for HRA and it's only reason he has the benefits he has.

[Patticus]

Thank you Pelly and Tornado for explaining so patiently all of this stuff. I can see more clearly now why the system is the way it is, even if I don't understand some things, like what a co-pay is.

 

The country's healthcare system is an enormous mess. It's a complete shambles. The entire thing is rotten to the core, driven by the need to turn a profit over all other considerations (which Obamacare unfortunately panders to, rather than reduces), and is in dire need of root and branch changes everywhere. Nobody should be afraid of the cost of getting medical care. Nobody should be discharged prematurely because of healthcare profiteering. Nobody should be denied care due to lack of insurance coverage (or be charged vast sums after emergency care). Nobody should be denied affordable mental healthcare from their insurance plans because insurance companies don't want it to be a physical problem. Healthcare is an inalienable human right which we must all contribute to the funding and good order of, not a privilege for the better off, the wealthy to enjoy in excess while the majority of society suffers from the monopolistic, vampiric greed of Big Pharmacy and the Insurance lobby.

 

 

The way teachers' unions are talked about, anyone would think they really are a bunch of union thugs. They're not. Or at least, I don't think they are, even if they have resorted to some dubious and downright nasty practices in the past (which is a shame, but their opponents are probably worse in some way). Teachers work high stress jobs with a lot of out-of-hours paperwork for pay that doesn't reflect how much they really do for the country. They seem to me to be some of the least appreciated members of society, when they should be some of its most celebrated.

 

[/idealistic claptrap]

[Tornado]

I can see more clearly now why the system is the way it is, even if I don't understand some things, like what a co-pay is.

 

Copay is what you pay as a patient when you go see a doctor to get checked on (such as when you have the flu or something and you go to visit to get a prescription). It's a fixed amount that is your burden for each visit. Basically the same thing as a deductible for car insurance.

[Patticus]

Copay is what you pay as a patient when you go see a doctor to get checked on (such as when you have the flu or something and you go to visit to get a prescription). It's a fixed amount that is your burden for each visit. Basically the same thing as a deductible for car insurance.

 

So if you have a co-pay for $40, that's all you ever pay? Am I understanding that right?

[Tornado]

Basically. If you have a $40 copay, when you go to visit a doctor for a checkup or physical or referral to a specialist or flu shot (if your insurance covers it) or anything "basic" like that that can be handled by a local practice/clinic, you pay $40 and the insurance company picks up the rest. Copays vary based on your insurance plan and premiums; and the provider as well. Mine is $20, my parents' is $20, my uncle's is $10 and my grandmother's is $30.

Edited March 14, 2013 by Tornado

[Tani Coyote]

Incidentally, Oglive, I think decent employee benefits are a necessity in modern day America, because they are all that stands between many people and falling into (or deeper into) abject poverty; into a state where they cannot get medical treatment for fear of the cost, where they have to get food stamps despite working hard on long shifts (which is what some large companies want, and achieve, with alarming regularity),

 

Why can't the government provide for all of these? It avoids giving big businesses a huge edge over small competitors.

 

Furthermore, minimum wage laws and company benefits sound grand at first glance but what about the steady 12+ million people who don't have a job?

 

A guaranteed minimum income trumps unions, company benefits, or minimum wages any time of the day, and avoids the distortions to the labor and producer market.

 

On that note I guess I'll vouch for the abolition of most social services (and the minimum wage) and their replacement with a Negative Income Tax. Greatly reduces the bureaucracy involved and gives people liquid funds. The Negative Income Tax is simple - it combines welfare and taxation into one. You are promised a minimum each year; if you fail to meet it the government sends you a check with the difference. If you go above the amount, you pay a flat tax on all that's above it. Say the minimum's 10K and the tax rate 20%. If you make 9K, you receive 1K and pay no taxes. If you make 11 K, you pay 20% of that extra 1K, or 200.

 

It's a solid means for a safety net, and greatly reduces the amount of people the government needs to employ; why employ one person to handle food stamps, another to handle low cost housing, another to audit taxes, another to handle Medicare, another to handle Medicaid, when you can have a single employee do it? It will also save consumers bundles of money since they no longer need to hire tax lawyers or accountants. Yes, those groups will see a massive loss of jobs, but did we cry for the telegraph workers when the telephone came to be? Jobs that are not efficient should not exist; it is time, money and labor better spent elsewhere.

 

The main problem is it's unconditional and due to people acting on gut feelings more than research, it'll never fly.

 

I don't support employer paid benefits such as dental and healthcare....other types of insurance I don't see as detrimental to the same extent. 

 

Sick leave, vacation, and such are fine but I really think strongly that employers paying for medical expenses are one of the top if not the main factor in the US's over inflated healthcare costs.

 

Yes, this.

 

My father's a small business owner and has told me how lovely Obamacare's been for him. Meanwhile folks like Wal-Mart might publicly yell about it, but secretly they're all giving eachother high fives. Due to the marginal utility of a dollar, the costs of insurance are astronomically more burdensome on small businesses. Once you add in company benefits like rec centers, paid gas, etc. it quickly begins to squeeze out the little businesses. We need to protect small businesses by keeping barriers to entry low... it's competition that keeps costs low and goods high quality. Oligopoly is ultimately almost as bad as monopoly.

