The False Hope of Bipartisanship in American Politics

[joe1776]

I agree to a degree with some of these aspirations, but taken as whole it is chaotic idealistic aspirations.

Can you support that opinion with a reason or two?

 

[joe1776]

...You imagine that the NRA would lose power,
but so would unions & other liberal groups.
.

I don't see that as a problem. If they have a just cause, money shouldn't be a factor in whether they prevail or not.

 

[Kenny]

Our health system is so bloated because it's highly inefficient and broken. We would probably pay less if we overhauled it and had a single payer system replace it.

I don't think so... in Canada, one payer system accounts for 40% of expenses. Some people say that whatever the government does is inefficient.

"health care spending as a share of program spending and health care spending as a share of the economy, shows clearly that the last 15 years (ie., between 2001 to 2016) saw provincial governments increase health care spending at an unsustainable pace. Indeed, during this period, health care spending grew by 116.4 percent, outpacing growth in other program spending (94.6 percent) and GDP (77.4 percent). It is therefore unsurprising that during the same period, the share of program spending represented by health care for the provinces in total grew from 37.6 percent to 40.1 percent.”"

Do Health Care & Education Really Account for 50% of Provincial Government Spending In Canada? – Partisan Issues

 

[Stevicus]

Your idea has never occurred to me --- and I don't want to be too quick to judge -- but my first thought is that it's the complete opposite approach of my own forecast. I envision our next system to involve no elected leaders at all and your approach would create more of them.

I foresee leaderless online expert panels doing the governing. I expect them to begin as advisory panels until they are trusted.

Here's a thread I authored on the topic if you're interested.

The Future of International Expert Advisory Panels

So, the people wouldn't have any say over how they're governed? There'd be no voting? I suppose a case can be made for that, but we've had such systems before, back when people thought the peasants were stupid and inferior and that only those who are "highborn" should rule. Even if you want to substitute "expert" for "highborn," it would probably still turn out the same.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I don't think so... in Canada, one payer system accounts for 40% of expenses. Some people say that whatever the government does is inefficient.

"health care spending as a share of program spending and health care spending as a share of the economy, shows clearly that the last 15 years (ie., between 2001 to 2016) saw provincial governments increase health care spending at an unsustainable pace. Indeed, during this period, health care spending grew by 116.4 percent, outpacing growth in other program spending (94.6 percent) and GDP (77.4 percent). It is therefore unsurprising that during the same period, the share of program spending represented by health care for the provinces in total grew from 37.6 percent to 40.1 percent.”"

Do Health Care & Education Really Account for 50% of Provincial Government Spending In Canada? – Partisan Issues

"In 2019, total health expenditure in Canada was expected to reach $264 billion, or $ 7,068 per person. It is anticipated that, overall, health spending represented 11.6% of Canada’s gross domestic product (GDP)."
Health spending | CIHI.

That's hardly a lot.

 

[Kenny]

"In 2019, total health expenditure in Canada was expected to reach $264 billion, or $ 7,068 per person. It is anticipated that, overall, health spending represented 11.6% of Canada’s gross domestic product (GDP)."
Health spending | CIHI.

That's hardly a lot.

I quoted a source. Interesting that they vary so much.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I quoted a source. Interesting that they vary so much.

It's because the link you posted is using a biased conservative source ("the Fraser Institute"). Mine is using government sources. It also appears to be presenting the numbers in a way to make it look like Canada is spending huge amounts of money on healthcare when it really isn't.

 

[Kenny]

"In 2019, total health expenditure in Canada was expected to reach $264 billion, or $ 7,068 per person. It is anticipated that, overall, health spending represented 11.6% of Canada’s gross domestic product (GDP)."
Health spending | CIHI.

That's hardly a lot.

It's possible that your quote is only dealing with a certain area of health care while mine heaps them together?

The Sustainability of Health Care Spending in Canada 2017

 

[joe1776]

So, the people wouldn't have any say over how they're governed? There'd be no voting? I suppose a case can be made for that, but we've had such systems before, back when people thought the peasants were stupid and inferior and that only those who are "highborn" should rule. Even if you want to substitute "expert" for "highborn," it would probably still turn out the same.

So, are you saying that you would expect a decision on a policy for climate control made by international climate scientists (experts) would likely be the same as that made by a group of wealthy people with no expertise?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It's possible that your quote is only dealing with a certain area of health care while mine heaps them together?

The Sustainability of Health Care Spending in Canada 2017

What I posted was the figure for total healthcare spending in Canada for 2019.

 

[Stevicus]

So, are you saying that you would expect a decision on a policy for climate control made by international climate scientists (experts) would likely be the same as that made by a group of wealthy people with no expertise?

Maybe not at first, but eventually, it would probably turn out the same way.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't see that as a problem. If they have a just cause, money shouldn't be a factor in whether they prevail or not.

Money buys access to political speech venues.
He who controls the money controls the speech.
This is why I oppose spending limits.

 

[joe1776]

Money buys access to political speech venues.
He who controls the money controls the speech.
This is why I oppose spending limits.

Big money can buy all the speech it wants to in the media or on the lecture circuit as far as I'm concerned. I'm realistic enough to realize that BS can't be completely shut down in a democracy.

The only venues I care about are the rooms in the Capitol building where the votes are taken. To whatever extent possible, I want the votes to be determined by conscience and wisdom, not bought by bribery and a corruption of the process.

 

[Revoltingest]

Big money can buy all the speech it wants to in the media or on the lecture circuit as far as I'm concerned. I'm realistic enough to realize that BS can't be completely shut down in a democracy.

The only venues I care about are the rooms in the Capitol building where the votes are taken. To whatever extent possible, I want the votes to be determined by conscience and wisdom, not bought by bribery and a corruption of the process.

Detente!

 

[Tambourine]

Money buys access to political speech venues.
He who controls the money controls the speech.
This is why I oppose spending limits.

It's almost as if freedom of speech was a sham perpetuated by the moneyed class that controls an overwhelming amount of media.

 

[Friend of Mara]

a disaster if implemented.

no. We want gridlock.

What benefits do you think the EC provides? I've heard about a dozen arguments in the past. Most dont make sense. The only one that does make sense is the one where they just want coservative leaning rural areas to get a higher percentage of the vote.

And was that second part facishous or do you think political gridlock is good unironically?

 

[Revoltingest]

It's almost as if freedom of speech was a sham perpetuated by the moneyed class that controls an overwhelming amount of media.

Many believe that speech should be limited.
Some people just have too much of it, eh.

 

[Tambourine]

Many believe that speech should be limited.
Some people just have too much of it, eh.

I have not met a single person who believed that no form of expression should ever be limited.

The disagreements I have witnessed so far have usually been either about which forms of expression should be restricted, which content of speech should be banned, or who should or shouldn't be allowed to express themselves freely.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have not met a single person who believed that no form of expression should ever be limited.

I meet more people.

The disagreements I have witnessed so far have usually been either about which forms of expression should be restricted, which content of speech should be banned, or who should or shouldn't be allowed to express themselves freely.

I lean towards less restriction of speech.

 

[Tambourine]

I meet more people.

Springfield isn't that big of a town.

I lean towards less restriction of speech.

"Speech" can mean so many things, depending on which expressions we want to ban.

For example, some people may think of public protests as "speech", while others may think of them as "riots" and "looting"...