First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Post Reply Defending the liberal world order
923 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M
Offline
Posted 11/27/17 , edited 11/28/17

MysticGon wrote:
That's the most important part for most. If you are not forced to buy it then you no longer have to worry about it. The employer mandate, pre-existing condition and 26 year-old on parents plan are popular provisions most people like. But the individual mandate has and always will be the point of opposition until it's done away with.


I concede that the penalty fee is unpopular, but I don't see how getting rid of it is going to be some great, big political victory for Trump. I just checked the text of the law on my computer, and it comes to 998 pages in Adobe. Only two pages, by my count, are devoted to the penalty fee.

I don't think the penalty is at all the most important part for most, just the most visible. Importance is subjective. Is the fact of whether my neighbor able to pay his healthcare bills of importance to me? I may not think about it very much, but I would argue that it is of importance how other people get on in society, whether I think about it or not. Its importance only determines whether I should think about it, not whether I actually do.
29480 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 11/28/17 , edited 11/28/17

mittemeyer wrote:


MysticGon wrote:
That's the most important part for most. If you are not forced to buy it then you no longer have to worry about it. The employer mandate, pre-existing condition and 26 year-old on parents plan are popular provisions most people like. But the individual mandate has and always will be the point of opposition until it's done away with.


I concede that the penalty fee is unpopular, but I don't see how getting rid of it is going to be some great, big political victory for Trump. I just checked the text of the law on my computer, and it comes to 998 pages in Adobe. Only two pages, by my count, are devoted to the penalty fee.

I don't think the penalty is at all the most important part for most, just the most visible. Importance is subjective. Is the fact of whether my neighbor able to pay his healthcare bills of importance to me? I may not think about it very much, but I would argue that it is of importance how other people get on in society, whether I think about it or not. Its importance only determines whether I should think about it, not whether I actually do.


Lol your getting all meta on me. The bottom line is for the average person if the 2 pages aren't enforced you don't have to worry about the other 996.

What would you consider the most important? Because the forcing you to buy "or else" is what's behind the main "socialist medicine" gripe. Same with people calling it a tax and so on. No one likes being punished after after all, especially for something like not buying a product.
923 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M
Offline
Posted 11/28/17 , edited 11/28/17

MysticGon wrote:

Lol your getting all meta on me. The bottom line is for the average person if the 2 pages aren't enforced you don't have to worry about the other 996.

What would you consider the most important? Because the forcing you to buy "or else" is what's behind the main "socialist medicine" gripe. Same with people calling it a tax and so on. No one likes being punished after after all, especially for something like not buying a product.


Let's leave aside the question of importance for now.

It is not true that for the average person the law does not apply, because the average person in the United States has health insurance. If the individual mandate is repealed, the CBO projection for the change in number of uninsured is 13 million. That is compared to the 298 million people who do have insurance, out of the 325 million people in the United States.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_coverage_in_the_United_States
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/8/16623154/cbo-obamacare-individual-mandate-new-baseline
5545 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 11/28/17 , edited 11/28/17

Your Canadian. Why should the US president or any American care about your opinions on our politics? Of course you won't be interested in Trump because he really isn't your president. Tredue is your president and He's letting in ISIS but oh boy if Trump implemented a travel ban its oh so bad he should be more like Canada and welcome ISIS.

Trump has literally hundreds of millions of people that care what he has to say about politics including you, I know how active you are obsessing over his every word. The fact that your trying to convince yourself otherwise is a denial of reality.

I'm not taking the rest of your bait as we have answered you many times over previously but you apparently forgot.


Imagine if a country banned all Christians, because of fear of a terrorist cult that considers all Christians not with them Godless heretics. Further more most of the Christians trying in move in, are trying to get their families away from those terrorists. We might accuse them of hating Christians, of considering Christians guilty until proven innocent, and disregarding an easily proven threat to tens of thousands of human lives, in favor of a almost entirely nonexistent risk.

The travel ban and refuge ban in particular are bad because of a cost Trump supporters seem to actively disregard. And yes I care less about how far right wing religious some of these people are than that they are living in justified fear of their and their families lives right now.

On top of that even from an #AmericaFirst stand point turning all Muslims away is really bad for our image. Anti-western extremist hardly need to make anything up. They just need to down play that there is a side in America that opposes this stuff. While the main reason why these large organization can exist, is because the local authorities were too weak to stop their growth, the west acting in short sighted interest had more than a little to do that. So setting blame and guilt aside we should at lease learn from our mistakes.
29480 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 11/28/17 , edited 11/28/17

mittemeyer wrote:


MysticGon wrote:

Lol your getting all meta on me. The bottom line is for the average person if the 2 pages aren't enforced you don't have to worry about the other 996.

