Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)

[Karl Henning]

Focusing on Trump obscures the greater problem.

His words and actions may help motivate the white supremacists, but they would be there, and just as dangerous, without him.

Yes, a thousand times, yes.

[Florestan]

From European perspective Americans are brainwashed.

Speak only for yourself, dude, please! I am just as European as you are yet I don't think "Americans are brainwashed". Actually, if someone here on GMG presents the typical symptoms of brainwashing it''s exactly you, your delusional claims to knowledge notwithstanding.

And to hear you of all people talking about "critical thinking" is delicious.

[71 dB]

There are so many bad assumptions here it's hard to say where to start.

But let me start with a simple one. 
No health care system is rationed by wallet.  No health care system is rationed by need.  Every health care system is rationed by bureaucrats. In Finland they are bureaucrats who are government employees using their judgment to apply the standards used by the Finnish health care system with an eye on spending the least amount possible.  In the US  they are bureaucrats who are private employees using their judgment to apply the standards of the US health care system with an eye on spending the least amount possible.    The only real difference between the two systems is who pays the bureaucrats's salaries.

People who need care get it quickly in the US, especially if they live in urban areas.   We have public hospitals, established by and part of the local governments, where anyone can go for care.  They all have emergency rooms.  The horror stories in the US revolve around the fact that the local governments routinely underfund and understaff these hospitals, so that long wait times are the norm for anything that's not a true emergency.  Americans see how badly public hospitals can be run, and when they see single payer plans they understand that involves all hospitals becoming like public hospitals, underfunded and understaffed.  They see how Medicare and Medicare don't pay for new therapies or expensive therapies despite the need, and understand that approach will typify any single payer program.

I am sure Kulinksi is sincere, but he's advocating, not reporting.  He's trying to convince people that his policies should be adopted.  So he only presents things that help him towards that goal. I gave you an example of one important omission in his "reporting".  If you are not a progressive, then you won't think his ideas will make America better.  You may even think they will make it worse.  This is not a result of corporate brainwashing.  This is a result of Americans using their own minds to decide for themselves.  Remember, I am not saying that CNN, etc are more trustworthy than Kulinksi et al.  I am saying Kulinski et all are just as untrustworthy as they are.  What you call smears are really facts.  And I could easily point out that most of the "facts" the Youtubers aim at Harris and others are just as much smears as anything CNN says about Sanders.

People are talking about leftist politicians more then before, but that's because the corporate media you hate is talking about them more.  And more often than not, when they talk about those leftists they notice the flaws in their ideas.  I don't need CNN to tell me what's wrong with the Green New Deal (especially since to the best of my knowledge CNN or any of the MSM is not talking about what's wrong with the Green New Deal). I just need to read the Green New Deal and listen to what people like AOC say about to understand the fundamental flaws it has: a complete government takeover of most of the American economy that won't actually produce the results its advocates say it will...but will have a lot of bad consequences flowing from the mere attempt to implement it.

You have no problem admitting you are a Leftist.  Which means you are biased in favor of progressive policies and biased against conservative policies. If you were a true critical thinker, you would take pains to ensure your biases are not hindering your judgment of the facts.   But you aren't...otherwise you would be far less enthusiastic about the US Left.  You see the media paying attention to AOC and others,  and mistake that for the American public at large being more enthusiastic about them.  It's not so. GMG has a respectable number of members who express political opinions (and an even bigger number who don't). It seems that most of those who express political opinions are to the left side of the spectrum...which means that the Left is over-represented here compared to the general US population.  Bear that in mind, too.  And there is no Overton window effect.  America is less socially conservative than it was a generation ago, but in all other matters it is no more and no less conservative than it used to be. 

You are letting your sources mislead you.  And you are doing so by not exercising the critical thinking you claim to value.

I can respond that easily. You try to muddy the waters talking about bureaucrats. In single payer systems byreaucrats have different incentives than in for-profit system. That is the main reason why the US healtcare system is so bad. When you make profit denying care you do your best to find excuses to do so. When there's tax payer money allocated to healthcare and to be used anyway, there is no way to make profit. Your incentive is simple to use the money the most effective way to provide the best possible health outcomes for the money. So, my point is still valid: In single payer system byreaucrats make their decisions based on need while in the US for-profit system decisions are made based on profit (size of wallet). Corporate media doesn't do a good job educating the public about this, but now you learned (hopefully) it from me. You kind of hint this in your own post, but you don't connect the dots.



