If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If

[Cardboard]

Cwericb,

We agree on something politically charged!!! 

Catdboard

[DooDiligence]

Time to snip this thread...

[cwericb]

Haha, I was thinking that Cardboard. 

While I find DT's methods and rhetoric offensive I am all for giving him a chance to see how he handles the next 4 years and sincerely hope he is able to convert me to a fan. This is why I was very much against the protests that were spreading across the country. The guy was voted in democratically so those who were protesting against him need to suck it up and see what he is actually going to do in the coming months before complaining about it.

[rb]

Wow, I take a day of meetings and all of this develops on what's supposed to be a dead thread. I won't go through everything, but I'll make a couple of points.

1. I started talking to the libertarians from the basics. I wanted to point out that the the state/gov't can create value/wealth. Law and property rights is the most obvious point but there are others.

2. I challenged the idea that prosperity in the US is not provided by the fact that government is more limited there. My thoughts are along the lines that there are lots of countries out there with similar prosperity to the US. Most of those countries have taxation/governments bigger than the US. So the source of prosperity is not the size of government. But the answers are not based on figures, no it's theft, slavery, etc.

3. My "we" post was meant to show that there is not this great wealth utopia in the US. Yes a lot of people may have microwaves and air conditioners and still be poor. I still wouldn't want to be "them". As we've seen with this election, a greater lot of people that do not fall into those poverty statistics are not happy with their situation nonetheless and guess what, they're looking for a government solution.

4. I agree that the poor in the US or Canada could seem down right spoiled compared to the poor in India or some other God forsaken place. But I don't think that's an excuse. Should we strive to converge to the lowest denominator or should we strive to excel and push the boundaries for the better? Btw, I don't think we should institute new welfare programs. (A Camaro in every driveway?) But i do think that as we make decisions they should be balanced and move in the right direction for prosperity and welfare of the people. I don't think that a tax cut for top earners paid for with a cut in Medicare is a move in the right direction.

5. A lot of people are trying to politicize economics. This has a lot to do with people's beliefs and not so much with economics. Economics is vulnerable to these influences because it's a slow moving science (for good reason) and very influential. But economics itself is agnostic to political thoughts. Maybe pay more attention to it's data and mechanisms and less to talking heads that know nothing about economics. Probably not a lot to do with this post, but it's a pet peeve of mine, and while I'm on a roll..... why not?

[rb]

Haha, I was thinking that Cardboard. 

While I find DT's methods and rhetoric offensive I am all for giving him a chance to see how he handles the next 4 years and sincerely hope he is able to convert me to a fan. This is why I was very much against the protests that were spreading across the country. The guy was voted in democratically so those who were protesting against him need to suck it up and see what he is actually going to do in the coming months before complaining about it.

Cwericb,

We agree on something politically charged!!! 

Catdboard

I think that despite our leanings and heated discussions we agree on a lot of things.

For example on Trump. I think he will be (hopefully) a medium sized disaster. Nonetheless, he won the election. Yes he lost the popular vote by a good margin(he should probably note that), but that's not the way it works down there. So he should be president. Congress will do what Congress does, and there will be another election in 4 years. Personally hope he does all 4 years because Pence is down right scary.

On protestors, a lot of these people didn't vote? Why not? Wouldn't it have been so much easier to go vote, get the problem solved, and not have to spend so much time making signs? Maybe learn a lesson a lesson and vote next time. You won't see me at a protest, I generally don't think they achieve much. I go vote - I think that's more effective. But then I respect the rules of our democracy which say that people are allowed to protest, so I'm not gonna stand in the way. Go ahead and protest. Also there have been very successful protests in the past - Gandhi and MLK come to mind, maybe Vietnam. Those changed the world. So obviously I can be wrong and protest can work. People should be free to do it.

On the subject of healthcare my views are formed mainly by empirical data, namely that a public "medicare" system is more efficient. It delivers the an amount of care for a lesser cost. Yes, some of that care goes to some people that didn't pay enough for it and is subsidized - but let's put that aside for a bit. As Cardboard points out the Canadian single payer Medicare system is not all milk and honey.

One of the ways that the system keeps costs under control is some rationing of healthcare and triage. This system is as old as healthcare itself but what it means is that you get some crappy customer service. The outcomes are pretty good (you'll get fixed) and the price is good. But it's not unlike dealing with the cable company - and nobody likes doing that.

However I don't want to blow up the system by saying to hell with it, let's make it all private, but maybe introduce some more efficiencies into the system. Maybe then use those efficiencies to reduce cost or redistribute towards better customer service. I agree with Cardboard's suggestions. There should be some nominal fee to see a doctor. That can be structured in such a way to discourage frivolous visits but not prevent access to people with legitimate sickness. The prescription visits I agree are another low hanging fruit. I know a number of doctors that only write prescriptions with zero refills. In my opinion this is tantamount to fraud and we should do something about that.

I'm not sure I agree on the STD testing stuff because I'm not sure if society would benefit from a bunch of idiots out there distributing syphilis. But I also posit that there are further efficiencies that can be used. Such as the gov't using monopsony power to negotiate drug prices. If Costco can use its size to negotiate good drug prices for its customers why shouldn't the government use its size to do the same?

Anyway just trying to point out some area where I think we think alike despite leanings and approaches. Apologies for the wall of text...

[RichardGibbons]

It is not a no-brainer at all because the Canadian system means garbage for all. I have seen my father treated here and in Florida and the difference is absolutely striking. Now, I know that you seem to disregard personal experience but, to me it counts and what I also hear from many others.

