The 2016 Presidential Election Trainwreck

[Jeff Lebowski]

wtf are you talking about. Nobody here is advocating "cronyism". By definition, that is only possible where government is in charge. You're not arguing here with your idiot right wing Mormon relatives. They've driven you to a new kind of dogma. As an American, you live in the lap of luxury, and everyone who put you in the position to put yourself here was an individual who did it by dint of their resourcefulness and nerve, whether you know it or not.

An ugly ad hominem response. Come on. You used to be better than this.

[creekster]

An ugly ad hominem response. Come on. You used to be better than this.

I concluded he was likely drinking becasue it really was an embarrassing response.

[SeattleUte]

An ugly ad hominem response. Come on. You used to be better than this.

You're attacking a straw man contending that some activities like the judiciary--for Christ sakes!--or prisons shouldn't be "privatized". (Though you probably don't realize the extent to which our penal system everywhere, even in the bluest states, relies on private contractors.) But there is a very real and legitimate debate in this country about government intervention in activities that have traditionally been in the private sphere. How law and policy is set in this gray area is a legitimate subject for debate and depends upon the extent to which we decide to trust the market or government. The greater extent to which government does something that looks like traditional private enterprise, the more reason there is to challenge this incursion.

For example: health care. You hear left leaning economists and politicians all the time contend that Canada and Europe get so much higher quality health care for less percentage of GDP expended on that part of the economy. It's BS. Nobody goes to the UK or Canada for health care if they can access the best available health care in the US. The Affordable Care Act is a partnership between existing private third-party payor systems and government, and for you and me doesn't even constitute that radical a departure from status quo ante. It has changed nothing for me. I have no problem with what market forces and the profit motive have done for health care in the US. ON the contrary. So stop raising straw men and ridiculously over-simplifying this.

[SeattleUte]

I concluded he was likely drinking becasue it really was an embarrassing response.

An ugly response. It's a known fact that Lebowski is frustrated by right wing crazies in his immediate family, and I often feel like we're getting a rerun of what he has barked at them over the ruins of a Sunday dinner.

[Jeff Lebowski]

You're attacking a straw man contending that some activities like the judiciary--for Christ sakes!--or prisons shouldn't be "privatized". (Though you probably don't realize the extent to which our penal system everywhere, even in the bluest states, relies on private contractors.) But there is a very real and legitimate debate in this country about government intervention in activities that have traditionally been in the private sphere. How law and policy is set in this gray area is a legitimate subject for debate and depends upon the extent to which we decide to trust the market or government. The greater extent to which government does something that looks like traditional private enterprise, the more reason there is to challenge this incursion.

Your problem is you seem to be incapable of dealing with nuance in these discussions. If I push back on any point, you automatically assume I am some extreme lefty, which is utter nonsense. I point out a couple of areas where privatization may not be possible or healthy. You respond by attacking my family (WTH?) and accusing me of not being grateful for all the wonderful benefits and opportunities I have as an American? Seriously? Where did that come from?

For example: health care. You hear left leaning economists and politicians all the time contend that Canada and Europe get so much higher quality health care for less percentage of GDP expended on that part of the economy. It's BS. Nobody goes to the UK or Canada for health care if they can access the best available health care in the US. The Affordable Care Act is a partnership between existing private third-party payor systems and government, and for you and me doesn't even constitute that radical a departure from status quo ante. It has changed nothing for me. I have no problem with what market forces and the profit motive have done for health care in the US. ON the contrary. So stop raising straw men and ridiculously over-simplifying this.

I haven't said a word about health care in this discussion.

You mentioned roads. I responded very specifically. I mentioned privatized prisons and mentioned a very specific example. You responded by telling me that it was a bad example because one part of the judge-prison scandal was not privatized. So at what point did I bring up straw man? If I misunderstood your point about the judge, please clarify for me. Preferably without the insults.

Of course I know about the extent to which the government does contracting. I work in an industry that overwhelming relies on that contracting. I have never once claimed that we should eliminate contracting to private firms (your straw man, not mine). My only argument was that complete privatization is neither feasible nor desirable.

[Uncle Ted]

[imanihonjin]

wtf are you talking about. Nobody here is advocating "cronyism". By definition, that is only possible where government is in charge. You're not arguing here with your idiot right wing Mormon relatives. They've driven you to a new kind of dogma. As an American, you live in the lap of luxury, and everyone who put you in the position to put yourself here was an individual who did it by dint of their resourcefulness and nerve, whether you know it or not.