People have ACCESS (weaselword used by politicians), but what kind of bills do they have to pay afterwards? If the hospital gives you a bill of $100.000 and your insurance company is willing to cover only $40.000, it leaves you with $60.000 to be paid yourself. For many this means bankruptcy. I'm not saying nothing works in US healthcare, but in comparison to other countries it could work much better. It could cover everyone and cost significantly less. Elsewhere medical bankruptcies are not a thing. Why should they be a thing in the richest country in the World? In Finland they charge you something so that you don't use healthcare services without a reason (and waste resources), but it's like $30 or so. Nothing to go bankrupt over. Like public school, public hospitals are underfunded in the US, but that would of course change in a single payer system where all that tax payer money can be used. Medicare is underfunded. Medicare for all would have solid funds. That's what you get for paing more taxes! Better public services!

What is wrong about trying to convince people that your policies should be adopted? Kyle Kulinski has educated himself about the facts. He has a degree in political sciences. He reads and thinks about things and has come to the conclusion that the US must move to the single payer healthcare system. He has done a lot of videos about drug prices and I don't think I have seen them all. I'm not sure he is omitting anything, at least purposedly. Something in the US system is fundamentally wrong if insuling costs 10 times more than elsewhere. CHANGE THE FUCKING SYSTEM! Why the fuck do you WANT to pay 10 times more? It is totally rational to think the US would be better if 30.000-45.000 American's DIDN't die every year. You tell me why it isn't! You tell me why not having medical bankruptcies isn't better! Other counties a lot of things better than the US. Open your eyes.

People are talking about leftist politicians more then before, but that's because the corporate media you hate is talking about them more.  And more often than not, when they talk about those leftists they notice the flaws in their ideas.  I don't need CNN to tell me what's wrong with the Green New Deal (especially since to the best of my knowledge CNN or any of the MSM is not talking about what's wrong with the Green New Deal). I just need to read the Green New Deal and listen to what people like AOC say about to understand the fundamental flaws it has: a complete government takeover of most of the American economy that won't actually produce the results its advocates say it will...but will have a lot of bad consequences flowing from the mere attempt to implement it.

You are so dumb. Corporate media smears left wingers and you think that's revealing flaws. Jesus you are DUMB!! What was wrong in FDR's New Deal?? FDR was so popular Republicans came up with term limits! New Deal was a success! Green New Deal is the same! It is NECESSORY action against climate change + JOBS!! You are TOTALLY brainwashed!!!! FDR was smeared the same way!! Are you just as stupid???



Why would it be a problem? The US needs left wing ideas badly. I am DONE WITH YOU!!!!!

[71 dB]

Speak only for yourself, dude, please! I am just as European as you are yet I don't think "Americans are brainwashed". Actually, if someone here on GMG presents the typical symptoms of brainwashing it''s exactly you, your delusional claims to knowledge notwithstanding.

And to hear you of all people talking about "critical thinking" is delicious.

Do you want American style for-profit healthcare in Romania? How many Romanians do you want to die for lack of healthcare?
How many Europeans do you think want American healthcare? Corporate media takes corporate money (FACT). How do they in your opinion refrain from regurtating corporate-friendly nonsense?

[71 dB]

Do you get any of your information from...books?

Or is that just so much more corporate owned media?

I'm not a book-worshipper. Books can be bad too + they cost money.

[Florestan]

Do you want American style for-profit healthcare in Romania? How many Romanians do you want to die for lack of healthcare?

Romanians die for lack of healthcare in public hospitals on a daily basis right now, single payer system notwithstanding. The public healthcare system is a disaster, except a few hospitals in a few big cities. The private healthcare is much, much better than the public one --- all people who can afford it use it without hesitation, while those who cannot afford it can only pray that they enter the hospital alive and get out of it alive as well. Not to mention that if you want to be treated quick and efficient in a public hospital you often have to pay the doctors and the nurses form your won pocket, otherwise they won't do it.

