• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Cowardly Face of Authoritarianism

lwf said:
They weren't covered. And they were denied preventative medical services. But they were treated anyway if their condition was dire enough. And if they didn't pay for said treatment, the hospitals that treated them were reimbursed by medicaid which you and I pay into. So the ACA was an effort to get the poor to pay what they could afford and get them access to preventative medical treatment and in the process stem the drain on medicaid to some degree.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, the ACA massively EXPANDED medicaid. That was probably the biggest contention most states had with the act.
 
jghiretire said:
Yet the GOP in Wisconsin is trying to kneecap the duly elected people in that state because they are............democrats. Please note DULY ELECTED.
But hey no authoritarianism under Trump. Just say Nyet.
Click to expand...

The Wisconsin legislature is seeking to WEAKEN the powers of the governor. That's pretty much the opposite of "authoritarian".
 
Lutherf said:
It never ceases to amaze me that Trump is seen as authoritarian while Democrats under Obama were lauded for forcing the ACÁ, a law that forced people to purchase a certain product under the threat of penalty. The ACÁ was the definition of “authoritarian”.
Click to expand...

How dare they trample on your freedom to not buy health insurance, be unable to fully pay for emergency treatment, and thus pass the bill on to insured people! (And if you personally are rich enough to afford any emergency, I do hope you still get the general point...)

:roll:




Here is a simple truth you will lie about:

1. The state of the law before puts the rights of uninsured over the insured.

2. The state of the law now reverses that. Citizens don't get to make someone else pay for the consequences of their irresponsibility.

But that's too straight-forward, so we have to squawk about the left hating your rights, or something. Or, hey, maybe we can complain that ERISA's requirement that a hospital stabilize every patient without regard to ability to pay is a horrible infringement on hospitals rights. Go whole hog.

You won't though, will you, because you realize that there is no argument there that you are even able to pretend is morally reasonable, since it would require letting people bleed out on the floor if they didn't have proof of insurance or a wallet full of credit cards. So you want the hospital to have to save you even if you don't have insurance, and then you want them to recoup the loss when your assets don't cover the bill by negotiating higher prices with insurance companies, who then raise the premiums on insured people who really are responsible enough to pay their own way.




See, the think people who say what you have said don't seem to understand that if it's a question of "rights", the "rights" of more than one party are involved. You only want to focus on your own....not on the rights of others' whom your conduct might affect. When you do that, you take an intellectually dishonest view of what the heart of the ACA actually does.
 
Last edited:
Rogue Valley said:
The Cowardly Face of Authoritarianism

23serners-leeHRjpg-INYT-articleLarge.jpg



I have little doubt that our current era of Trump will someday be viewed as America's brush with cultist authoritarianism, where a significant portion of American society was willing to support this cult at the expense of America's reputation and leadership in the world.
Click to expand...

Oh gee, what a fresh and novel theme. Another screed against the existential danger of Donald Trump, the fearful "dictator" who had a revolving door of his own advisors challenge him repeatedly and whose own military said, in no uncertain terms, that Trump could take a hike if his orders to them aren't sane and legal. Whatever real or imagined threat Trump presented to the paranoid's (and I was one of them) died in the first nine months of his administration; the bloom is off the rose, and the cult like adoration has lost its sheen.

Ya, Trump does love adoration, and he is stubborn, and he is often an idiot. But he is not Putin and could never be, not only because his weakness is a need to be loved (which Putin he psychopath could care less about) and accepted (hence his flip-flopping the first year or year and a half). Furthermore, the American system and culture, for better or worse, won't tolerate any right wing rogue who goes to far out of the mainstream - the deference liberal courts were willing to give Obama, and supplication of America's liberal nomenklatura and universities, doesn't listen.

The cult has been, and to some measure still is, a threat to the GOP moderates and pre-trump conservatives. But they will never be a threat to the nation for the very reason the left itself bullhorns: they are not on the side of history. Since the experience of FDR the threat of being swept up in authoritarian rule has always, with fits and starts, grown from the left.
 
Lutherf said:
With all due respect, the ACA massively EXPANDED medicaid. That was probably the biggest contention most states had with the act.
Click to expand...

The purpose wasn't to reduce medicaid. Medicaid is a good thing. Expanded medicaid is more of a good thing. The only problem with it is people who don't contribute enjoying the benefits of it. ACA attempted to address that problem. I don't argue that it was a resounding success, but it was a good idea and there was nothing authoritarian about it.
 
Rogue Valley said:
The face of America’s Donald Trump, or Hungary’s Viktor Orban, or Russia’s Vladimir Putin, or Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan,
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Could you be any more hysterical? Trump does not belong with Orban, Putin or Erdogan. They're all master politicians that have served as either head of state or head of government for a decade or longer. Trump is a reality TV star that stumbled into the presidency because of the incompetence of the Democrats. This deification of Trump is ridiculous.
 