Maybe we should start calling this "liberal privilege". You should really check your liberal privilege, JL.

[imanihonjin]

Your problem is you seem to be incapable of dealing with nuance in these discussions. If I push back on any point, you automatically assume I am some extreme lefty, which is utter nonsense. I point out a couple of areas where privatization may not be possible or healthy. You respond by attacking my family (WTH?) and accusing me of not being grateful for all the wonderful benefits and opportunities I have as an American? Seriously? Where did that come from?



I haven't said a word about health care in this discussion.

You mentioned roads. I responded very specifically. I mentioned privatized prisons and mentioned a very specific example. You responded by telling me that it was a bad example because one part of the judge-prison scandal was not privatized. So at what point did I bring up straw man? If I misunderstood your point about the judge, please clarify for me. Preferably without the insults.

Of course I know about the extent to which the government does contracting. I work in an industry that overwhelming relies on that contracting. I have never once claimed that we should eliminate contracting to private firms (your straw man, not mine). My only argument was that complete privatization is neither feasible nor desirable.

This is rich coming from you.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Trump loses... skinheads riot. Trump wins... niggas riot. I'm guessing there is going to be a riot.

http://www.worldnewspolitics.com/201...der-threatens/

Oh my. I can't think of anything they could do that would better motivate and solidify Trump's base.

[frank ryan]

You're attacking a straw man contending that some activities like the judiciary--for Christ sakes!--or prisons shouldn't be "privatized". (Though you probably don't realize the extent to which our penal system everywhere, even in the bluest states, relies on private contractors.) But there is a very real and legitimate debate in this country about government intervention in activities that have traditionally been in the private sphere. How law and policy is set in this gray area is a legitimate subject for debate and depends upon the extent to which we decide to trust the market or government. The greater extent to which government does something that looks like traditional private enterprise, the more reason there is to challenge this incursion.

For example: health care. You hear left leaning economists and politicians all the time contend that Canada and Europe get so much higher quality health care for less percentage of GDP expended on that part of the economy. It's BS. Nobody goes to the UK or Canada for health care if they can access the best available health care in the US. The Affordable Care Act is a partnership between existing private third-party payor systems and government, and for you and me doesn't even constitute that radical a departure from status quo ante. It has changed nothing for me. I have no problem with what market forces and the profit motive have done for health care in the US. ON the contrary. So stop raising straw men and ridiculously over-simplifying this.

You do realize there a ton of people in this country w/out access to health care? The ACA helped remedy that to a degree in states that accepted Medicaid expansion. Having the best Drs. in the world doesn't mean shit if you can't access them.

[imanihonjin]

You do realize there a ton of people in this country w/out access to health care? The ACA helped remedy that to a degree in states that accepted Medicaid expansion. Having the best Drs. in the world doesn't mean shit if you can't access them.

Every single person has "access to heath care". Some may not have insurance, but access is available. Additionally, feel free to provide me with an example where someone was turned away from an emergency room.

[frank ryan]

Every single person has "access to heath care". Some may not have insurance, but access is available. Additionally, feel free to provide me with an example where someone was turned away from an emergency room.

Bullshit, try going to an oncologist w/out insurance? Ever heard the term "wallet biopsy" ? Ability to pay can be a factor in whether or not someone is admitted. Just because anyone can walk in to an ER doesn't mean they have access to the healthcare they need.

[Uncle Ted]

Oh my. I can't think of anything they could do that would better motivate and solidify Trump's base.

Maybe they could just settle this in one big riot and let us know if Drumpf wins or loses...

[Uncle Ted]

Bullshit, try going to an oncologist w/out insurance? Ever heard the term "wallet biopsy" ? Ability to pay can be a factor in whether or not someone is admitted. Just because anyone can walk in to an ER doesn't mean they have access to the healthcare they need.

Drumpf has you covered... He wants to dump Obamacare but replace it with this thing called "universal healthcare" which sounds better than that sh*t that your boy Bernie is pushing:

He is going to take care of everyone!

[imanihonjin]

Bullshit, try going to an oncologist w/out insurance? Ever heard the term "wallet biopsy" ? Ability to pay can be a factor in whether or not someone is admitted. Just because anyone can walk in to an ER doesn't mean they have access to the healthcare they need.

And where does providing free access to the health care that people need end? Does that mean all forms of treatment available?