JBS is spot on: a single payer system by itself guarantees nothing.

Corporate media takes corporate money (FACT). How do they in your opinion refrain from regurtating corporate-friendly nonsense?

Your vehement anti-corporation rhetoric sounds exactly, but exactly, like Patrick Crusius'. Heck, he is even just as much an ecologist as you are.

[JBS]

I can respond that easily. You try to muddy the waters talking about bureaucrats. In single payer systems byreaucrats have different incentives than in for-profit system. That is the main reason why the US healtcare system is so bad. When you make profit denying care you do your best to find excuses to do so. When there's tax payer money allocated to healthcare and to be used anyway, there is no way to make profit. Your incentive is simple to use the money the most effective way to provide the best possible health outcomes for the money. So, my point is still valid: In single payer system byreaucrats make their decisions based on need while in the US for-profit system decisions are made based on profit (size of wallet). Corporate media doesn't do a good job educating the public about this, but now you learned (hopefully) it from me. You kind of hint this in your own post, but you don't connect the dots.



People have ACCESS (weaselword used by politicians), but what kind of bills do they have to pay afterwards? If the hospital gives you a bill of $100.000 and your insurance company is willing to cover only $40.000, it leaves you with $60.000 to be paid yourself. For many this means bankruptcy. I'm not saying nothing works in US healthcare, but in comparison to other countries it could work much better. It could cover everyone and cost significantly less. Elsewhere medical bankruptcies are not a thing. Why should they be a thing in the richest country in the World? In Finland they charge you something so that you don't use healthcare services without a reason (and waste resources), but it's like $30 or so. Nothing to go bankrupt over. Like public school, public hospitals are underfunded in the US, but that would of course change in a single payer system where all that tax payer money can be used. Medicare is underfunded. Medicare for all would have solid funds. That's what you get for paing more taxes! Better public services!

What is wrong about trying to convince people that your policies should be adopted? Kyle Kulinski has educated himself about the facts. He has a degree in political sciences. He reads and thinks about things and has come to the conclusion that the US must move to the single payer healthcare system. He has done a lot of videos about drug prices and I don't think I have seen them all. I'm not sure he is omitting anything, at least purposedly. Something in the US system is fundamentally wrong if insuling costs 10 times more than elsewhere. CHANGE THE FUCKING SYSTEM! Why the fuck do you WANT to pay 10 times more? It is totally rational to think the US would be better if 30.000-45.000 American's DIDN't die every year. You tell me why it isn't! You tell me why not having medical bankruptcies isn't better! Other counties a lot of things better than the US. Open your eyes.

People are talking about leftist politicians more then before, but that's because the corporate media you hate is talking about them more.  And more often than not, when they talk about those leftists they notice the flaws in their ideas.  I don't need CNN to tell me what's wrong with the Green New Deal (especially since to the best of my knowledge CNN or any of the MSM is not talking about what's wrong with the Green New Deal). I just need to read the Green New Deal and listen to what people like AOC say about to understand the fundamental flaws it has: a complete government takeover of most of the American economy that won't actually produce the results its advocates say it will...but will have a lot of bad consequences flowing from the mere attempt to implement it.

You are so dumb. Corporate media smears left wingers and you think that's revealing flaws. Jesus you are DUMB!! What was wrong in FDR's New Deal?? FDR was so popular Republicans came up with term limits! New Deal was a success! Green New Deal is the same! It is NECESSORY action against climate change + JOBS!! You are TOTALLY brainwashed!!!! FDR was smeared the same way!! Are you just as stupid???



Why would it be a problem? The US needs left wing ideas badly. I am DONE WITH YOU!!!!!

1)Bureaucrats in a single payer system  have the job of spending as little money as possible while meeting patient needs.  Same  job in US as in Finland: save their employer money. The verbiage on their paperwork may be difference, but the goal is the same.  They have a set amount of money they are allowed to spend, so they have to ration it.

