Archive 2017-2019 Political Thread

[KoD]

On one hand I feel like this Cohen business is huge news and I'm surprised nobody is discussing it.
On the other hand there's been so much "ALERT BREAKING NEWS: CRITICAL DETAILS ABOUT TRUMP DOING X!!" that it has become mundane. Why get involved in this story when the past five hundred had the significance of a potato growing a root?

 

[gangstonc]

On one hand I feel like this Cohen business is huge news and I'm surprised nobody is discussing it.
On the other hand there's been so much "ALERT BREAKING NEWS: CRITICAL DETAILS ABOUT TRUMP DOING X!!" that it has become mundane. Why get involved in this story when the past five hundred had the significance of a potato growing a root?

Corruption and scandal are the new normal

 

[KoD]

 

[Kory]

The state of leftists in 2018.

Yes, abortion can be funny.

https://www.teenvogue.com/story/lady-parts-justice-league-fights-anti-abortion-stigma-with-humor

 

[Kory]

I'm trying to find the biggest dumba$$ in Congress/running for Congress so far. Is it Bernie Sanders who wonders why a CEO of a corporation that employs 2.1 million people makes $22 million a year? Is it Ocasio-Cortez who said unemployment is so low because everyone has to work two jobs? Or is it Chuck Schumer?

With regards to Sanders/Ocasio-Cortez, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

 

[gangstonc]

It could be Dana rohrabacher.

 

[Mike S]

This is nuts

https://qz.com/1343081/3d-printed-guns-in-america-will-be-legal-from-aug-1-2018/

 

[Kory]

This is nuts

https://qz.com/1343081/3d-printed-guns-in-america-will-be-legal-from-aug-1-2018/

This isn't anything different than a CNC program for milling out a lower receiver (which is perfectly fine and has been for a long time now). This should've never been stopped to begin with.

 

[KoD]

This isn't anything different than a CNC program for milling out a lower receiver (which is perfectly fine and has been for a long time now). This should've never been stopped to begin with.

How is milling a lower receiver using a very expensive machine the same as printing a fully functional firearm with a substantially cheaper machine? You can't mill a high quality receiver with a cheap CNC machine. You can print a gun with a cheap 3d printer. Apples and oranges.

 

[Kory]

How is milling a lower receiver using a very expensive machine the same as printing a fully functional firearm with a substantially cheaper machine? You can't mill a high quality receiver with a cheap CNC machine. You can print a gun with a cheap 3d printer. Apples and oranges.

A lower receiver is what makes a gun a gun. It is the most regulated part of a rifle and is the only thing that needs to be acquired with a background check...unless you get an 80% lower and mill it yourself to make it functional. So, why can someone be able to publish blueprints to mill out a lower and assemble their own firearm (acquiring the rest of the parts without need of a background check) yet someone cannot publish blueprints produce a firearm themselves through printing? And cost didn't seem to factor into the court's decision...and it shouldn't. I just want consistency with the laws...and this decision does that. We can discuss the ramifications of this, but that wasn't the point I was making.

 

[KoD]

I didn't mention anything about ramifications either. I'm simply stating my opinion, which is that a 3D printed gun is not the same as a CNC milled lower receiver. They're different machines, different capabilities and functions and different accessibility. The only comparison is that they can both make firearm components. It's like pencil vs laser printer.

 

[Kory]

I didn't mention anything about ramifications either. I'm simply stating my opinion, which is that a 3D printed gun is not the same as a CNC milled lower receiver. They're different machines, different capabilities and functions and different accessibility. The only comparison is that they can both make firearm components. It's like pencil vs laser printer.

Well, yeah, one is removing material and the other is adding. The printer/pencil analogy doesn't really work though. Legally speaking, they should be seen as the same with regards to blueprint publications. Why block one but not the other for publication...if public safety was really the goal? (which has been implied by many gun control advocates)

 

[KoD]

Well, yeah, one is removing material and the other is adding. The printer/pencil analogy doesn't really work though. Legally speaking, they should be seen as the same with regards to blueprint publications. Why block one but not the other for publication...if public safety was really the goal? (which has been implied by many gun control advocates)

