What do you expect would have happened by now with Hillary victory

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Gethsemani:
Was it worth it, America? Was it worth it?

For a second I thought I was on r/politics.

Not enough self-satisfaction and inaction 7/10

Gethsemani:
Weinstein would have resigned willingly and appointed a woman to take his place as a sign of good faith. And licorice would finally have started tasting good.

Almost believable, until then.

Too far, Gethsemani.

Too.

Far.

Agema:

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:
Trump or Trump 2.0 in 2020 would be a forgone conclusion.

Trump 2.0. If he lost in 2016 he'd be finished, because no-one likes a loser in politics.

Heh, I see what you did there.

As cathartic as it was to see Clinton lose Trumps reaction to losing would have probably been hilarious and disqualified him from public life anyway. I don't think he could have even showed up at wrestling shows anymore.

I wouldn't expect miracles, but like Sony and the PS4, I would expect that with a lack of any major downsides, the government wouldn't be complete garbo. I would expect that healthcare and the rights of women and the rights of LGBTs and minorities would not be severely screwed with, as they are now. Every apologist and deflector will, of course, deny this. Even the fence-sitters and the pessimists who aren't on anybody's side seem to have trouble giving an inch where the differences are measured in miles. It's like they want things to be horrible, so they can't see any benefit that anybody has to offer, at all. I'm not calling it a vast improvement, but it would be at least SOME steps in the right direction instead of utter bullshit.

Catnip1024:
Seriously, if Trump causes more voter cynicism, he's the best thing that could have happened to the US.

Right, because if there's one problem with America, it's that too many people vote. Universal suffrage, what the fuck were we thinking?

BeetleManiac:

Catnip1024:
Seriously, if Trump causes more voter cynicism, he's the best thing that could have happened to the US.

Right, because if there's one problem with America, it's that too many people vote. Universal suffrage, what the fuck were we thinking?

Cynicism isn't the same thing as fatalism or abstention.

bastardofmelbourne:
No, this is bullshit. This equivalency between Trump and Clinton is bullshit. I hate hearing it, because it's bullshit. It's nihilistic, flagrantly illogical bullshit that willfully ignores the vast gulf in competence, qualifications and temperament between Trump and Clinton. It's apathetic people trying to conceal their apathy behind a simplistic layer of pseudo-principles.

You selectively quote to the point where you miss the point. I'm talking about the clusterfuck of an uproar post-election, not any particular policies.

But if we are talking about policies, all Trump has managed to do is fuck up healthcare. All his campaign promises are being caught up in the legal system. Any of Clinton's would have been caught up in a Republican dominated Congress. So, yeah, pretty much the same.

Saelune:
You keep saying you arent a Trump supporter...but...

I'm a supporter of cynicism. All politicians should be questioned and mistrusted. If it takes Trump to make people realise that, good.

BeetleManiac:
Right, because if there's one problem with America, it's that too many people vote. Universal suffrage, what the fuck were we thinking?

If there's one problem with America, it's that too many people vote for shit candidates that don't actually offer anything. A binary choice of shit is still shit.

Low turnout numbers? Give them something to fucking vote for.

Two shit candidates? Fix the system so more than two parties are viable.

Reform only happens when you get really pissed off.

Seanchaidh:
Cynicism isn't the same thing as fatalism or abstention.

It's amazing how often one leads to the other, no?

Catnip1024:
Reform only happens when you get really pissed off.

Which cynicism doesn't actually accomplish. I've been there.

For starters we wouldn't have a sociopathic manbaby in charge of the country.

BeetleManiac:

Seanchaidh:
Cynicism isn't the same thing as fatalism or abstention.

It's amazing how often one leads to the other, no?

Amazing? No. You tend to need many people with shared awareness to accomplish things, and if we've a deficit of cynicism then cynics will have neither. The thing is, the more cynics there are, the more powerful they can become.

McMarbles:
For starters we wouldn't have a sociopathic manbaby in charge of the country.