2)Single payer would not result in more money being spent on public hospitals.  If tax money is not being spent on them now, why would it under a single payer system in which the private hospitals are reduced to the same funding levels.  Your assumption that higher taxes would result in higher funding of services is not supported by reality.

3)

If the hospital gives you a bill of $100.000 and your insurance company is willing to cover only $40.000, it leaves you with $60.000 to be paid yourself.

That's not how it works.  The insurance company gets the bill, knocks it down to  a much lower rate based on the contract they have with the hospital or doctor, pays their portion, and tells you what you pay as coinsurance.  And there are usually a maximum per year the patient pays under the insurance plan.  Meaning that hospital bill would be dropped down to about $20,000 or $30,000, and the patient is expected to pay 20 or 30 percent of that.  If you want to criticize US insurance, make sure you know how it actually works.

4) I told you why drug prices are so high here in the US, but I guess it didn't penetrate: the companies manipulate the patent and regulation processes.  Kulinski's proposals would do nothing about that, so the drug prices would still be much higher.  One instance in which single payer would do no better, and possibly much worse, than the current system.

5)I was talking about the Green New Deal.  But FDR's New Deal did not not really bring the US out of the Depression....WWII did that.  In fact, the New Deal may have actually lengthened the Depression because it caused a second round of recessionary action  c 1936.    And it involved so much government interference in the economy that it is probably the closest we in the US have ever come to a true socialist government.  The Green New Deal will result in major job losses and little change in pollution levels. 

6)Why do you think any thing that contradicts your preferred narrative is false? 

[Florestan]

I'm not a book-worshipper. Books can be bad too + they cost money.

This is sheer nonsense. A good public library --- of which there is no dearth in Finland, I'm sure --- can offer you the best books for a pittance, if any at all.

[71 dB]

5)I was talking about the Green New Deal.  But FDR's New Deal did not not really bring the US out of the Depression....WWII did that. 

So you prefer WWIII to Green New Deal?

[71 dB]

4) I told you why drug prices are so high here in the US, but I guess it didn't penetrate: the companies manipulate the patent and regulation processes.  Kulinski's proposals would do nothing about that, so the drug prices would still be much higher.  One instance in which single payer would do no better, and possibly much worse, than the current system.

Why don't the companies manipulate the patent and regulation processes in Canada or Finland? Somehow it seems like the ability for companies to manipulate the patent and regulation processes is tied to the for-profit healthcare system as the only country with for-profit healthcare system happens to have the most expensive drugs. Are you claiming all this is pure coincidence? Did it ever occur to you that the move to a single payer system would include changes to patent and regulation processes so that the companies can't manipulate them anymore?

[71 dB]

This is sheer nonsense. A good public library --- of which there is no dearth in Finland, I'm sure --- can offer you the best books for a pittance, if any at all.

I still haven't visited Oodi library... 

[JBS]

Why don't the companies manipulate the patent and regulation processes in Canada or Finland? Somehow it seems like the ability for companies to manipulate the patent and regulation processes is tied to the for-profit healthcare system as the only country with for-profit healthcare system happens to have the most expensive drugs. Are you claiming all this is pure coincidence? Did it ever occur to you that the move to a single payer system would include changes to patent and regulation processes so that the companies can't manipulate them anymore?

They don't manipulate in Canada and Finland because Canada and Finland have different patent and approval procedures. But it has nothing to do with having a for profit system. On this point your criticism of Big Pharma is correct. The fact that your sources don't make the problem clear, and only use it as a way to advocate single payer (falsely, since single payer won't solve the problem) should be a glaring signal to you that your sources are not nearly as trustworthy as you think they are.

The changes to patent and regulation are independent of changing to a single payer. You can do one without the other. Furthermore, reforming patent and approval processes would bring down prices whether or not single payer was in effect, but single payer would not bring down on its own.

If you were actually familiar with the American system, you would understand why for many, if not most, Americans, single payer is not obviously better, and quite possibly worse.

[71 dB]

If you were actually familiar with the American system, you would understand why for many, if not most, Americans, single payer is not obviously better, and quite possibly worse.

Well, I try to learn from you as you know everything. Would you say the current system works better for the ~30 million people without insurance than single payer would?

