Red Mosquito

simple schoolboy wrote:2

interesting.

simple schoolboy wrote:

elliseamos wrote:

Peeps wrote:

broken iris wrote:

Electromatic wrote:
The problem with the US government is primarily that it is occupied and run by politicians.

I often wonder if we adopted that 'cannot run for office more than six months from an election' rule, if things would get better. I suspect that part of the problem is that they never stop campaigning, so they need the constant stream of bribes... err... donations. If we broke that cycle, maybe things would get better.

make it like pick up basketball

play two games (terms) sit for one (term)

what if they had to get jobs (and health insurance and investment advice) like the rest of us?

their role as congress-man/woman should only be enough to get rich live modestly pay-your-bills-while-living-in-d.c. off.

I thought the real money was when they inevitably became lobbyists after they get out of office but maintain their contacts with those still in government. Not much that term limits and salary restrictions can do about that, unfortunately.

there's that too, but i consider that a separate reform.

Didn't know where else to post this. I am having increasing doubts that government is effective on a large scale. It's nice to see someone on the right call it out in this way instead of writing off these policies whole hog.

The one eye just helps him see better.

It would be really fascinating to see a state pass a universal health care bill and put it into practice. That's how it started in Canada. It's currently DOA at the federal level, so why not?

washing machine wrote:

Didn't know where else to post this. I am having increasing doubts that government is effective on a large scale. It's nice to see someone on the right call it out in this way instead of writing off these policies whole hog.

big ass texas post

4/5 wrote:It would be really fascinating to see a state pass a universal health care bill and put it into practice. That's how it started in Canada. It's currently DOA at the federal level, so why not?

Romney Care?

A version of widely expanded Medicare was discussed in the Nevada State leg. circa 2017, haven't kept up on its progress since we've moved. Of course, true universal healthcare is broadly incompatible with a private insurance sector, so that might be one reason.

elliseamos wrote:

4/5 wrote:It would be really fascinating to see a state pass a universal health care bill and put it into practice. That's how it started in Canada. It's currently DOA at the federal level, so why not?

Romney Care?

I meant truly universal health care. It could come in a variety of manners, but something more encompassing than Romney/Obamacare since that's what a lot of people in the Democratic Party/the left want. It'd be interesting to observe and see how it goes and it could be the Romneycare to the future federal version of a universal system if it goes well.

Mickey wrote:A version of widely expanded Medicare was discussed in the Nevada State leg. circa 2017, haven't kept up on its progress since we've moved. Of course, true universal healthcare is broadly incompatible with a private insurance sector, so that might be one reason.

Idk, Germany and other countries have universal multi-payer systems.

There is an “Ezra Klein Show” podcast from June 22 of this year with Ezekiel Emanuel, former Obama Admin guy, where they discuss the various healthcare systems around the world. One takeaway was that whatever system you like, it probably exists here in America already. Which is kind of a problem. We can’t agree on a system. Europe is way more complicated than I imagined. Emanuel seemed to like the Netherlands best, where it’s single payer but the gov’t seems to basically throw the money in a pot and the private sector divvies it up. That pretty clearly would probably fail here for colorful reasons. But the podcast was good, also discussed how market incentives could play a big role in helping (why do we have so many borderline better cancer drug patents and almost no better antibiotic patents? The answer is money, of course).

Under what authority can Biden enact a 2-4 week nation wide lockdown? I hope its under the guise of interstate commerce so SCOTUS can re-litigate all manner of terrible law.

Lean into Federalism, and vote with your feet folks. The alternative has not been working out.

simple schoolboy wrote:Under what authority can Biden enact a 2-4 week nation wide lockdown? I hope its under the guise of interstate commerce so SCOTUS can re-litigate all manner of terrible law.

It's nuts to think that one individual can enact (or to even want one individual to enact) a policy that affects a vast country so differently in so many places.

Lean into Federalism, and vote with your feet folks. The alternative has not been working out.

Paraphrasing here, but lots to chew on here re: role of government. From the guest on this episode of Crenshaw' pod.

"The left uses metaphors of motion. There is a lot of talk about government working towards something. Progress, movements, ideas set in motion. The right thinks of government more in terms of space. A government should create room in a community that allows people to move around and thrive. Instead of a driver, a government should be a supportive role instead of displacing private intuitions that could do a better job."