I feel like it's a relatively rational idea in theory to put some restrictions on 3D printed firearms. Realistically though if somebody can afford a 3D printer and have the knowledge to operate it & obtain firearm CAD files, then they could easily obtain a firearm legally or from the black market. So I don't think it'll make any difference for the next decade or two.. but it's worth pondering the ramifications down the line. There would be less harm in letting people access free 3D printed firearm blueprints with a restriction requiring that you must register and be given a unique registration ID that gets forcefully printed inside the firearm (to prevent scratching it off) and is not manipulated via the blue prints if they're encrypted and only decrypted to assemble the firearm in a client that doesn't allow modifications. Just throwing out ideas. Surely people would find ways around it and make their own gun blueprints (as they've already done), but why make it so easy to get untraceable guns with no strings attached when we could make it easier to get a traceable gun instead of hassling for the alternative?

 

[Kory]

I feel like it's a relatively rational idea in theory to put some restrictions on 3D printed firearms. Realistically though if somebody can afford a 3D printer and have the knowledge to operate it & obtain firearm CAD files, then they could easily obtain a firearm legally or from the black market. So I don't think it'll make any difference for the next decade or two.. but it's worth pondering the ramifications down the line. There would be less harm in letting people access free 3D printed firearm blueprints with a restriction requiring that you must register and be given a unique registration ID that gets forcefully printed inside the firearm (to prevent scratching it off) and is not manipulated via the blue prints if they're encrypted and only decrypted to assemble the firearm in a client that doesn't allow modifications. Just throwing out ideas. Surely people would find ways around it and make their own gun blueprints (as they've already done), but why make it so easy to get untraceable guns with no strings attached when we could make it easier to get a traceable gun instead of hassling for the alternative?

There’s isn’t an easy fix so to say. Always a work around to really any law. I can’t think of a high profile crime being prevented through use of a gun registry....just past week we saw Canada’s fail after a mass shooting. Registries and enforcement of non-registration are after a crime has been committed type of fix. Another thing, do you force registry on the blueprint purchase or after the gun was made assuming that blueprint will be used by that person? What about if that person “gives away” the blueprint for whatever reason? Can we treat a piece of print as if it is a registered weapon?

Lots of questions and I know there aren’t many answers. It’s just better than the discussion of how horrible Trump is. You know, it’s like that echo chamber people used to complain about. But reversed.

 

[Kory]

Holy hell. An addition of $32 trillion over 10 years to an already overbloated and ballooning healthcare system. Sanders wants to build on the current Medicare system, but the wheels are coming off of that program.

Washington (AP) -- Sen. Bernie Sanders' "Medicare for all" plan would boost government health spending by $32.6 trillion over 10 years, requiring historic tax hikes, says a study released Monday by a university-based libertarian policy center.

 

[Kory]

OMG he is so stupid. No one is selling plastic guns, you moron.

I'm sure this is all 16 dimensional chess to stick it to the libs...at least that's what the MAGA crowd tells me.

 

[Matt Grantham]

Holy hell. An addition of $32 trillion over 10 years to an already overbloated and ballooning healthcare system. Sanders wants to build on the current Medicare system, but the wheels are coming off of that program.

"According to the study titled “National Healthcare Expenditures, 2016-2025: Price Increases, Aging Push Sector to 20 Percent of Economy,” health care costs in the United States are estimated to grow at an average annual rate of 5.6 percent from 2016 to 2025.

If we apply this growth rate over 10 years, and add up the costs, our current healthcare system will cost $49 trillion. "

Let's see...49 trillion vs 32 trillion.

We already have by far the most expensive system in the world because of the useless insurance middle men and associated administrative costs. This wonderful system also allows an estimated 45000 people EACH YEAR to die because they can't afford healthcare or health insurance. This idea is insane to the rest of the world. Pro-life? HA!

Meanwhile we spend more than the next 10 countries combined on our military, endlessly blowing up the Middle East and making defense contractors rich.

Where are the deficit hawks at? I though that's what the Republicans were all about.

 

[Mike S]

Where are the deficit hawks at? I though that's what the Republicans were all about.

Busy selling their souls to the Cult of Trump because he's going to build that wall! God is a Republican, don't you know?

 

[Evan]

"According to the study titled “National Healthcare Expenditures, 2016-2025: Price Increases, Aging Push Sector to 20 Percent of Economy,” health care costs in the United States are estimated to grow at an average annual rate of 5.6 percent from 2016 to 2025.

