Melody's Melodramatic Meltdown on Mitt Romney (Tounge Twister?)

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Just saw this and it made me chuckle:

[Malacite]

I say again Ventura 2016 damn it.

I dun give a shit who the dems throw next, evn if it's Hilary - Jesse FTW

[Taskmage]

Cutting medicare is bullshit.

Medicare is the single most efficient form of healthcare in the U.S. - why? BECAUSE IT'S SINGLE-FUCKING PAYER! You know, the standard by which the majority of industrialized nations go by because it works so much better? Yeah, that one.


You always hear about how it's going broke, but you never hear about WHY. It's *not* the system god damn it, it's because of who the system is taking care of - the elderly! The most cost-intensive demographic there is.

That's not a full explanation of the problem. Only 9% of Medicare beneficiaries in 2004 were elderly, accounting for 26% of expenditures. [page 13] That's not to say that the remaining 74% is being wasted, but you're greatly oversimplifying the problem. I give Johnson some credit on health care because of his success with it in NM. He restructured the system in a way that saved hundreds of millions of dollars while—he believes—better serving the people of the state, including the poor.[*]

On a tangent, I ran across this video by a Canadian economist on why the American health care system is so expensive. It's .. an interesting perspective:

Why U.S. Health Care Costs More Than Canada's: "A Mercedes Costs More than a Corolla"

Gary Johnson is like 75% of my ideal candidate, but the remaining 25% is enough to give me pause. I really wish he had a chance in hell at winning the election because a lot of what he advocates is common sense policy and we really don't have enough of that in our political system.

If you don't mind getting into it, what part of his stances do you find most objectionable?

[cidbahamut]

Admittedly I haven't done a lot of research on the guy, but he seems to be on board with the whole removing regulations on businesses thing as well as reducing medicare. The latter makes me uneasy but I don't really have a firm enough grasp of the subject matter to be unswayable on it. The former though...oy vey. Removing regulations en masse is just courting the return of robber barons. Basically people are scum and without rules and repercussions in place they will lie, cheat and steal at every turn to make a buck at someone else's expense. Human nature is not benevolent and the idea that we should simply trust people to Not be Dicks is absurd. A lot of the regulations in place today are there for very good reasons and I don't buy into the fairytale that the economy will just magic itself better if the regulations vanished overnight.

Feel free to correct me though as I'm certain I'm mistaken about the Libertarian platform in general on a number of points.

[Firewind]

BBC News - World of Warcraft hobby sparks US political row

Why, why, why has this even made international news?

[Malacite]

The whole unfunded drug program Bush rammed through didn't help things either. Speaking of which, it's worth noting that as part of The Affordable Care Act, to get the Insurance Companies to sign on they demanded a ban on importing cheap drugs in bulk from Canada - Bastards.

But you can't deny that Medicare does generally apply to the most expensive demographic (65+). If *everyone* was covered under it, it would drive costs down substantially. However, as Andrew Weil has pointed out before, single-payer, while still by far the most effective delivery system, won't solve things and isn't immune to the growing problems of ever-increasing populations and an increasingly unhealthy lifestyle & culture. Simply covering everyone just isn't enough (though it would be a very good start) people need to really start eating & living better, and that's not something you can (or should) force - but you can create incentives to do so, like shifting subsidies from Corn & Animal/Dairy Farms to produce instead. Or mandatory paid vacations & a shortened work week. Hell, I remember seeing a program that talked about how they are cutting PE entirely from some schools in the U.S. - how atrocious is that?! Speaking of which, banning vending machines in schools wouldn't be a bad idea either. I have no problem with students bringing a little junk food here & there from home, but when the vending machines are right there it only increases the temptation.

[Taskmage]

Admittedly I haven't done a lot of research on the guy, but he seems to be on board with the whole removing regulations on businesses thing as well as reducing medicare. The latter makes me uneasy but I don't really have a firm enough grasp of the subject matter to be unswayable on it. The former though...oy vey. Removing regulations en masse is just courting the return of robber barons. Basically people are scum and without rules and repercussions in place they will lie, cheat and steal at every turn to make a buck at someone else's expense. Human nature is not benevolent and the idea that we should simply trust people to Not be Dicks is absurd. A lot of the regulations in place today are there for very good reasons and I don't buy into the fairytale that the economy will just magic itself better if the regulations vanished overnight.

Feel free to correct me though as I'm certain I'm mistaken about the Libertarian platform in general on a number of points.