Hillary would have had the decency to require a price for sociopathic policy rather than giving it away for free!

That sounds flip, but it is actually somewhat better.

BeetleManiac:

Catnip1024:
Reform only happens when you get really pissed off.

Which cynicism doesn't actually accomplish. I've been there.

Oh, and because the world didn't jump to your tune when you were feeling cynical, means millions of people sick of politics will be ignored? All reform starts with cynicism. Skepticism.

I wouldn't be grinding my teeth in rage because Trump gave his support in the aftermath of a shooting.

To the wrong fucking town.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/15/us/politics/trump-offers-condolences-for-the-wrong-mass-shooting.html

Gethsemani:
With Hillary in charge we would have had world peace, an end to hunger, a cure for cancer and an easy and cheap fix to climate change. Kim Jong Un would have disarmed willingly, the Chinese would have stopped trying to be the world's new economic superpower and Brexit would never have happened. Putin would have seen the error of his ways and instituted true democracy in Russia while cleaning out the corruption. Assad would have had a revelation, unilaterally stopped the Syrian Civil War and helped coordinate Russian intervention with NATO efforts to swiftly and smoothly bring down ISIS, which would have made all the returning Jihadis to Europe renounce their old ways and become proponents of the Western Lifestyle. In the US the income divide would have shrunk massively, with the ultra rich weeping openly and recanting their ways as they handed out their fortunes to the poor. Battlefront 2 would not have been a mess of crass monetization. Wolftenstein the New Colossus would not have been a technical disaster on PC, Destiny 2 would have been released simultaneously to PC AND Mac not just consoles. Visceral would not have been shuttered, but would have gone on to produce the best Star Wars game ever. #Metoo would never have happened, because all sex offenders would have come out publicly in #Ihave before #Metoo could have started. Weinstein would have resigned willingly and appointed a woman to take his place as a sign of good faith. And licorice would finally have started tasting good. All this and more would have come to pass, had Hillary only been allowed unfettered executive power in the USA. Was it worth it, America? Was it worth it?

LOL... I love how the US would have developed a cure for cancer, spearheaded a successful world peace initiative and the income divide would have... shrunk!

But seriously.

Come on.

Licorice will never taste good, so long as we have human faces and taste buds.

the December King:
But seriously.

Come on.

Licorice will never taste good, so long as we have human faces and taste buds.

Yeah, I admit I was overreaching there at the end, should have stopped before it became too exaggerated to be believable.

erttheking:
I wouldn't be grinding my teeth in rage because Trump gave his support in the aftermath of a shooting.

To the wrong fucking town.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/15/us/politics/trump-offers-condolences-for-the-wrong-mass-shooting.html

That is incredible. I really thought the president had no choice but to take advice, or at least be kept informed, by a slew of minders... but damn.

At least it was just a tweet- I feel like a speech would somehow have been worse.

the December King:

erttheking:
I wouldn't be grinding my teeth in rage because Trump gave his support in the aftermath of a shooting.

To the wrong fucking town.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/15/us/politics/trump-offers-condolences-for-the-wrong-mass-shooting.html

That is incredible. I really thought the president had no choice but to take advice, or at least be kept informed, by a slew of minders... but damn.

At least it was just a tweet- I feel like a speech would somehow have been worse.

It would have been, though I have to say, with Trump the line between the two is becoming a little blurry.

Seanchaidh:
Amazing? No. You tend to need many people with shared awareness to accomplish things, and if we've a deficit of cynicism then cynics will have neither. The thing is, the more cynics there are, the more powerful they can become.

My experience has been that cynics look for any excuse they can to take the path of inaction.

Catnip1024:
Oh, and because the world didn't jump to your tune when you were feeling cynical, means millions of people sick of politics will be ignored? All reform starts with cynicism. Skepticism.

Skepticism and cynicism are not the same thing. And I spent more than a decade as a very bitter, angry cynic and all it brought me was a lot of pain.