"Garbage for all" in the sense that it has the same outcomes as the US system, at lower costs.  You are right that I give very little weight to anecdotes as opposed to scientific studies with data sets that can show significance.

That said, I think that Canada actually has the best of both worlds--everyone gets good healthcare at reasonable prices, and rich, grass-is-greener people can jump down to the USA. And Canada gets to be a freeloader on US medical R&D.  It's actually awesome for the rest of the world that Americans are happy being grossly overcharged.

Two major reasons for that is abuse by patients with many still going to see their doctors for minor scratches, colds and
doing things that they could do on their own such as blood pressure.

This would actually be interesting to test, because preventative stuff is typically very cost-effective. So, it would be interesting to know if the preventative effect of people going to the doctor "too often" actually saves money.

Also, how much is spent each year on free and repeated STD's detection must be out of this world.

Not sure what your point is here.  We shouldn't test for STDs?  People who enjoy having sex are evil?

I actually was curious what the number was here, but couldn't find it in 5 minutes of searching.  Thanks for ruining my browser history. 

People paying a little bit for each visit would help a lot.

I'd be totally into trying a small fee for service (small relative to the patient's income), to see the impact on both costs and outcomes.

And extremely strong unions and terrible hospital administrations who render the system unproductive.

Don't forget doctors deliberately restricting the supply of physicians.  It's amazing that with all these factors adding inefficiencies, the US system is over 50% less efficient, isn't it?

Then other stupidity from the system such as prescription renewals requiring a visit to the doctor and pharmacists who can't do basic/common sense prescriptions.

I agree.  I bet this is another "doctor monopoly" thing.

So no Canada is not perfect. Very far from it.

Yeah, it certainly isn't perfect. It's just far closer to perfect than the American system.

[RichardGibbons]

Obviously not, Richard. Does property rights protection mean it's legal to steal? Does making murder a criminal act mean it's legal to murder my neighbor? Does A equal non A?

Let me make this very simple for you.  How are you going to enforce property rights and make murder illegal without a government and a legal system, and who will pay for those costs?

In math, the most common way to prove something is true is to assume it isn't true, and then show that that assumption leads to a contradiction.

That's why you're frustrated. You've assumed property rights and without government or taxation, and that leads to a very simple contradiction.  You really want to be able to say with a clear conscience that taxation is stealing and also want to believe in property rights and basic legal protection. Yet you can't get property rights and legal protections without the government and taxes.  Darn.

It can be really annoying when you realize that a core belief leads to a contradiction.   When people with intellectual honesty run into such a sticky situation, they change their core belief, but in your case, I recommend just waving your hands and whining that nobody's taking your argument seriously.

[rb]

Obviously not, Richard. Does property rights protection mean it's legal to steal? Does making murder a criminal act mean it's legal to murder my neighbor? Does A equal non A?

Let me make this very simple for you.  How are you going to enforce property rights and make murder illegal without a government and a legal system, and who will pay for those costs?

In math, the most common way to prove something is true is to assume it isn't true, and then show that that assumption leads to a contradiction.

That's why you're frustrated. You've assumed property rights and without government or taxation, and that leads to a very simple contradiction.  You really want to be able to say with a clear conscience that taxation is stealing and also want to believe in property rights and basic legal protection. Yet you can't get property rights and legal protections without the government and taxes.  Darn.

It can be really annoying when you realize that a core belief leads to a contradiction.   When people with intellectual honesty run into such a sticky situation, they change their core belief, but in your case, I recommend just waving your hands and whining that nobody's taking your argument seriously.

Dude, shhh... don't try to relitigate. I already got the libertarians to admit that the state/government can add value/crate wealth by establishment of law and property rights. That was like 6 pages back or whatever. I don't know if it means much, but when the libertarians admit that the government is useful just that's a pretty big thing. I was surprised myself at that. Lol, just take a win and leave it. Move on to the next fight.

[Packer16]

I think what some folks may not get here is the differences between the US free enterprise system and the more restrained or blended form in other former British/Dutch empires & the Nordics.  In the former B/D colonies & the Nordics, historically the government worked together with free enterprise in many ventures like Crown corporations in Canada and the Dutch and British East India companies to name a few.  The US has historically had a government as a check on corporations in contrast to colluding with corporations.  Both have there pluses and minuses.  The possibility of corruption is higher in the collusion model as referee is also a player on the field.  To prevent this many of these countries have rules enforced by law versus voluntary compliance.  In those countries the rules are accepted for this.  Many of these same rules would not be accepted in the US as a restriction on free choice. 

Now the upside for the US is an environment like no else in the world where IP can be exploited for maximum gain.  This leads to high investment in IP-type businesses and more important attracts the people with best ideas to come here to maximize their gains.  Now others can free-ride this R&D but they are also forgo the IP investment environment in the US.  I do think as a a part of this free ride other countries should have to give concessions to the US in trade negotiations which is another area I think Trump can add some value here as we no longer need allies to fight the communists. 

Packer

[onyx1]

Which brings me to my third observation about this thread. It's a frustrating waste of everyone's time.

Once you accept that facts don't matter in politics, it's a lot less frustrating. 

Trump understands what many miss: people don’t make decisions based on facts
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/16/13426448/trump-psychology-fact-checking-lies

These threads rarely changes minds, but they do confirm our own beliefs with the like-minded.