|
Sucrose posted:You are the epitome of what’s wrong with the far-left. One out of our two parties is currently infested with Nazis, but yes, it’s liberals who are the real threat to humanity. I would have settled for social democracy before I realized that it wasn't on the menu. I have my price, it is what you claim to want, and you are a liar. Big Hubris fucked around with this message at 14:26 on Dec 21, 2020 |
#
?
Dec 21, 2020 14:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 18:58 |
|
|
doverhog posted:It is a purge. Let's see who is real and who is a poser. The left has a long history with it. Still might be a good idea. Was it any of those other times?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2020 16:48
|
|
|
Sucrose posted:You are the epitome of what’s wrong with the far-left. One out of our two parties is currently infested with Nazis, but yes, it’s liberals who are the real threat to humanity. Both of our parties are infested with Nazis, you just prefer the one labelled "liberal". It becomes very silly to point at the other team and scream "THOSE ARE THE NAZIS!" when Democrats were responsible for building the concentration camps and the forced surgeries started on their watch. And, frankly, I am exhausted from having to drag out this conversation again and again. But I am more exhausted of the selective exclusion that forms the center of liberal narratives.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2020 18:12
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:You're mistaking this for a test of Nancy Pelosi or the democrats writ large that requires progressive support as an input, I think. It's not. It's a test of these do-nothing progressives themselves and whether they ought to receive a single finger lifted in their support ever again. It's not a test of anything. It's just the typical "trying to win the only battle you can, because you are miles away from the one that matters" nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2020 18:39
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:It's not a test of anything. It's just the typical "trying to win the only battle you can, because you are miles away from the one that matters" nonsense. As far as I can tell the dem progressives are so scared of the idea that they might wield power on behalf of the people who put them in office at the expense of the people burning the world down that they'd rather accuse their base of "betraying the movement."
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2020 18:57
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Also, I think leftists if not even many progressive liberals have given up on reforming the Democratic party because, in all honesty, it is an institution that resists all serious change and that it is very unlikely to ever pass anything which would seriously restrict business. It is why it is an endless discussion because it is a fundamental different philosophical point of view. This is obviously not correct. Say what you will about the affordable care act and it's formation, but it did seriously restrict the health care business. And not because it is any sort of socialism, but because it can be sold to conservatives as being like socialism, it's being slowly dismantled by the Republican party.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2020 17:21
|
|
|
Depends on whether you view it in isolation or in context of being an attempt to neuter the call for universal healthcare and entrench insurance driven healthcare as long as possible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2020 18:21
|
|
|
twerking on the railroad posted:This is obviously not correct. Say what you will about the affordable care act and it's formation, but it did seriously restrict the health care business. You'll have to elaborate on what you mean here, because as far as I'm aware neither profits nor the size of the industry decreased (I'm not sure if you're talking about health insurance or some other healthcare industry). The ACA also included benefits to insurers to offset the restrictions (which is presumably why you didn't see the industry financially suffer), like the mandate and subsidies that essentially = the government giving insurers a ton of cash.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2020 19:41
|
|
|
twerking on the railroad posted:This is obviously not correct. Say what you will about the affordable care act and it's formation, but it did seriously restrict the health care business. In exchange for a restriction on denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, insurance companies got massive subsidies and their operations were not seriously affected by the bill neither were pharma or hospitals. If you had invested in Anthem stock in the early 2010s, you could have made over 6x your investment. Also, the GOP was never able to agree on an alternative because none of those firms actually want to cash to stop flowing. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 19:59 on Dec 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2020 19:49
|
|
|
Yeah, the thing is though that although campaign contributions from the health insurance industry have always been biased towards Republicans and conservative groups, they took a decisive and visible swing in more so in 2012, tapering off only this year. https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=f09 When the ACA was in place, the health insurance industry evidently decided they didn't like it and were big on funding an opposition. And if we're talking stocks, most of the stock market was soaring during that time. The Dow jones tripled from beginning of year 2010 to end of year 2020. twerking on the railroad fucked around with this message at 22:00 on Dec 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2020 21:58
|
|
|
twerking on the railroad posted:Yeah, the thing is though that although campaign contributions from the health insurance industry have always been biased towards Republicans and conservative groups, they took a decisive and visible swing in more so in 2012, tapering off only this year. There has been little sign that the health insurance industry actually wants to get rid of the ACA other than "tweaking" it more to their benefit, why would they give up the money they are getting. Anthem did twice as well as the DJI as a whole...that is pretty drat good (maybe not Tesla level but that is a separate conversation). The health care insurance shows little signs of "suffering" from the current situation and is in fact doing quite well. It is also why there is little hope from a breakout of the current situation because the leadership of both parties agree on the basics (some basic restrictions plus huge corporate subsides) but differ on the details such as the individual mandate and how subsidies are targeted. It is why progressives have little leverage and don't seem to be interested in a serious fight with the leadership. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 22:45 on Dec 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2020 22:38
|
|
|