If we apply this growth rate over 10 years, and add up the costs, our current healthcare system will cost $49 trillion. "

Let's see...49 trillion vs 32 trillion.

We already have by far the most expensive system in the world because of the useless insurance middle men and associated administrative costs. This wonderful system also allows an estimated 45000 people EACH YEAR to die because they can't afford healthcare or health insurance. This idea is insane to the rest of the world. Pro-life? HA!

Meanwhile we spend more than the next 10 countries combined on our military, endlessly blowing up the Middle East and making defense contractors rich.

Where are the deficit hawks at? I though that's what the Republicans were all about.

I don't think either figure is ultimately very accurate or even that comprehensive. The CBO has studied everything from VA heathcare spending to Medicare/Medicaid along with per-person and per-unit healthcare costs and they have repeatedly concluded that direct comparisons are almost impossible because of the varying quality of care and coverage, dual enrollment/coverage, and a host of other factors.

We can take a broad look at the healthcare system from solely an expense and coverage perspective. Kaiser (using census data) says 49% of people have employer based health coverage. 19% have Medicaid, 14% have Medicare, and 2% receive coverage through VA/TRICARE/military. 9% are uninsured. 7% are covered by some kind of non-group based health insurance.

Total government spending on Healthcare is hard to calculate because of things like ACA subsidies, so really the best that we can do is add up the cost of various programs. 2016 numbers show 1,237.6 billion spent on Medicare/Medicaid, 55 billion on military/TRICARE, and the VA spends around 65 billion on medical services/healthcare (their actual budget is close to 200 billion, but only using actual healthcare expenditures). That's a total of
1,357.6 billion or 1.3576 Trillion dollars. Private insurance is around 1.1 Trillion. Not included are the uninsured or out of pocket expenditures.

So, Medicare, Medicaid, and military cover around 35% of people and that's a fairly accurate number.

The census raw numbers are a little different compared to Kaiser's analysis largely because they are calculating only those with coverage (9% uninsured not included), but it shows the 35% covered by government to be very close.

• In 2016, private health insurance coverage continued to be more prevalent than government coverage, at 67.5 percent and 37.3 percent, respectively. Of the subtypes of health insurance coverage, employer-based insurance covered 55.7 percent of the population for some or all of the calendar year, followed by Medicaid (19.4 percent), Medicare (16.7 percent), direct-purchase (16.2 percent), and military coverage (4.6 percent).

Thus, I think we can conclude with some confidence that around 35-40% of people are covered by government insurance and around 50-55% are covered by some form of private insurance.

On that basis alone, it seems that the government spends more per-person than private insurance. That said, people on government based insurance are sicker, older, etc and that is a difficult variable to adjust for. However, we also know Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements are sharply lower than those made by private insurance. Doctors and hospitals can show very concretely that if they have to accept those lower reimbursements they will be in serious financial jeopardy. Ultimately, this is the actual point I wanted to make. Forget whether or not the government can provide insurance more efficiently - - are doctors, hospitals, and other providers willing to provide care for much lower salaries, profits, etc? That's the ultimate question. Canada has a unique system in which private doctors and hospitals still provide much of the care, but the government essentially pays the bill. The NHS in the UK actually employs the doctors and operates the hospitals. Without question, doctors earn significantly less in both Canada and the UK. Forget whether they SHOULD accept lower salaries or if you think they are overpaid. The question is WILL they accept the lower payments and salaries?

I think they won't and you'll end up with the best talent and most experienced are in private practice at private hospitals. Only the rich and wealthy will be able to afford that. Healthcare and how to pay for it is an exceedingly complicated issue and marketplace. One size to fit all solutions are by nature going to ignore that complexity and the biggest stumbling blocks (lower payments to providers). There's also the question of whether or not you believe that employers will suddenly give everyone a raise commensurate to what the worker and employer were paying for health insurance as that would only be fair to pay the taxes needed to fund the new system. I have serious doubts workers would be made whole. I just don't think there is an easy answer or silver bullet.

 

[gangstonc]

Tonight:

- I have great respect for the U.K. United Kingdom... People call it Britain. They call it Great Britain. They used to call it England, different parts.

- We have the anti-missile missiles that shoot down other missiles many many miles away like a needle in a haystack.