No, you've pretty much got it right. Health care is such a ridiculously complicated issue that idk if I fully understand the plans people lay out for it and if they'd work. Tbh, I'm not sure I believe the people making the plans have all that good a grasp on it, either. Johnson at least seems to have a plan, unlike other politicians who just throw out budget cuts as a campaign platitude with no idea how to back it up. He wants to cut 47% right from the get-go, and the remaining 53% he wants to send down to the states so that they can manage their health care situations in keeping with the needs and values of their constituents. This would let progressive northeastern states set up their own Obamacares if they wanted, while unfortunately still allowing Texas to be a dick. Arguably this is how it would work anyway, but releasing Federal control allows it to happen faster.

Moderate Libertarians do still want most corporate regulations removed, but the thoughtful ones want to essentially replace them with things like strengthened property rights, which they see as a more elegant solution that adapts better to change, as opposed to regulations which have to be drafted for situations as they arise. For instance, if you have a waterway like a creek on your property that is downstream from a farm that's using industrial fertilizer (this is the most commonly used example) it is literally not possible under current rules and regulations to hold them responsible for that. You're not allowed to bring a suit. Under the Libertarian ideal, that situation wouldn't be moderated by standards and regulators which are inefficient and corruptible, but if your resource is damaged, you have standing to bring suit and demand compensation, which would discourage businesses from practices that are irresponsible to their communities and the environment.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

I really don't go out of my way for Howard Stern, but he did this bit two weeks ago and its pretty much man-on-the-street interviews - except his questions are lies. When Republicans or Democrats do these kinds of questions, they just selectively edit people on the other side to make them look stupid or inept. Howard Stern did this to prove Jesse Ventura's point that an uniformed voter will just mindlessly vote their party. It could have just as easily been done to republican voters and made the same point.



Some people don't even know Joe Biden is a VP. They thought Paul Ryan already had that job under Obama.

Nice to know we have so many uninformed voters out there more than happy to vote.

[Mezlo]

I love Howard Stern!!! Unfortnately Obama will win again... Too many fools out there...

[Malacite]

Right, because Romney wouldn't totally fuck over the middle class - especially if he gets to nominate any justices.

If one of the liberals retires, and he's president, you can bet your ass Roe vs Wade will be overturned.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Right, because Romney wouldn't totally fuck over the middle class - especially if he gets to nominate any justices.

If one of the liberals retires, and he's president, you can bet your ass Roe vs Wade will be overturned.

Not that it affects male Canadians, but I seem to recall three recent Republican presidents that were in a position to do it and didn't. Abortion is a Chicken Little issue. It's a divisive issue used to scare uninformed voters and that's all it ever amounts to. Kinds like immigration and gay marriage, the latter of which has already been shifted to the backburner by the Supreme Court to spring 2013. Doesn't matter who the president is, immigration has already fallen to the wayside. Color me surprised.

Abortion won't budge. Republicans and Democrats need it along with those other two circle jerks for each election.

[Malacite]

Bullshit it won't.

There have been plenty of challenges to it, and if the Romney gets elected and nominates a 5th conservative judge, you will definitely see more - and then when one of those cases gets deferred to the SC, that's it - bye bye abortions. The Roberts court has already shown clear disdain for the public, I don't see how it'd be any different here.

[Taskmage]

The NPR Third-Party Candidate Debate : NPR

Gary Johnson vs Jill Stein

[Icemage]

Not that it affects male Canadians, but I seem to recall three recent Republican presidents that were in a position to do it and didn't. Abortion is a Chicken Little issue. It's a divisive issue used to scare uninformed voters and that's all it ever amounts to. Kinds like immigration and gay marriage, the latter of which has already been shifted to the backburner by the Supreme Court to spring 2013. Doesn't matter who the president is, immigration has already fallen to the wayside. Color me surprised.

Abortion won't budge. Republicans and Democrats need it along with those other two circle jerks for each election.

Not sure this is true, to be quite honest. The only reason Roe v. Wade in specific (with respect to abortion) has stayed unmolested is because multiple Supreme Court appointees under Republican presidents ended up being not nearly as conservative as expected (see: David Souter, Anthony Kennedy). That ruling has dodged a LOT of Supreme Court nomination bullets over the past few decades.

More importantly, several of the current sitting judges on the U.S. Supreme Court are very old and close to retirement. Four were born before 1940: Antonin Scalia (conservative), Ruth Bader Ginsberg (liberal), Stephen Breyer (liberal), and Anthony Kennedy (swing).

Given the questionable grounds on which Roe v. Wade was constructed in the first place, it's not much of a stretch to consider it to be amongst the first casualties if the balance of power in the the SCOTUS shifts again.


Icemage

[Malacite]

Exactly, and it's just 1 of many issues that could be changed.

Again, just look at the mess citizens united became under the Roberts Court - now imagine how much more extreme it could get with a conservative majority given their track record.


Also, replace the income and corporate taxes with a flat consumption tax? Not only will doing that fail to balance the budget, it'll be horribly regressive.