[Patticus]

That's an interesting idea, Ogilvie, but I would be quite wary about abolishing the minimum wage and things like it, simply because I don't trust politicians not to fuck around with it for the sake of political point-scoring and being beholden to their corporate backers, and screw us all over. Tell me, does this plan you advocate also allow people a good number of vacation days/weeks per year, paid sick/maternity/emergency leave, and things like that? Or would employers be burdened with providing that? I mean, since vacation leave is typically a company benefit, wouldn't that have to be handled along with everything else, by the government? The American work ethic seems to me to be unnecessarily punishing, and far too stressful given the country's chronic health problems. Something should be done about that. Integrating some kind of paid vacation time that amounts to at least two weeks per annum (ideally, three) would give working people a decent amount of time to unwind.

 

 

I'm not sure how I got to this subject, maybe it was your mention of Obamacare... but whatever. Clearly, the US healthcare system is in need of ongoing systemic reform - Obamacare shouldn't be the end of it, not by a long shot. That said, its provisions should all be allowed to take effect in 2014, be given time to be implemented across the board, and be examined over time by professionals (their findings and recommendations then being turned over to policy-makers), because it would probably do more harm than good to just keep chopping and changing every year. What I want (root and branch change, the overthrowing of profit-first healthcare etc) will probably never happen, but I can hope that future Democrat, even Republican leaders of this country will see sense and keep the healthcare reform ball rolling. I don't think it would be a bad idea to have a state, or perhaps just a county or two within a state, become a test bed for wholesale healthcare reform for a few years, just to see how it works, and if it works better than the national model for people and they like it, roll it out nationally.

 

The sooner Americans can enjoy cheaper, higher quality and more equitable healthcare, the better.

 

Sorry to keep ranting about healthcare, everybody. It's an issue that links to many of the country's biggest problems, like gun crime and poverty, and my wife has some pretty big health problems that the current system will probably screw her over to help fix (hello, enormous pile of debt), if it does, which makes it a subject close to my heart.

[Tani Coyote]

That's an interesting idea, Ogilvie, but I would be quite wary about abolishing the minimum wage and things like it, simply because I don't trust politicians not to fuck around with it for the sake of political point-scoring and being beholden to their corporate backers, and screw us all over.

 

This is why I think it should come after the government's more open and accountable, and we've reduced the clout of money. As is we have a duopoly on power... and just like in the economy, government is better if there's competition to get into it. That "only a one party state is worse than a two party state" remark isn't entirely hysteria; it has some merit. If you have an idea that goes against the grain you'll be shut down by party-line voting and the fact no one really wants to pool effort behind third parties.

 

I think we probably all have disdain for the Tea Party here, but at least they showed there COULD be change in politics if enough people stayed active and interested. If they can throw out a lot of the veteran politicians, why can't any other movement?

 

Though really, just getting rid of first past the post voting would go a long way to making this country better. As there's only two real contenders for pretty much any seat, there's no real incentive to change your policies; Democrats will vote Democrat and Republicans will vote Republican. Over and over, ad infinitum. 

 

Tell me, does this plan you advocate also allow people a good number of vacation days/weeks per year, paid sick/maternity/emergency leave, and things like that? Or would employers be burdened with providing that?

 

Well, on paid leave, that would be redundant to require due to the NIT's implementation. However, I see no reason there can't be a requirement that companies have a minimum of sick days allowed per year, just as companies are barred from child labor or pumping poison into their factories. It's good for the economy sick people be allowed to leave anyway; if they're forced to work they can get everyone sick really quick and depress productivity. With an epidemic we quarantine, why not allow individuals to quarantine themselves?

 

I mean, since vacation leave is typically a company benefit, wouldn't that have to be handled along with everything else, by the government? The American work ethic seems to me to be unnecessarily punishing, and far too stressful given the country's chronic health problems. Something should be done about that. Integrating some kind of paid vacation time that amounts to at least two weeks per annum (ideally, three) would give working people a decent amount of time to unwind.

 

Provided there are statutes limiting excessive vacation times (which I don't think will really be a problem anyway), I see no problem with leaving vacation leave in the domain of the private sector. It's more the massive financial benefits I'm concerned about; employees won't really take vacation unless they can afford it anyway. Contrast to if insurance is employer-based; inevitably smaller businesses will close their doors or pay workers under the table (less tax revenue and more borrowing by the government) to avoid the massive burden.

 

Clearly, the US healthcare system is in need of ongoing systemic reform - Obamacare shouldn't be the end of it, not by a long shot. That said, its provisions should all be allowed to take effect in 2014, be given time to be implemented across the board, and be examined over time by professionals (their findings and recommendations then being turned over to policy-makers), because it would probably do more harm than good to just keep chopping and changing every year. What I want (root and branch change, the overthrowing of profit-first healthcare etc) will probably never happen, but I can hope that future Democrat, even Republican leaders of this country will see sense and keep the healthcare reform ball rolling. I don't think it would be a bad idea to have a state, or perhaps just a county or two within a state, become a test bed for wholesale healthcare reform for a few years, just to see how it works, and if it works better than the national model for people and they like it, roll it out nationally.