Rogue Valley said:
The Cowardly Face of Authoritarianism

23serners-leeHRjpg-INYT-articleLarge.jpg




I have little doubt that our current era of Trump will someday be viewed as America's brush with cultist authoritarianism, where a significant portion of American society was willing to support this cult at the expense of America's reputation and leadership in the world.
Click to expand...
LOL, you're barking up the wrong tree, Rogue. Do you even understand what authoritarianism IS? It sure isn't cancelling or deleting thousands of government regulations, or allowing the people who earn the money to keep more of it. Sorry, It's your heroes that are pushing authoritarian control. They're the ones forcing government control into every aspect of our lives.
 
Mr Person said:
How dare they trample on your freedom to not buy health insurance, be unable to fully pay for emergency treatment, and thus pass the bill on to insured people! (And if you personally are rich enough to afford any emergency, I do hope you still get the general point...)

:roll:




Here is a simple truth you will lie about:

1. The state of the law before puts the rights of uninsured over the insured.

2. The state of the law now reverses that. Citizens don't get to make someone else pay for the consequences of their irresponsibility.

But that's too straight-forward, so we have to squawk about the left hating your rights, or something. Or, hey, maybe we can complain that ERISA's requirement that a hospital stabilize every patient without regard to ability to pay is a horrible infringement on hospitals rights. Go whole hog.

You won't though, will you, because you realize that there is no argument there that you are even able to pretend is morally reasonable, since it would require letting people bleed out on the floor if they didn't have proof of insurance or a wallet full of credit cards. So you want the hospital to have to save you even if you don't have insurance, and then you want them to recoup the loss when your assets don't cover the bill by negotiating higher prices with insurance companies, who then raise the premiums on insured people who really are responsible enough to pay their own way.




See, the think people who say what you have said don't seem to understand that if it's a question of "rights", the "rights" of more than one party are involved. You only want to focus on your own....not on the rights of others' whom your conduct might affect. When you do that, you take an intellectually dishonest view of what the heart of the ACA actually does.
Click to expand...

Providing basic emergency care when presented with a patient with an imminent life threatening condition is a function of basic humanity and those who are inclined to such care should ALWAYS help out in such situations. Reimbursing hospitals (partially) for providing such care is a reasonable community service and I have no problem with government providing some level of tax support to keep emergency rooms open. It's the same as paying the city to keep potholes under control and provide a fire department. The problem comes with forcing hospitals to serve patients who come to the ER with a baby suffering from diaper rash or asking to see a doctor to get "cured" of their hangover.

Not every medical procedure should be covered by the government.
 
Lutherf said:
It never ceases to amaze me that Trump is seen as authoritarian while Democrats under Obama were lauded for forcing the ACÁ, a law that forced people to purchase a certain product under the threat of penalty. The ACÁ was the definition of “authoritarian”.
Click to expand...
It always amazes me that the left can hurl terms like "totalitarian" or "fascist" at the right while applauding the totalitarian and fascist regulations their Dear Leaders try to foist on us; down to the size of soda we can buy, or what color of potatoes our kids can eat for school lunch. And if you look at some of the new laws LW wackos like Warren and Sanders are touting to attack our corporations, you just have to shake your head and laugh. But Trump's the totalitarian. :roll:
 
Lutherf said:
It never ceases to amaze me that Trump is seen as authoritarian while Democrats under Obama were lauded for forcing the ACÁ, a law that forced people to purchase a certain product under the threat of penalty. The ACÁ was the definition of “authoritarian”.
Click to expand...

Two wrongs do not make a right.
 
Lutherf said:
Providing basic emergency care when presented with a patient with an imminent life threatening condition is a function of basic humanity and those who are inclined to such care should ALWAYS help out in such situations. Reimbursing hospitals (partially) for providing such care is a reasonable community service and I have no problem with government providing some level of tax support to keep emergency rooms open. It's the same as paying the city to keep potholes under control and provide a fire department. The problem comes with forcing hospitals to serve patients who come to the ER with a baby suffering from diaper rash or asking to see a doctor to get "cured" of their hangover.

Not every medical procedure should be covered by the government.
Click to expand...

And it isnt. Our local county owned hospital only treats emergencies in the ER. If it is not an emergency you need to seek care elsewhere.
 
Bullseye said:
It always amazes me that the left can hurl terms like "totalitarian" or "fascist" at the right while applauding the totalitarian and fascist regulations their Dear Leaders try to foist on us; down to the size of soda we can buy, or what color of potatoes our kids can eat for school lunch. And if you look at some of the new laws LW wackos like Warren and Sanders are touting to attack our corporations, you just have to shake your head and laugh. But Trump's the totalitarian. :roll:
Click to expand...


Do our corporations have their own country to go to? Otherwise, they must abide by US law.
 