twerking on the railroad posted:And if we're talking stocks, most of the stock market was soaring during that time. The Dow jones tripled from beginning of year 2010 to end of year 2020. So, in other words, the ACA had 0 effects on the price of healthcare and the profits of insurance companies. Because if it had, healthcare provider profits and therefore stocks would have lagged behind the rest of the market. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2020 00:13
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:There has been little sign that the health insurance industry actually wants to get rid of the ACA other than "tweaking" it more to their benefit, why would they give up the money they are getting. Anthem did twice as well as the DJI as a whole...that is pretty drat good (maybe not Tesla level but that is a separate conversation). Please don't put things in quotes as if I said them. I don't doubt that health insurance companies are doing well. But for whatever reason they don't seem to like the ACA, and they have signaled so with their campaign contributions. It may not be in their best interests to do so, but markets are hardly efficient or reflective of the economy. Phyrric victory or not, they want to defeat the ACA- or at least did until recently.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2020 01:29
|
|
|
twerking on the railroad posted:I don't doubt that health insurance companies are doing well. But for whatever reason they don't seem to like the ACA, and they have signaled so with their campaign contributions. Please back up the claim that insurance companies "don't seem to like" a law that forces people to give them money. Edit: especially considering that they helped write that law in the first place. Cpt_Obvious fucked around with this message at 02:02 on Dec 27, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2020 02:00
|
|
|
It's in the link. Look where the campaign contributions are going and how that shifted in 2012.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2020 03:31
|
|
|
Didn't the ACA provide blunting of rising insurance prices for the first time in ten years?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2020 03:31
|
|
|
twerking on the railroad posted:It's in the link. Look where the campaign contributions are going and how that shifted in 2012. Umm...what was Biden's position on the ACA again?  Edit: HootTheOwl posted:Didn't the ACA provide blunting of rising insurance prices for the first time in ten years? Nope.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2020 03:38
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:Nope.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2020 04:33
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:Umm...what was Biden's position on the ACA again? Yes it did shift in 2020. Something health related did happen this year. Also that supreme court thing. But look at the shift in 2012.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2020 04:33
|
|
|
Actually looking closer, something similar happened in the Clinton years. They really wanted to bury any possibility of further healthcare reform. Edit: Anyway this is kind of a derail at this point. I don't have any greater point to make than that Dems are perfectly willing to pass stuff that businesses don't like. twerking on the railroad fucked around with this message at 04:37 on Dec 27, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2020 04:35
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:Your chart shows two red bars of roughly equal height between 10 and 11, suggesting "yup" (for employer insurance). The next year's gains more than make up for it. So, in the short-term view of "this year ONLY", then yeah. Otherwise, the pattern continued largely unabated. twerking on the railroad posted:Yes it did shift in 2020. Something health related did happen this year. Also that supreme court thing. But look at the shift in 2012. The reason they were paying R's more in 2012 is because of their huge gains in the house and senate in 2010 from which the Democrats have never truly recovered.. You don't pay losers, after all, you pay the guys who have actual power. That's not some sort of tacit endorsement of their politics, it's just that legalized corruption necessarily flows to the people in power. I find it rather strange that you keep ignoring the fact that they had a very large part in writing that law, especially given it's a discussion as to whether or not they like it. Can you explain why insurance companies do not like the government to force people to give them money? That seems to be the missing piece.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2020 04:47
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:The next year's gains more than make up for it. So, in the short-term view of "this year ONLY", then yeah. Otherwise, the pattern continued largely unabated. Not in the chart you posted.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2020 05:02
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:I find it rather strange that you keep ignoring the fact that they had a very large part in writing that law, especially given it's a discussion as to whether or not they like it. Can you explain why insurance companies do not like the government to force people to give them money? That seems to be the missing piece. I'm not an insurance executive or anything close to it so the best I could do would be to guess and that would be a waste of everyone's time. But they seem to. The bit about who's got power doesn't fit. Democrats won huge majorities in 2008 and both that and the following midterm featured more money given to Republicans than Democrats. Clearly it isn't just a matter of who's in power.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2020 05:30
|
|
|
twerking on the railroad posted:I'm not an insurance executive or anything close to it so the best I could do would be to guess and that would be a waste of everyone's time. But they're still giving a lot of money to Democrats. And the chart basically supports the idea that the signficiant increase coincided with Republicans making big gains in Congress; the difference is pretty small immediately prior. The picture painted here is "they somewhat prefer Republicans because Republicans might do things that even more directly benefit them" - not "Democrats are hurting them." It's analogous to the situation with the fossil fuel industry. They prefer Republicans, but Democrats also aren't hurting them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2020 07:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 18:58 |
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:Didn't the ACA provide blunting of rising insurance prices for the first time in ten years? HootTheOwl posted:Your chart shows two red bars of roughly equal height between 10 and 11, suggesting "yup" (for employer insurance). It also shows red bars of roughly equal height for 07, 08 and 09 so your thesis of it being the only time it blunted the rise in ten years is... questionable. What blunted it in those years? It wasn't the ACA. As far as slowing the growth of health care costs the ACA was a total failure. I'd be interested in more data and more recent data but I'm phone posting right now, I'll try to pull some more when I get the chance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2020 07:48
|
|