What would you consider the most important? Because the forcing you to buy "or else" is what's behind the main "socialist medicine" gripe. Same with people calling it a tax and so on. No one likes being punished after after all, especially for something like not buying a product.


Let's leave aside the question of importance for now.

It is not true that for the average person the law does not apply, because the average person in the United States has health insurance. If the individual mandate is repealed, the CBO projection for the change in number of uninsured is 13 million. That is compared to the 298 million people who do have insurance, out of the 325 million people in the United States.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_coverage_in_the_United_States
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/8/16623154/cbo-obamacare-individual-mandate-new-baseline


Ever wonder why the number will go down? Because they'd no longer be forced to have to buy it. For those that get it through their employers not much will change with the individual mandate repeal. Who it will adversely affect is the people who don't have insurance through their job who are on the government health exchanges and the insurance company executives because the government isn't forcing people to buy their products anymore. You could go further and say the federal government will have to pay more in subsidies but the current admin is saying they won't.
923 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M
Offline
Posted 11/28/17 , edited 11/28/17


Yes, I read conservative publications such as National Review and the American Conservative and have heard that argument before: the number of people who will lose insurance will simply be those people who decide to opt out of insurance.

I was simply pointing out that the effect of repeal (13 million people) is small relative to the population of the United States. In all fairness, the ACA covers only about 23 million people through the exchanges and Medicaid combined, and it is not clear to me how many people of the 13 million will be from there. I suppose 23 million doesn't sound like a lot compared to the total 325 million people in the United States either. But the ACA includes provisions for what may go into all health insurance coverage, and that affects everyone who has medical insurance. A repeal of the penalty fee will not affect the reach of the law in that area.
29480 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 11/28/17 , edited 11/28/17

mittemeyer wrote:



Yes, I read conservative publications such as National Review and the American Conservative and have heard that argument before: the number of people who will lose insurance will simply be those people who decide to opt out of insurance.

I was simply pointing out that the effect of repeal (13 million people) is small relative to the population of the United States. In all fairness, the ACA covers only about 23 million people through the exchanges and Medicaid combined, and it is not clear to me how many people of the 13 million will be from there. I suppose 23 million doesn't sound like a lot compared to the total 325 million people in the United States either. But the ACA includes provisions for what may go into all health insurance coverage, and that affects everyone who has medical insurance. A repeal of the penalty fee will not affect the reach of the law in that area.


And that's okay, a lot of those provisions are popular.
1646 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Canada, Toronto
Offline
Posted 5/19/18 , edited 5/19/18
Now that USA has fallen to populist takeover, I want to discuss which country will now lead the liberal order assuming that the liberal order will not fragment anytime soon. The new leader of the liberal order should have the following criteria:

1) It should be socially liberal.
2) It should have prosperitive economy and powerful military force.
3) It should participate heavily in both the "humitarian intervention" and the spread of some varieties of liberalism.

Capitalism and the free market is not a criteria since many new liberal varieties no longer support them especially those that support transnationalism. The following countries could have the potential to lead the liberal order:

1) Canada is a somewhat good option since it persist in the 2008 recession crisis better than USA. The Liberal Party of Canada is now elected and remove the Conservative Party from power so it has become a refuge of immgrants from Trump's America. Furthermore, Canada is not a good environment for Western-style populism especially on the national level and the populism that could gain power on the national level would be more moderate. One challenge as the leading liberal order is the lack of powerful military force. Australia and New Zealand could be two more candidates within the Anglo-phone countries but I do not have enough information to comment on them.

2) Some western European countries like Sweden and Norway could be a good candidate but they are affected by populist uprising. France did manage to avoid a populist takeover for now but the future resistance is uncertain.

3) In Latin America, Mexico could be a candidate but its Neo-Liberal puppet government first need to be removed and real democracy without rigged election and manipulate voting should be implemented. It also have problems of human right violation, rampart corruption, widespread crimes, and mass poverty from neo-colonialism since the 1960s. Venezuela could not be a candidate despite its economic prosperity because it is heavily dependent on oil export and any disruption to the international oil industry, like the 2008 recession crisis, can destroy Venezuelan economy. Peru could be another candidate but more information is needed.

4) Cuba could be the best prospect among the Latin American countries due to the Communist influence; this include humitarian intervention to foreign countries, socially liberal policies, tolerance of diversity, and resistance toward evil Capitalist con-man. Cuba is a small country that is, with recent exception, heavily affected by the economic sanction from the Capitalists but this does not affected Cuba enough as a candidate.

5) In East Asia, China could be a candidate economically but its current political system is inadequent. The local Communist Party did promise to introduce democracy in the future but time will tell whether they will keep the promise. Other candidates in East Asia include Vietnam, Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.