BeetleManiac:

Catnip1024:
Oh, and because the world didn't jump to your tune when you were feeling cynical, means millions of people sick of politics will be ignored? All reform starts with cynicism. Skepticism.

Skepticism and cynicism are not the same thing. And I spent more than a decade as a very bitter, angry cynic and all it brought me was a lot of pain.

They are related necessities for a healthy system.

I've spent most of my life as a cynic, and it's done me alright thus far. Depends how you do it. All things in moderation.

Catnip1024:

BeetleManiac:

Catnip1024:
Oh, and because the world didn't jump to your tune when you were feeling cynical, means millions of people sick of politics will be ignored? All reform starts with cynicism. Skepticism.

Skepticism and cynicism are not the same thing. And I spent more than a decade as a very bitter, angry cynic and all it brought me was a lot of pain.

They are related necessities for a healthy system.

I've spent most of my life as a cynic, and it's done me alright thus far. Depends how you do it. All things in moderation.

Indeed.

Same old same old, basically a less progressive and more globalist version of Obama's administration. Hillary isn't a reformer, but she wouldn't have made us a laughing stock and relinquish the title of "Leader of the Free World" to Germany.

Catnip1024:
They are related necessities for a healthy system.

I've spent most of my life as a cynic, and it's done me alright thus far. Depends how you do it. All things in moderation.

Gold star for you. Principled skepticism has done far more good for me. The problem is that most people equate being skeptical with being dismissive, defeatist and difficult. A skeptic demands to be proven wrong. And most people just don't have the courage in their convictions or the curiosity to commit to that.

Ultimately, I trace a lot of the problems with my country back to the fact that our education system is a bucket of marsupial spunk, but that's a conversation for another time.

Sean Hannity would die of a heart attack, the Alt-right would be crying rigged.

Less rollback of birth control, environmental protections, flood protections, gun control, financial crisis protections, taxes that support the infrastructure that creates the society people live in, mental health funding, scientific advancement, and, oh, everything possibly good about humanity. Let's just let the "free" market decide everything about the future of civilisation, because it always chooses what's best for everyone.

My best guess is that we'd be in a much better state right now, instead of... Well...

...I'm not apologizing.

Most likely I would not have health insurance (and thus punished by having a fine for not having any) compared to now where it is actually affordable for the first time in years. The price went down instead of steady yearly increasing in price.

kiri3tsubasa:
Most likely I would not have health insurance (and thus punished by having a fine for not having any) compared to now where it is actually affordable for the first time in years. The price went down instead of steady yearly increasing in price.

And you think Trump and his efforts to gut ACA is responsible?

McMarbles:

kiri3tsubasa:
Most likely I would not have health insurance (and thus punished by having a fine for not having any) compared to now where it is actually affordable for the first time in years. The price went down instead of steady yearly increasing in price.

And you think Trump and his efforts to gut ACA is responsible?

kiri3tsubasa:
Most likely I would not have health insurance (and thus punished by having a fine for not having any) compared to now where it is actually affordable for the first time in years. The price went down instead of steady yearly increasing in price.

See, either you're talking complete nonsense, benefiting from a factor that has nothing to do with Trump and this Congress's actions, or you are a minute minority of the country. You really shouldn't buy the nonsense spoonfed to you by conservative blogs.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/17/news/economy/trump-premiums/index.html
https://www.marketplace.org/2017/10/05/health-care/uncertainty-healthcare-premiums-increase-2018-50-percent
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/trump-administrations-actions-raise-health-insurance-premiums-study-says
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/opinion/how-donald-trump-is-driving-up-health-insurance-premiums.html
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/11/expect-your-health-insurance-costs-to-rise-in-2017.html

kiri3tsubasa:
Most likely I would not have health insurance (and thus punished by having a fine for not having any) compared to now where it is actually affordable for the first time in years. The price went down instead of steady yearly increasing in price.

