U.S. Politics Thread

[Demi.]

Originally Posted by ogon_bat

I do not think it was slanted to the left, the right has move rightward in the USA in recent years so I think it is quite realistic.

No, the way the questions were worded made me even think on which to select, despite having a firm belief on many of them. It painted a picture of being a bad person for voting right on some (quite a few, actually).

[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by Triple_R

That doesn't mean it's Ok to steal.

I don't think it is "ok" to steal, either. But I do understand those who feel they have to in order to survive and take care of their family. But my solutions would actually decrease crime and the need to steal, which I'll get to below.

To make this question more relevant to the forum... how many here download anime that has been licensed? Or download other shows? You're probably violating copyright law, which the industry tells us is stealing. Do we listen? Or contribute to the "problem"? It is against the law.

Are you really equating laws against stealing with laws in favor of slavery?

Not quite. I am using slavery laws as an example of an unjust law that most people would agree to not follow. There are unjust laws right now (not stealing) that make people poor, and keep them poor.

I find this a bit hard to believe. You're going to have to crunch some impressive numbers to make me believe this.

There are some articles and experiments going on right now, that are starting to bear out my approach. Instead of outright explaining it, I'll link a couple of articles:

The Latest Approach to Homelessness: Give Them Homes
Housing homeless cheaper, more effective than status quo: study

When you give people a basic living wage ($10,000 a year, perhaps), and a basic place to live, their incentive to commit crime goes way down. Pair it with health care, and they no longer have a huge drag on society. That, in turn, allows society to SAVE money. Instead of you paying to replace what was stolen, and paying to have your window or door fixed, you have more money in your pocket and peace of mind with a lower crime rate. Poverty is THE #1 cause of crime. Society saves money by needing less police, cleaning up after crime, and trips to the ERas well as other health costs. This is also because homeless people are in better health from having a warm place to live and can cover basic expenses, thus making them healthier overall.

Edit: Forgot to add the one big barrier to this: attitudes. If you ask people about whether they want to have the government give homeless and the poor, houses and a living wage paid for via tax dollars, you'll instantly get: "I don't want MY hard-earned money going to support lazy poor people!" Even if you can explain to them that they will end up paying LESS money in taxes and society will save a TON of money, you still have the attitude, "But... but... my money would be going to lazy poor people!"

As an intelligent fiscal conservative, I'd rather go with the solution that ultimately costs me less. Strange as it sounds, supporting the poor is actually the cheaper option.

[Archon_Wing]

Originally Posted by Kudryavka

Obamacare may make this phenomenon less pronounced but there will still be many people who would rather wait for hours at the county hospital than just wither away in a painful death. And no they can't possibly be a cash register because they don't have enough money to even pay, otherwise why would they waste their time at the godawful county hospital when they could go to a better hospital and be treated like a king??

Well, they will be met with a nice large bill where they will be spending a good portion if not all of their life savings if the problems are big. They can't pay now; they'll just have to spend their life paying for it.

[Kudryavka]

Originally Posted by Archon_Wing

Well, they will be met with a nice large bill where they will be spending a good portion if not all of their life savings if the problems are big. They can't pay now; they'll just have to spend their life paying for it.

This I agree with. Med bills can hit the not-rich hard for reasons out of their control, at all hospitals.

[Archon_Wing]

Originally Posted by Kudryavka

This I agree with. Med bills can hit the not-rich hard for reasons out of their control, at all hospitals.

I suppose I made it sound like medical staff are terrible people that don't care about people. That's obviously not true. But those that put them in such underfunded, overcrowded situations draw my ire.

Though this is usually true. The front liners aren't the ones to blame.

As for where money magically grows, it doesn't. But I do know we spend too much on going to war and imprisoning people (particularly for drug use)

[Kaijo]

Money can magically grow. It's called "preventative medicine." Increase health care to a point where people can easily go for preventative examinations and treatment, and they won't be clogging the ER with situations that grew more dire and expensive over time. Thus, the people that really need ER help, will get it and not be stuck with huge bills. And people that don't pay those huge ER bills (of which there are quite a few), make premiums and health care costs go up for everyone.