[71 dB]

They don't manipulate in Canada and Finland because Canada and Finland have different patent and approval procedures. But it has nothing to do with having a for profit system. On this point your criticism of Big Pharma is correct. The fact that your sources don't make the problem clear, and only use it as a way to advocate single payer (falsely, since single payer won't solve the problem) should be a glaring signal to you that your sources are not nearly as trustworthy as you think they are.

The changes to patent and regulation are independent of changing to a single payer. You can do one without the other. Furthermore, reforming patent and approval processes would bring down prices whether or not single payer was in effect, but single payer would not bring down on its own.

Who's gonna change the patent and regulation laws? Someone progressive, like Bernie Sanders. He wants medicare for all too. You can maybe do one without the other, but why not do both. Most Americans want medicare for all and cheaper drugs. I also think there are MANY reasons for high prices and Kyle Kulinski addresses some of them (if not all) correctly. I mean they hardly change patent and regulation laws every time Big Pharma jacks up the prices significantly. They price gouge becauset thet can and you try to muddy the waters because for some reason you want to defend worst healthcare system in the world.

[JBS]

Who's gonna change the patent and regulation laws? Someone progressive, like Bernie Sanders. He wants medicare for all too. You can maybe do one without the other, but why not do both. Most Americans want medicare for all and cheaper drugs. I also think there are MANY reasons for high prices and Kyle Kulinski addresses some of them (if not all) correctly. I mean they hardly change patent and regulation laws every time Big Pharma jacks up the prices significantly. They price gouge becauset thet can and you try to muddy the waters because for some reason you want to defend worst healthcare system in the world.

I italicized the part that shows you literally have no idea of what you are talking about. You have no actual knowledge  of how our system works.

Well, I try to learn from you as you know everything. Would you say the current system works better for the ~30 million people without insurance than single payer would?

The 30 million would be getting the short end of the stick under any system. So they would get marginal improvements, but not much more.
Everyone else would be no better off, probably worse.

You don't seen to understand that what you hear from Kulinski et al are the problems and horror stories. You aren't getting the things that are good about the system. Kulinski is a one sided advocate. That you can't figure that out on your own says much about you, and nothing about anyone else.

[SimonNZ]

I'm not a book-worshipper. Books can be bad too + they cost money.

So...nearly all of the information you get on American politics - on which you now claim to be an expert, and see more clearly than the Americans here - comes from various ten-minute amateur or semi-amateur opinion videos on Youtube, and from the comments pages (!!) beneath them? Have I got this right?

[71 dB]

So...nearly all of the information you get on American politics - on which you now claim to be an expert, and see more clearly than the Americans here - comes from various ten-minute amateur or semi-amateur opinion videos on Youtube, and from the comments pages (!!) beneath them? Have I got this right?

I don't think I have claimed of being an EXPERT on American politics. However coming from a not so oligarchic country makes it easy for me to see American problems a mile away.

[71 dB]

The 30 million would be getting the short end of the stick under any system.

What you say makes no sense. People who are uninsured would be getting the short end of the stick under a system that covers everyone?

[SimonNZ]

I don't think I have claimed of being an EXPERT on American politics. However coming from a not so oligarchic country makes it easy for me to see American problems a mile away.

I think you've said something close to that, actually.

But I really wanted an answer to this part of my question: So.nearly all of the information you get on American politics comes from various ten-minute amateur or semi-amateur opinion videos on Youtube, and from the comments pages beneath them? Have I got this right?

[71 dB]

I think you've said something close to that, actually.

Well, then I have expressed myself poorly. I think I do understand American politics, but to be an expert takes of course more.

But I really wanted an answer to this part of my question: So.nearly all of the information you get on American politics comes from various ten-minute amateur or semi-amateur opinion videos on Youtube, and from the comments pages beneath them? Have I got this right?

Internet is my source. It includes 10 minute Youtube videos. I read the comments sometimes, but of course don't take them very seriously. Kyle Kulinski earns his living with these Youtube videos making him a professional politics commentator. He work hard from morning to evening repairing and producing the videos. The views he gets are on par the views corporate media outlets get.