 

The biggest problem here is that Obamacare actually was a defeat for those who wanted UHC - it's forced everyone to buy healthcare from insurance companies more or less. This means they will be able to lobby against further reform more effectively. It's a short term solution, but I think it should be repealed entirely as soon as the political atmosphere is more supportive of President Obama's original plan.

 

On insurance, I see no reason it has to be privately held at all. The main benefit of private businesses is they make the most use of resources, keeping prices low and quality high as part of their fear of bankruptcy (something the government lacks). However, an insurance company isn't serving food, building cars, or anything that could really suffer a quality deficiency from state ownership. It's just pooling money and pushing it around; the math behind insurance is simple enough I see no reason we can't get rid of the middleman entirely. Obama's idea of a government insurance corporation has merit; while there's the slim possibility it will eventually be propped up by tax revenue, the idea is overall sound. It will drive insurance costs down due to being non-profit, and what people are irrationally scared of government insurance can go and buy more expensive private insurance if they want. Meanwhile the people who spend less on insurance will spend their newfound cash elsewhere and stimulate the economy.

 

Though that's focusing on the end of the healthcare problem; it's just too expensive to provide care altogether. I'm not proposing job-killing wage ceilings to alleviate this, but that we re-evaluate it all from the bottom up. Manufacturers of equipment and drugs need subsidies to spur their research to make new cures and make existing ones cheaper; they also need the FDA and patents on drugs to be examined. We've already got breakthroughs for things such as Alzheimer's, but they sit on the shelves because of all the royalties and fees required to pay off patent holders AND go through the expensive FDA approval procedure. On the FDA, let's be honest: if you're dying and there's an untested cure that could possibly save you, are you really going to care if a bureaucrat hasn't approved it yet?

 

As for doctors... well, regulations on their earning ability is probably a bad idea. We should instead make it easier to become one; the AMA artificially restricts the number of doctors, which drives up the price of care. The high salaries of the medical profession exist not just because of the operating costs, but the false scarcity of caregivers.

 

Sorry to keep ranting about healthcare, everybody. It's an issue that links to many of the country's biggest problems, like gun crime and poverty, and my wife has some pretty big health problems that the current system will probably screw her over to help fix (hello, enormous pile of debt), if it does, which makes it a subject close to my heart.

 

Well, this is the general American politics thread isn't it? Everyone has their political issues that ring strongly with them!

 

My main concern so far has been I may come off as one of those anarcho-capitalists. I just wanted to establish that while I don't believe in the unionist/expansive government ideals of the left, I'm not exactly supportive of the big businesses cure all approach either. Anyone who knows their history can tell you we've tried the company-centric approach in the Gilded Age. It didn't work.

[Autosaver]

So apparently a Republican brought up the idea of rewriting the party to appeal to more Americans (Poor + Minorities) but...

 

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/03/15/1729331/cpac-slavery-minority-outreach/?mobile=nc
 

A panel at the Conservative Political Action Committee on Republican minority outreach exploded into controversy on Friday afternoon, after an audience member defended slavery as good for African-Americans.

After the exchange, Terry muttered under his breath, “why can’t we just have segregation?” noting the Constitution’s protections for freedom of association. Watch it:

At one point, a woman challenged him on the Republican Party’s roots, to which Terry responded, “I didn’t know the legacy of the Republican Party included women correcting men in public.”

 

My god.. this is hilarious in a terrible way. You know your party has problems when tons of people make a riot against rewriting the party to reach a wider audience. It even has bigger problems when those people state racist and sexist remarks. Pure gold.

Edited March 16, 2013 by Autosaver

[Tornado]

Everyone likes sandwiches.

 

And there are millions of women in America.

 

 

 

 

And thus the Republican Party decided to follow Scott Terry's plans to revitalize the economy and provide jobs for all women.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

How...wha...?

 

No seriously, how the fuck can anyone comprehend the good out of this other than it translating to "We should be superior because fuck you"?

 

And yet this Scott Terry can't seem to comprehend how wrong the things he said are?

[Patticus]

It's pretty disgraceful that people in this day and age can hold views as repugnant as that man's. People have every right to think what they want about whatever they like, but views like that should be sidelined and ignored.

 

 

Couple of questions:

 

What are the odds that the upcoming hearings on DOMA will lead to its repeal?

And will this Obamacare loophole which allows companies to shift the monetary burden onto taxpayers, by denying coverage to anyone working under 30 hours a week, ever be fixed?

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/12/09/walmart-bails-on-obamacare-sticks-taxpayers-with-employee-healthcare-costs/

[SenEDDtor Missile]

Another attempt by corporations to control the internet: http://stopthetrap.net/?tag=201206omihome