Having everyone chip in for free health care, will actually be cheaper for everyone overall. But the moment you mention this is the US, you get labeled an "evil socialist who threatens the god-fearin', gun-lovin' American way of life!"

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by Demi.

No, the way the questions were worded made me even think on which to select, despite having a firm belief on many of them. It painted a picture of being a bad person for voting right on some (quite a few, actually).

I didn't feel like that when answering, my only concern is that my answer should reflect USA-centric politics (it would be worthless otherwise).

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Demi.

No, the way the questions were worded made me even think on which to select, despite having a firm belief on many of them. It painted a picture of being a bad person for voting right on some (quite a few, actually).

It did have some word loading ... but USians have to remember they aren't centrist from the POV of the advanced nations. Our center is very far right (which is why Obama and Romney ended up high in the upper right quadrant. It isn't "slanted" left - you just got a glimmer that we're much farther away from the center than either party would have you believe

[MeoTwister5]

Economic Left/Right: -5.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.72

So I'm a Libertarian Leftist, sitting somewhere near Gandhi. Awesome place to be due to my utmost respect for the man, even though I have no idea what this political classification means.

[SaintessHeart]

The 3 Fictional Presidents We Could Use Right Now

I went "meh" until #1 caught my eye :

President Camacho

Idiocracy

President He Most Closely Resembles:

Andrew Jackson + Abraham Lincoln

Idiocracy is a movie about a modern-day man of average intelligence who gets sent 500 years into the future, where the average IQ has dropped to the low 20s, making him the smartest man in the world. Future America is a wasteland; the crops are failing (they're being watered with a Gatorade-like substance), the economy is in the toilet, and logic and reason have taken a back seat to loudness and a TV show where people get hit in the testicles.

President Camacho. Former pro wrestler turned porn star turned president. He dresses in American flag pants, he addresses the nation by dancing, singing, and firing a gun into the air and rallying them with his aggressively patriotic (if completely empty) rhetoric. He's energetic, likable, and absolutely captivating.

It's not just flash, by the way. Sure, he may drive a monster truck, and sure, he wears a giant medal around his neck. But President Camacho's bombastic patriotism is not only inspirational and exciting and explosive, it's also an incredibly useful quality for a leader to have, especially for his situation. America was struggling through a time of unprecedented poverty and loss, but it had a leader who still thought America was the best place in the world. The ability to recognize a country's flaws is certainly important, but people need to believe that their president wouldn't rather be anywhere else.

A country can't be great if its people haven't already blindly accepted it as such, and the people won't know to do that without a strong, passionate president leading the charge. That's who Andrew Jackson was. Andrew Jackson was a man who lost his wife, brother, and parents, so he decided he would make America his surrogate family. He lived, loved, and never left America, and if anyone or anything threatened her, he would come after them with the force and intensity of a man protecting his wife and children. That's what I want. I want America to be run by someone who doesn't just love America -- I want him or her to love the shit out of America. Just look at President Camacho. He screams America, he breathes America, America makes him hard as a rock. When times are tough on a country, sometimes the most important thing to hear is someone shouting "We're number one! We're number one!" It gives you hope.

It's not just President Camacho's patriotism that makes him a great leader. Eventually, Joe is brought to the attention of President Camacho. This weird-talking time traveler with his fancy ideas made it all the way to the White House, because an IQ test claimed he was the smartest man alive. And when that happened, President Camacho did a remarkable thing. He recognized that Joe was smarter, and he bowed to his wisdom. Everyone -- everyone -- in the world of Idiocracy resented Joe, because he talked differently and because his ideas, to them, sounded crazy. They turned against him out of their fear, their pride, and their inability to understand him. Everyone else, when faced with Joe's unconventional ideas, immediately went on the defensive and resented Joe. He didn't fit in with their weird hive mind of delusion and idiocy. Yet for all of his pomposity and ridiculousness, Camacho had the clarity of mind to look beyond all that. What he saw was a man who was smarter than himself, and he had no problem humbling himself and saying "Let's trust the smart guy."