The individual mandate (the fine you're referring to) is an essential aspect of the US health insurance system. All insurance companies charge premiums based on an actuarial estimate of whether their customers are going to need a payout and how much it's going to cost. If only sick people bought health insurance, the insurance companies would be making more frequent payouts with no healthy customers to compensate, forcing them to raise premiums to remain profitable. This is the "death spiral" that healthcare wonks speak of.

By compelling healthy people to buy insurance that they otherwise wouldn't see the need for with the threat of a fine equivalent to the cost of the health insurance, the individual mandate puts more healthy people into the health insurance system, reducing the overall cost of premiums. It'd be simpler to just make health insurance mandatory for everybody, but the same people who complain about being fined for not having health insurance also complain about being mandated to buy health insurance. The resulting situation is a bit of an anemic compromise; it doesn't actually mandate that everybody buy health insurance, because obviously there are still Americans who are not insured, it just provides a financial incentive to get health insurance because if you're paying the fine, you might as well get something from it.

It's like auto insurance. I'm not sure what the situation is in the US, but in Australia, automobile insurance is mandatory for everyone, even if you're the safest driver in the country. That's because, on average, everybody's going to end up in a prang at some point, just as everybody's going to get sick at some point; by making insurance mandatory, the government ensures that there'll always be someone to foot the bill in the event of an accident, and the insurers get to more accurately predict their payouts and keep their premiums stable from year to year. This is why the CBO estimates that repealing the individual mandate alone would result in about fifteen million more people who do not buy or cannot afford health insurance.

It would be a lot better and a lot simpler if all healthcare costs were partially or fully covered by the government automatically, but that's socialism.

Also, very often when people who do not have health insurance go to the hospital, the government end up picking the tab one way or another, so the tax is just a way to cover part of those costs.

This would have still happened, almost certainly: Keystone pipeline spills 210,000 gallons.

bastardofmelbourne:
The individual mandate (the fine you're referring to) is an essential aspect of the US health insurance system. All insurance companies charge premiums based on an actuarial estimate of whether their customers are going to need a payout and how much it's going to cost. If only sick people bought health insurance, the insurance companies would be making more frequent payouts with no healthy customers to compensate, forcing them to raise premiums to remain profitable. This is the "death spiral" that healthcare wonks speak of.

1) Profit for the health insurance industry is literally waste.
2) Health insurance companies should be replaced with a single payer system.
3) Their major shareholders should be buried in cement.
4) Distributing the absurd costs of healthcare and insurance to more people (while health insurance and pharmaceutical companies continue exploding profits and raise premiums as if in a "death spiral" anyway) was just about the worst way of handling healthcare aside from how it was being done previously, which is why the Republicans liked Obamacare back when it was a Heritage Foundation plan.

Also, they don't have to raise premiums to "remain profitable", they have to raise premiums to remain as absurdly profitable.

Season 20 of South Park would actually get it's storyline done the way the creators intended, as opposed to the divisive season it became.

Seanchaidh:
1) Profit for the health insurance industry is literally waste.
2) Health insurance companies should be replaced with a single payer system.
3) Their major shareholders should be buried in cement.
4) Distributing the absurd costs of healthcare and insurance to more people (while health insurance and pharmaceutical companies continue exploding profits and raise premiums as if in a "death spiral" anyway) was just about the worst way of handling healthcare aside from how it was being done previously, which is why the Republicans liked Obamacare back when it was a Heritage Foundation plan.

All true. Well, I wouldn't advocate burying anyone in cement, but I agree with the sentiment.

The bottom line is that the US didn't have the stomach to establish universal healthcare whether through a single-payer (such as Canada) or public/private mix (such as Australia) system. Americans are just pathologically averse to the nebulous threat of "big government," even when it's the government trying to fix a clearly-broken system.

Ironically, the one person who could have averted the whole mess before it hit crisis level was Hillary Clinton. But Clintoncare got assassinated by Republicans worried that it would endear Democrats to the working class, so...well done, Republicans?

More open immigration, more reasonable taxes, an actual good supreme court justice, and incremental progress everywhere else.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here