- Mar 25, 2001
- 19,275
- 1,361
- 126
Why is an opinion piece meaningful?
WaPo hosts right wing opinion pieces literally every day of the week. They literallly have right wing opinion people on staff.
feralkid
Lifer
- Jan 28, 2002
- 16,481
- 4,552
- 136
/End of thread.
OP has no clue what he’s talking about. He (and other Trumpanzees like him) should shut up, sit down and let the adults work it out.
- Mar 25, 2001
- 19,275
- 1,361
- 126
Why would it not be? If you disagree with the opinion feel free to discuss, is that not why we come here? You seem helbent on diverting discussion away from the topic at hand for some reason.
No. You are attempting to attach credibility of the Washington post to an opinion piece. The Washington Post does not endorse that opinion.
Can we both agree that WaPo does not agree with the thing you cited?
- Mar 25, 2001
- 19,275
- 1,361
- 126
The WaPo is many different people, this guy is one of them. It’s not an editorial but the dude is certainly one of the voices that works there. They hired him and keep him on staff.
Again, diversion. What is your opinion of the topic itself?
Again, diversion. What is your opinion of the topic itself?
- Mar 25, 2001
- 19,275
- 1,361
- 126
Jaskalas
Lifer
- Jun 23, 2004
- 33,446
- 7,508
- 136
That is not the mentality at all.
We just see the need to use more resources, enough to get the job done. And while Paygo is generally a good idea, and any policy of mine is inherently deficit neutral to begin with*, there is a practical benefit to having some flexibility. And, what is the subject if not a question of some stiff Congressional parliamentary rules? Actual policy is something else entirely. Such as Basic Income. I know that at, $1,000/mo that'd require money equal to about a 25% tax on all income. I would not pursue that policy without the tax to pay for it.
*Federal Housing Loan Program would require a substantial upfront investment into properties that, over time, would pay off their debt(s).
Meghan54
Lifer
- Oct 18, 2009
- 11,528
- 5,045
- 136
Figures you'd double down on trying to characterize an opinion piece being representative of a newspaper's overall stance on anything, including the ill conceived Pay-as-you-go crap.
But why should we expect honesty from you after your history has shown otherwise? And to bleat about thread derailing.....LOL! You're one of the uber thread derailers here.....including slow, pcgeek11, and a few others. Again, lack of honesty....but completely expected.
As soon as you see an opinion piece including the words "this OP-ED represents the view of the newspaper/news organization", that op-ed does, in fact, support the news org's views. Didn't see that written anywhere in this particular op-ed.....and papers, etc., can and do include such wording to that effect when they choose to have an op-ed represent said news org's views.
Fanatical Meat
Lifer
- Feb 4, 2009
- 34,579
- 15,795
- 136
Sounds a lot like gun control, we can’t speak of it because it’s too soon
Same with healthcare we’ll speak about it in the future when the budget gets balanced
Same with healthcare we’ll speak about it in the future when the budget gets balanced
- Mar 25, 2001
- 19,275
- 1,361
- 126
More thread derailers, added disclaimer in OP. What is your opinion of the topic itself.
Paygo is a non-starter when tax increases are impossible with a GOP Senate & Trump in the White House. It just plays into the hands of right wing austerians. Medicare for all is the same way. It's going nowhere, at least until 2021.
ivwshane
Lifer
- May 15, 2000
- 32,229
- 14,927
- 136
I don't know who the author of this piece is but they sounds like an uninformed idiot (that's probably what attracted the OP to the op'ed in the first place).
I'd like to point out something first before I address the concerns of the concerned troll (heh, probably another reason why this piece resonated with the OP, birds of a feather and all).
As pointed out in the article, health care costs continue to rise no matter what the system is. So if health care costs continue to rise and Americans currently pay these higher costs now, what difference does it make if the costs are paid indirectly via taxes or directly with higher health care costs? It's distinction that doesn't matter.
What does matter is that the cost of our current health care setup is much higher than it is in any other industrial nation.
The question shouldn't be how do we pay for it, it should be, how do we get health care costs down and maximize effective results.
There are many ways to achieve this, one of which is the rights favorite boogyman, rationed care. Once we get past low IQ talking points there is an actual debate to be had on what that's like, from restricting what end of life options are available to limiting access to procedures that aren't effective.