President Lincoln was like that. He stacked his cabinet with his most vocal rivals, because Lincoln wasn't afraid to hear what someone else had to say. Knowledge was king for Lincoln. Even if he didn't totally like or understand someone, he respected ideas. Like Camacho. (Also like Camacho, I think Lincoln was a porn superstar before his presidency.) I want a president who isn't so proud that he's embarrassed to say he doesn't know something. A president who values thought, experimentation, and facts over gut or superstition, a president who will find the smartest guy in the room and ask him for advice.

I want President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho.

[Triple_R]

Kaijo, just so you know, I'll probably get back to you on your reply later today. For now, though, I wanted to focus on the test that Archon_Wing linked to.


This is what I got...

Economic Left/Right: -2.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.46


I consider myself moderate, so I'm fairly happy with where that ended up. That being said, to achieve the score above I had to "read between the lines" on some questions, and realize what was really being said rather than the loaded way it was presented. If I had just gone with immediate emotional response to each question, I probably would have landed farther in the negative.

Here are a few specific propositions I found questionable..

Spoiler for Spoiler Space to Save Space:

1. "When you are troubled, it's better not to think about it, but to keep busy with more cheerful things. "

I'm not sure what this has to do with one's political viewpoints. Whether you agree or disagree with this proposition may well link to how activist you are in your politics, but I don't see how it indicates what your politics are.


2. "In criminal justice, punishment should be more important than rehabilitation."

The term "punishment" is rarely used in serious discussions over criminal law. The much more commonly used "deterrence" would be a far better term to use in its place.


3. "In a civilised society, one must always have people above to be obeyed and people below to be commanded."

This is an incredibly loaded way to ask people if they agree with hierarchies or not. This is one question where me "reading between the lines" changed my response. I'm very much inclined to believe that large populations can't function properly without at least some degree of hierarchy in place. That doesn't mean I think the people in authority should just be issuing "commands", and that they should be "obeyed" like a child obeys his/her parents.

Just get straight to the point - A civilized society includes hierarchies.

If you think "hierarchy" is too hard a term to expect every test-taker to know its meaning, than go with "In a civilised society, one must always have people above in authority and people below who are given directives". That's much less loaded, imo.


4. "It is a waste of time to try to rehabilitate some criminals."

The wording on this could be a bit confusing, and it also comes across as a bit more callous than it probably should. I think this wording would be clearer - "Some criminals can't be rehabilitated". This gets at the heart of the proposition and conveys it more clearly, imo.


5. "Some people are naturally unlucky."

Like the first one, I'm not sure what this has to do with one's political viewpoints. Besides, I could see this proposition leading people to the right, or to the left.

"Some people are naturally unlucky... so it would take too much time and effort to effectively help them."

"Some people are naturally unlucky... so we really should pity them, and try extra hard to help them."

A few other general observations...

If you're not so incredibly pro-corporation that you'd be a starring antagonist in a Dilbert comic strip, it's almost impossible to not fall on the negative side on Economic Left/Right.

Now, in fairness, fiscal conservatives are more likely to be pro-corporation than fiscal liberals are, but it's generally not this extreme. Your views on corporations shouldn't be an absolutely overwhelming factor in whether you are fiscally conservative or fiscally liberal.


The test isn't horribly biased, but it could use some tweaking.

[Vexx]

Actually, I'd argue that fiscal conservatives should fall on the anti-corporate side. Most people use the phrase in the Main Street small businesman sense: I have to balance my budget, why not everyone? I have to compete with other vendors, I can't just buy them up or crush them. I pay taxes so we have sidewalks, police, fire, traffic lights, parking, sufficient water supply - I can't lie and say "I create jobs" and skip out on that. I produce a product or service, not just manipulate money to create more money.

See the problem? Corporations (or Wall Street), the megasize often transnational kind really are on a third axis from "economic left/right" or "authoritarian/individualism".

[TooPurePureBoy]

Economic Left/Right: 1.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.36

They only "leader" that seemed to fall in my category even closely was Friedman...

Once again a man on an island.

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Actually, I'd argue that fiscal conservatives should fall on the anti-corporate side. Most people use the phrase in the Main Street small businesman sense: I have to balance my budget, why not everyone? I have to compete with other vendors, I can't just buy them up or crush them. I pay taxes so we have sidewalks, police, fire, traffic lights, parking, sufficient water supply - I can't lie and say "I create jobs" and skip out on that. I produce a product or service, not just manipulate money to create more money.

See the problem? Corporations (or Wall Street), the megasize often transnational kind really are on a third axis from "economic left/right" or "authoritarian/individualism".

Yeah, I'm inclined to agree with you there.

After the last few years, I don't know how anybody could be entirely positive in their viewpoints on corporations (well, except for an actual CEO perhaps, lol).

[willx]

I love Corporations. Why are you guys so suspicious? Has one touched you somewhere inappropriately?

[DonQuigleone]

Corporations are people too guys! Have a heart

[GDB]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Corporations are people too guys! Have a heart

Then what's a merger or takeover? That shit don't happen to humans. If they must be living beings, they're Namekian at best, Borg at worst.

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by willx

I love Corporations. Why are you guys so suspicious? Has one touched you somewhere inappropriately?

Nike keeps wanting to "Just Do It" with me. So, close enough.

This picture is pure gold.

[Ledgem]

This thread moved really quickly over the last 24 hours...

Originally Posted by Archon_Wing

Oh, where does the money come from then? The government doesn't give them money?

The money comes from the hospital. Now, I don't mean to say that no hospital in existence receives some funding from some form of government (and I'm not talking about payments made through Medicare or Medicaid). I wouldn't be surprised if some towns or cities prop up certain hospitals, given that a hospital is a necessity. But emergency departments are not state or federal institutions.

Originally Posted by Archon_Wing

The point of an emergency department is to save lives, regardless of that person's value to society. The main reason it costs so much is that people are getting hurt, of which I would be considering ways to promote public safety over anything else.

The reason it costs so much is because it's an emergency department. This means two things:

1) You are dealing with terrible, life-threatening scenarios. This takes up more resources than minor medical problems.

2) Being designed for those emergent scenarios, emergency departments are not designed to be resource-efficient or conservative.

Point #2 becomes a problem when people begin to use emergency departments as their point of primary care. Point #1 is a problem with the uninsured, because uninsured people are less likely to see a physician at the first signs of a problem, and then wind up in an emergency department when the problem has progressed to a point where they can no longer ignore it. That then feeds into point #2 again.

Originally Posted by Archon_Wing

Yes, I've seen people in the emergency ward get up and leave because they were made to wait for hours while absolutely no one gave a damn.

I think you're mistaking "nobody gave a damn" for "there wasn't a thing that anyone could do." All medical staff are busy, all beds are taken and more (you should see some of the emergency departments I've seen - all medical bays are taken, so to accommodate more patients they begin to use the hallways). If you're operating as part of the medical system, what can you do? Try to work any faster and you may miss something or give improper care to the patients you're seeing. There are a lot of people using the emergency department improperly - whether they're drug-seeking medication addicts who aren't really sick, uninsured who waited too long and/or are using the emergency department anyway, and so on. Society has done this to itself. Not all hospitals are completely blameless for some of the backups or improper usage that occur, but I think your outrage is misplaced.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

EDIT: @ US Healthcare, it's bad because it's wasteful. Think of the number of wasteful entities taking money out of the system, and then also consider that due to the way insurance companies function, there's no reason competitive pressures to encourage the use of cheaper treatments or drugs.

Insurance companies are one part of the equation. Lawyers are another. America is the land of litigation, and medical malpractice lawsuits are quite common. One physician jokingly told me that if you don't have two malpractice lawsuits against you at any given time, it means that you're not seeing enough patients. It's gotten to the point that some medical schools are including legal knowledge into their curricula to prepare their students and lessen the shock of having such a lawsuit brought against them.