Lutherf said:
Not every medical procedure should be covered by the government.
Click to expand...

Concurrently, basic preventative medical care should not be restricted to the rich. Taxes exist to provide a basic level of care to the populace. There is nothing wrong with working to expand access to preventative healthcare to those who can't currently afford it, especially if your plan is to in fact make those people pay what they can afford.
 
ipsofacto said:
Do our corporations have their own country to go to? Otherwise, they must abide by US law.
Click to expand...
What's your point? Of course they have to obey the law; my point was that government is far to intrusive/totalitarian/restrictive in its creation of laws.
 
Bullseye said:
What's your point? Of course they have to obey the law; my point was that government is far to intrusive/totalitarian/restrictive in its creation of laws.
Click to expand...

Corporations serve the nation. I know they believe they are their own nations...but no.
 
veritas1 said:
These claims are an absurdity and without evidence or support. They are the yammerings of people who eat, sleep and breathe Trump hate. They are the cultists.
Click to expand...

He's certainly been using a Nazi propaganda technique.

A brief history of 'Lügenpresse,' the Nazi-era predecessor to Trump's 'Fake News'


I know some Trump supporters think that's a good thing, and sometimes accuse those who don't like it to be "yammering people who eat, sleep and breathe Trump hate", but personally I find it unsettling.
 
veritas1 said:
These claims are an absurdity and without evidence or support. They are the yammerings of people who eat, sleep and breathe Trump hate. They are the cultists.
Click to expand...

Nah, not really, but it's amusing watching you have to pretend that.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/16/opinion/the-perils-of-the-trump-cult.html
https://psmag.com/news/a-sociologist-explains-the-similarities-between-cults-and-trumps-gop
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...tely-not-a-trump-cult/?utm_term=.23c1eece39fe
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/06/donald-trump-cabinet-meeting
 
Lutherf said:
Providing basic emergency care when presented with a patient with an imminent life threatening condition is a function of basic humanity and those who are inclined to such care should ALWAYS help out in such situations. Reimbursing hospitals (partially) for providing such care is a reasonable community service and I have no problem with government providing some level of tax support to keep emergency rooms open. It's the same as paying the city to keep potholes under control and provide a fire department. The problem comes with forcing hospitals to serve patients who come to the ER with a baby suffering from diaper rash or asking to see a doctor to get "cured" of their hangover.

Not every medical procedure should be covered by the government.
Click to expand...

I agree with the first sentence. That's the heart of my point: IF we agree on that, then we previously had a situation where hospitals had to save people who couldn't pay, so they raised premiums on insured. The alternative is the Obamacare mandate, where instead anyone who can buy insurance has to do so, with subsidies for people who are sort of within the range of being able to afford it but not entirely so.

But, that last sentence confused me a bit. ERISA only requires that people be "stabilized", a term with a concrete medical definition. ERISA doesn't require anything be treated. Go in with a common cold and they'll tell you to piss off, but first they may have to rule out a few things to be sure.





Now, if you're saying you'd rather have the government directly reimburse hospitals for patients who can't pay rather than have an insurance mandate, that's actually fine with me if it works out to a level of reimbursement sufficient to prevent hospitals from simply jacking up the price with insured people. It would work out the same way. Only those people who make enough to pay taxes would be funding this, just as currently, only those who make enough to afford (or partially afford) health insurance are funding it.

But the bottom line in either case would be the same: cut out those people who probably could afford some level of insurance but refuse to buy it, then get in an accident or whatever and cannot pay the bill. I understand full well that it's not quite the same as buying a car because you don't really "choose" to be alive in the same sense, but on the other hand, health care is an uncontrollable risk we all walk around with no matter what.



Of course, really, the problem here is that we need a single-payer system in which people with a lot of dough could then buy secondary insurance or care-for-cash directly, if they wanted to. Health care is an utterly broken triangular market. It just doesn't function like a normal market. Developed countries with it typically have better care for cheaper, even if you might have to wait a few months for a non-emergency appointment in some outlying cases (ie, some areas in sparsely populated Canada would probably have the same issues as sparsely populated areas in the US might).
 
Last edited:
 
Rexedgar said:
First let’s hope that this is in fact, “a brush with!”

Remember, whenever Donald Trump has tried to join an elite group, Wall Street “old money,” NFL, for example, he has always been looked down on. As displayed in Argentina, he will be looked down on in the “strong authoritarian leader’s club” as well.
Click to expand...

"Brush with" status has already been surpassed.
 
Rogue Valley said:
The Cowardly Face of Authoritarianism

23serners-leeHRjpg-INYT-articleLarge.jpg




I have little doubt that our current era of Trump will someday be viewed as America's brush with cultist authoritarianism, where a significant portion of American society was willing to support this cult at the expense of America's reputation and leadership in the world.
Click to expand...

So, where's the authoritarianism?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom