Will Sanders' Supporters Ultimately Back Trump?

[_honorentheos]

I'm not behind Sanders' plan. Because I think bad criticisms of it are bad doesn't mean I support it.

Bernie Sanders will give everyone AIDS!

That doesn't seem correct.

Oh, you're a socialist now?!

What I desire out of the health care system has zero chance of passing. I think a variety of universal options are superior to the current US system, which is awful. As a practical matter, I'd be willing to compromise on universal health care to get other things I want if I was an elected official. Because I'm not, I can just observe and hope the least worst things happen.

That's sorta what I was thinking you might have thought.

Someone once said 'Politics is the art of the possible', which, combined with the question 'Which is the least worst possible outcome, starting from where we are now?' is in my view always a better approach than starting from the position 'Let's see: I have these strong abstract beliefs (in lbertarianism/socialism/<my religion> etc.). What do those beliefs dictate that I should do in the real world?'

While I agree in theory that it's best if a person evaluates situations and looks for logical solutions, there are two problems with this.

The first is labels matter and EA is informed so when he claims he is libertarian it communicates certain things about his views. The Sanders plan is in such direct conflict with those views it would undercut the meaning of the term to render it pointless.

The second is there is a difference between someone who claims to be conservative because that's what their family has been, and they all go to their graves voting conservative on one hand. And on the other, someone who has thought through their own values and the mechanism of government to arrive at certain fundamental beliefs such as how markets might work compared to a strong central executive. An intelligent person, especially one who isn't enamored with central control, recognizes there are many variables in most situations of which they are not aware nor likely could be, so this past thought forms a good default position. Much better than coming to every issue with ones mind a blank slate like they'd been hit by a 2x4 just beforehand.

[_honorentheos]

One of the fun things about critiques of socialism or lack of it is that different Western democracies have socialized different aspects of their economies. This brings members of these different societies into conflict about what can and cannot work based on their failure of imagination. So you have people who live in countries with socialized sector X who think X will just disappear if it is not controlled by the government even though other nations get along just fine and you have poeple in countries who haven't socialized sector X who think it's doom and gloom if it happens even though other nations get along just fine with it.

That these things can involve trade offs and relative differences in efficiencies just escapes them.

If the post office wasn't socialized in the United States, I could easily see critics of a proposal to do so claiming it will usher in an authoritarian dystopia. Yeah, no it won't. Take your criticism down a few notches.

Amusingly, it's also the problem with arguments for socializing aspects of government. Funny how that works.

[_honorentheos]

EAllusion,

What do you desire to see out of our healthcare system?

- Doc

A dismantling of subsidized employer provided health insurance, repeal of most current laws surrounding health care funding, UBI, and government provided medical insurance against catastrophic medical bills within a defined level of service coverage.

Won't happen. The current system in the US is an absolute disaster that manages the worst of both worlds in terms of cost and outcomes.

That does answer why your response to the question about bringing Americans around to the idea of healthcare being a right was to shrug it off.

Wowsers.

[_EAllusion]

That does answer why your response to the question about bringing Americans around to the idea of healthcare being a right was to shrug it off.

Wowsers.

My response was to your absurd notion that Americans need to collectively believe health care is a human right in order for it to become law without authoritarianism forcing it through. This argument was to contrast against other Western democracies with the implicit (and wildly incorrect) assumption that this is what happened in every other Western democracy that passed a version of universal health care.

[_EAllusion]

One of the fun things about critiques of socialism or lack of it is that different Western democracies have socialized different aspects of their economies. This brings members of these different societies into conflict about what can and cannot work based on their failure of imagination. So you have people who live in countries with socialized sector X who think X will just disappear if it is not controlled by the government even though other nations get along just fine and you have poeple in countries who haven't socialized sector X who think it's doom and gloom if it happens even though other nations get along just fine with it.

That these things can involve trade offs and relative differences in efficiencies just escapes them.

If the post office wasn't socialized in the United States, I could easily see critics of a proposal to do so claiming it will usher in an authoritarian dystopia. Yeah, no it won't. Take your criticism down a few notches.

Amusingly, it's also the problem with arguments for socializing aspects of government. Funny how that works.

I explicitly argued it goes both ways in my couple sentence post you are responding to. Maybe read what I write before replying?

[_honorentheos]

I explicitly argued it goes both ways in my couple sentence post you are responding to. Maybe read what I write before replying?

Call it writing the small text as large as the rest of the post. It's because I did read your post that I made the point. You kinda trailed off into a particular side of the argument after only briefly acknowledging it. So, you're welcome for the help in clarifying your point carried equal weight in both directions.

[_Chap]

... someone who has thought through their own values and the mechanism of government to arrive at certain fundamental beliefs such as how markets might work compared to a strong central executive.

Hmm. Fundamental beliefs? That's a special kind of belief, then? Special how, exactly? Is it, as the name might suggest, a belief taken to be more basic than, or prior to, mere contingent facts about the world? Usually that only applies to religious belief, which we are not talking about here, are we? Perhaps we might just do a strikethrough to eliminate an unnecessary adjective? Fixed it for you.

and then ...

An intelligent person, especially one who isn't enamored with central control,recognizes there are many variables in most situations of which they are not aware nor likely could be,

Fixed that for you too. Any intelligent person who looks at the immense complexity of any human society recognises that the world is full of 'unknown unknowns', and hence of unintended and unpredictable consequences of many actions.

so this past thought forms a good default position.

Default position? You mean a position you adopt in default of - what? Any other basis for taking a position? After talking about the huge complexity of real socio/political situations, you think that starting off by holding on to a nice simply articulated 'fundamental belief' is a good way to start comprehending the world and forming plans to achieve desirable outcomes in it?

Much better than coming to every issue with ones mind a blank slate like they'd been hit by a 2x4 just beforehand.

Ooooh, Mr Irritable again!

Alternatively, one might try not beginning by pinning on a badge saying 'I'm a libertarian/socialist/etc.', and instead start by writing some more everyday stuff on your slate. Like, people want their kids to get a decent education. When they get ill, they want to be able to access health care without the risk of personal bankruptcy. And then ask 'How might we manage to get those things done in the here and now, starting from where we are?' That question is only the beginning of a learning process, during which one's slate will become really full of provisional but experience-based answers to a lot of important questions.

And that's what I meant when I said:

Someone once said 'Politics is the art of the possible', which, combined with the question 'Which is the least worst possible outcome, starting from where we are now?' is in my view always a better approach than starting from the position 'Let's see: I have these strong abstract beliefs (in lbertarianism/socialism/<my religion> etc.). What do those beliefs dictate that I should do in the real world?'

[_honorentheos]

Noting the discrepancy between EA labeling himself a libertarian and his defense of Sanders plan proved accurate. It raised the appropriate question and proved far more accurate than attempting to reconcile the discrepancy. EA wouldn't have answered me (we are at war I guess) without your attempt to do so. So that's something. But your point above is undercut by what actually happened.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Chap,

What's your angle here? EA is an avowed Libertarian, but even he espouses socialist policies out of his version of pragmatism (I guess you could say the market would respond accordingly to his changes to healthcare). UBI is 100% socialism. There's just no way around it.

A dismantling of subsidized employer provided health insurance

I'm not sure what that means in real terms. I could guess, but I'm fairly certain I'd be off because this sentence has a pretty layered meaning to it if I'm reading it correctly.

repeal of most current laws surrounding health care funding

Again, I'm not sure what this means in practical terms.

UBI

This one is for sure impossible to misunderstand.

government provided medical insurance against catastrophic medical bills within a defined level of service coverage

This is also a policy that, using common sense, falls under socialism.

So. I can see why Honor is taking aim at EA's proclamations of being a Libertarian when he repeatedly advocates for socialist policies.

Just to be clear, I'm not really nitpicking EA's stance on anything. I've also moved to a place where I think we should just cut out the middleman, pool our collective insurance premiums together, and pay for it because we're doing it anyway*. I suppose the centrist in me says if a person wants to opt out of my collectivist vision for health insurance then I'd be fine with them carrying their own, and not having to pay into a general fund. Without thinking about it too much, it just feels fair to me and at first blush it would strike a balance between universal healthcare and muh freedumz.

* I'd also like to see the government mandate pricing for healthcare where the consumer actually sees what they or their insurance is going to be charged. I think a truth-in-advertising requirement would actually usher in some sort of market-based competition and self-policing with regard to the price gouging we're experiencing. Medical costs are outrageous, and I don't believe for a second they need to be as high as they are. Perhaps if we cap malpractice lawsuits we can bring care back down to manageable levels. I dunno.

- Doc

[_moksha]

Kamala Harris endorsed Biden.