Medical malpractice lawsuits created what is known as the culture of defensive medicine. Based on knowledge of the local population and common diseases, your doctor will have a pretty good idea of what's ailing you when you visit him or her. In some cases no tests are necessary; in others, one or two tests could be used to further clarify your issue. Part of the reason why people get crazy numbers and types of testing and imaging done is because if the doctor misses anything that later becomes an issue, the patient can come back and sue him or her even years down the road for negligence.

It is a long and bitter road to become a physician. I hate the thought of adding unnecessary expenses to someone's medical bill, but I hate the thought of being taken out by a lawsuit even more, and potentially losing what I have sacrificed so much to attain. You can be angry at physicians for engaging in such risk-averse behavior, but the true outrage - once again - should be directed at society. There are plenty of medical malpractice lawsuits that are merited, but there are many others derived from people looking for a quick buck, or who can't accept that physicians are not omnipotent, and that bad things happen that medicine can't predict or fix.

Finally, another reason why medical care can be expensive is another societal issue. In medicine we note that the two most expensive times of a person's life are at birth and near death. Birthing is expensive just because it is (and partly due to lawsuits); death is expensive because people can't let go. Family members demand that everything possible be done to prolong the life of someone who has already lived well into their seventh or eighth decades and who will never be able to leave the hospital even if their condition miraculously takes a turn for the better; people are unwilling to accept the dire outcomes likely to occur with certain diseases, and still demand that every single thing be done. I am not against doing everything possible, but my own bias is toward quality of life over quantity of life. If a person has six months to live, let them live it happily; I would think that better than extending their life by two months while exposing them to body-destroying medications, daily blood draws and injections, and confinement to a hospital bed. But then there's another shift in medicine - the physician no longer dictates the terms of care, but instead abides by the patient-and-family's demands. It's not a bad thing, but it really enables the cost skyrocketing on this issue.

Originally Posted by ArchmageXin

The medical student can only go practice as specialist (Heart surgeons, Brain Surgeons) to make sure her debts are cleared out in a reasonable time period. Which means this country suffer a dearth of primary physicians and have to rely on immigrant doctors, or worse.

In recent years there have been a number of financial incentives created for physicians entering primary care. Specifically there are loan forgiveness programs and special loans with extremely low rates. In some cases (arguably more rare), these are granted for anyone going into primary care; in other cases, you're required to do primary care and serve an underserved community for two years (or more, depending on the terms).

Perhaps more importantly, there have been some shifts in the way that residency programs are run. It used to be that primary care-style medicine was deemphasized in many programs, and so physicians in training didn't get a good feel for what was involved. Specifically, there was no continuity of care (forming long-term bonds and commitments with your patients), which is a large factor that makes primary care more appealing than some specialties. With this newer shift, the sentiment I've heard is that many people are now realizing that they really enjoy primary care, and a number are changing their plans from specializing to doing primary care. Nobody can say if it will create a huge shift toward primary care, but it's a start.

[ArchmageXin]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

In recent years there have been a number of financial incentives created for physicians entering primary care. Specifically there are loan forgiveness programs and special loans with extremely low rates. In some cases (arguably more rare), these are granted for anyone going into primary care; in other cases, you're required to do primary care and serve an underserved community for two years (or more, depending on the terms).

Perhaps more importantly, there have been some shifts in the way that residency programs are run. It used to be that primary care-style medicine was deemphasized in many programs, and so physicians in training didn't get a good feel for what was involved. Specifically, there was no continuity of care (forming long-term bonds and commitments with your patients), which is a large factor that makes primary care more appealing than some specialties. With this newer shift, the sentiment I've heard is that many people are now realizing that they really enjoy primary care, and a number are changing their plans from specializing to doing primary care. Nobody can say if it will create a huge shift toward primary care, but it's a start.

And also I heard NYU is cutting Med school for 1 year, eliminating duplicate programs to reduce debt.

SEE, that is the stuff what this country need to do FOR LAW SCHOOL. If Law students can live with only 2/3 or 1/3 of the debt they have now, they have more incentive to hang their shingle (open their own shop) or work in public defense that may only pay 50-80K a year. Instead, bullshitting law schools are now forcing students to do pro-bono work while in school, touting it as the "solution" to the current "Poor and middle class lack access to Legal assistance"