Another way to reduce costs can be in the form of preventive care. That too can take on many forms, either by providing early access to health care providers who can catch and give guidance early on before something becomes more serious and costly, or it can something like offering incentives to health care providers who address health issues as a whole (such as looking for ways to reduce high blood pressure of their members as a whole instead of individually).
Other ways to reduce costs would be to implement standardized pricing or price controls, something I belive most other countries implement.
Another way is for government to take over or more closely control R&D and license out their findings like nasa has done with their technology and knowledge.
The bottom line is that health care costs, especially ours, can be greatly reduced. We haven't even become comparable to the rest of the world in terms of costs and our results have been dropping so we have a lot of opportunity.
What ever you do though, don't vote for people who say it can be done, stick with those who tell you it can't be done, it's been working for us for almost a century.
I'd like to point out something first before I address the concerns of the concerned troll (heh, probably another reason why this piece resonated with the OP, birds of a feather and all).
As pointed out in the article, health care costs continue to rise no matter what the system is. So if health care costs continue to rise and Americans currently pay these higher costs now, what difference does it make if the costs are paid indirectly via taxes or directly with higher health care costs? It's distinction that doesn't matter.
What does matter is that the cost of our current health care setup is much higher than it is in any other industrial nation.
The question shouldn't be how do we pay for it, it should be, how do we get health care costs down and maximize effective results.
There are many ways to achieve this, one of which is the rights favorite boogyman, rationed care. Once we get past low IQ talking points there is an actual debate to be had on what that's like, from restricting what end of life options are available to limiting access to procedures that aren't effective.
Another way to reduce costs can be in the form of preventive care. That too can take on many forms, either by providing early access to health care providers who can catch and give guidance early on before something becomes more serious and costly, or it can something like offering incentives to health care providers who address health issues as a whole (such as looking for ways to reduce high blood pressure of their members as a whole instead of individually).
Other ways to reduce costs would be to implement standardized pricing or price controls, something I belive most other countries implement.
Another way is for government to take over or more closely control R&D and license out their findings like nasa has done with their technology and knowledge.
The bottom line is that health care costs, especially ours, can be greatly reduced. We haven't even become comparable to the rest of the world in terms of costs and our results have been dropping so we have a lot of opportunity.
What ever you do though, don't vote for people who say it can be done, stick with those who tell you it can't be done, it's been working for us for almost a century.
You really should get out of the habit of treating everyone else as if they were as stupid and dishonest as you present yourself as being.
ch33zw1z
Lifer
- Nov 4, 2004
- 37,768
- 18,046
- 146
ch33zw1z
Lifer
- Nov 4, 2004
- 37,768
- 18,046
- 146
I love how the burn it down voter pretends to be concerned.
Americans can control costs by eating healthier and getting their ass off the couch. You know, personal responsibility and all that.
I've linked the heart disease, diabetes, and obesity charts from the CDC many times on this board. Look them up, and see where the chronic, cost exploding, preventable ailments are concentrated.
Let's just Trump it, "Medicare for all will pay for itself", seems legit.
Conservatives can't be trusted to even run the government at this point, they've beat that culture war drum so hard the only thing they remember to do is cut taxes for wealthy people. Burn it down ftw
Americans can control costs by eating healthier and getting their ass off the couch. You know, personal responsibility and all that.
I've linked the heart disease, diabetes, and obesity charts from the CDC many times on this board. Look them up, and see where the chronic, cost exploding, preventable ailments are concentrated.
Let's just Trump it, "Medicare for all will pay for itself", seems legit.
Conservatives can't be trusted to even run the government at this point, they've beat that culture war drum so hard the only thing they remember to do is cut taxes for wealthy people. Burn it down ftw
Last edited:
Found this on reddit an hour ago and it reminded me of a certain dumbass:
Perfect timing.
Perfect timing.
If memory serves, didn't some right wing think tank did some research showing the the US would save Trillions of dollars if the US switched over to a single payer system a year or two ago?
cytg111
Lifer
- Mar 17, 2008
- 23,220
- 12,860
- 136
1. You whine more than a 2 year old girl.
2. Its an opinion piece based on a myth.
3. Learn the difference between something signed by the editorial board for a news paper and an opinion piece published by that news paper even when the writer is an employee of the paper. This isn't the first time you've pulled this shit and then whined when called out on it.
4. Your concern is bull shit. You've already proven that with your position on the wall funding.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
Facebook
Twitter