Out-of-Character: Hi folks, I'd like to take a moment to talk about something everybody hates: politics. Every year that I have been able to vote, and for every year of my parent's lives, we have voted for the lesser of two evils. This is largely a consequence of the fundamental structures of our election, specifically first-past-the-post. For far too long, we as a society have been forced to buy into the idea that if we don't vote for the victor, then our vote did not count for anything. Here's the thing though, if everyone voted for the candidate they genuinely wanted to win as opposed to the the one who they think will win, then we would see a rather spectacular phenomenon: a society run by people we actually want in charge. At first glance, this seems like a tautology. Heck, it kind of is, but that doesn't change the reality that it is factually true. Why should we base our voice around minimizing hatred? If we still hate the person we voted for, then did they actually earn that vote? Or, bear with me, did we vote for them because we had given up on any hope of our government working in our best interests and decided to just choose who would beat us the least? Why is it that politicians are held to a different standard than the common man? How are they held accountable for their actions when they are largely making policies that have been more beneficial that benefit themselves and those who threw them the most money? How are they held accountable when they lie to our faces and break the very promises they were voted into office on? Why is it that I have to ration a month's worth of medication across two or more months just so that I can afford a $250 price tag after insurance when, not five years ago, it was $30 a month BEFORE insurance? Why is it that in the state bordering the largest number of freshwater lakes, people were paying more money for water than any other group in the nation? They were paying more money per gallon in Flint than in California, which, may I remind you, was freaking on fire? How is it reasonable for the people with the greatest wealth to be allowed to decide whether a man lives or dies or rots in prison for nonviolent misdemeanors, when not a single one of the wealthy was ever held accountable for the 2008 disaster? I want to elect someone I can trust. I want to elect someone who has not already taken the blood money that permeates our politics. I want to be able to vote without feeling guilty afterwards. Most of all, I want to live in a nation where my government cares whether I am alive or dead for reasons besides taxes and votes. I may role play as an angry, sadistic, anarchist lizardman, but in reality, I'm a guy trying to get through college and keep a job. I respect the authority the government holds and expect it to be used responsibly and fairly. This may well be one of the last elections that a candidate who has no ulterior motives, no prior scandals, no conflicts of interest, and a lifelong track record of consistently voting in the best interest of the nation as a whole. So I'm going to ask one thing and one thing only of you, the reader, to do this year. Please vote for the candidate you believe has a sincere interest in bringing the greatest prosperity to as many people as possible in our country. Vote for the candidate you believe has never betrayed the public. Vote for the candidate who knows what it is like to have lived in poverty and wasn't born with a silver spoon in their mouth. Don't vote for the candidates who kick people the least, vote for the candidate who wouldn't kick you in the first place. Vote tomorrow for the candidate you won't regret. I'm not going to tell you all who to vote for, I'm not an asshole in the real world. If you insist on knowing who my vote is for and want to know my reasoning, PM me.
As an Aussie, it's always fun watching the US elections. Scary, mostly, but also fun. This is the first year I feel like I've had a genuine interest in one of the politicians - someone I've admired for many years for their consistently being on the correct side of history. It's hard, because I know most Seppos have decent hearts, brains in their heads, a rational fear of death. So why aren't you all voting for the obvious candidate?? This year, I'm truly nervous.
I have a lot to say about these things but don't feel it appropriate as an official member of the game team. PM me if you want to talk. =)
I miss the old days when a science was demonstrable, provable, and repeatable. As usual, I find all the available candidates disappointing.
I differentiate between political science and political theatrics. Historically speaking, one of these looks at how nations think and decide, the other is a pissing contest followed by arguing over the size of the deuces each candidate intends to smear on the electorate's faces.
"The Wealthy" is too generic a term for the perpetrators of the MBS (mortgage backed securities) fiasco. This was less about party politics than blatant fraud and theft abetted, and sometimes coerced, by agents of the US government. The Constitutional onus lies with congress (particularly Barney Frank and Patrick Leahy as committee chairmen) for grossly misregulating banks, but the amount and extent of criminal activity was mind boggling. I avidly support prosecuting them all, particularly those who betrayed their trust to enforce the laws. I rarely advocate (or watch) Hollywood movies, but if you aren't familiar with the details of the MBS fraud, The Big Short does a good job of explaining what happened from broker's perspective. It doesn't cover such things as the multi-million dollar bonuses the heads of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac paid themselves for selling junk bonds as government backed securities. There are many wealthy people who gained their wealth in a legitimate fashion, and should not be tarred with this brush. At it's base, the blame lies with citizens allowing government to commit felonies with impunity. We have a Constitution. They are not the rulers, but the hired help, and should be judged and held to account as such.
Exactly this. People don't realize that citizens are the most powerful aspect of our democratic republic, but never use their power. They are too scared or timid to do so.
@xged - I studied this quite a bit, and was surprised to see many aspects of what happened so well explained in a movie. It is a dramatization of the actions of brokers who knew MB securities were going to fail, and had securities built to bet against them. Who to prosecute: - The banks and investment institutions who sold bonds far in excess (often by several orders of magnitude) of the collateral held. - The banks who approved NINJA (no income, no job application) home loans, and the banks who bought, bundled, and sold them as AAA bonds. - Federal bank regulators who threatened to shut down banks who refused home loans to illegal immigrants, and their bosses who ordered them to do so. - Financial rating agencies who continued to give AAA ratings to bundled subprime mortgage bonds even when they were failing. - The members of congress, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac who stonewalled investigations from 2006 until the meltdown. - The president and members of congress who concocted and approved the taxpayer bailout. I'm still lobbying for a full audit of the Fed. There really wasn't an opt out from the MBS fraud because the taxpayers ended up paying the bill.
I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say 'trigger' and 'safe space'. This is simply a thread intended for civil, respectful discussion of the 2016 Presidential Election. I'm perfectly happy to discuss things, but let's try to leave personal attacks and name-calling out of our talk. Such behavior only serves to impede any real discussion of the matters at hand. Besides, I'm known to be an angry fellow around here and this is not the time or place for me to play that role. The 2008 financial crisis was not the result of any one group as there were a multitude of causes for the collapse. These causes can and have been interpreted in the light of multiple different narratives or plausible chains of events. It has already been established that the persons who benefited from the 2008 crisis were, in fact, a select group of the wealthy elite. As such, I'm not particularly interested in debating the issues of 2008 as they have been discussed ad nauseum already by many who are much more well versed in the intricacies than any of us present. For a less pedantic coverage of the crisis, I would encourage you to watch the documentary "Inside Job" as it details the failures of ALL parties in exacting detail. And now, the issues. Let's start with this example of a honor student being imprisoned for three months for posting a MySpace page that poked fun at her assistant principal. The following evidence establishes that privatized prisons have, regardless of their size and location, established flagrant patterns and practices of corruption, bribery, excessive and unjustifiably harsh sentencing, mistreatment of inmates, and inhumane living conditions (even for a prison). Spoiler: Privatized Prison Documented Abuse Summary With Citations. Prisons for Profit Private prison companies claim to provide safe facilities that save taxpayers money. In reality, private prisons are more dangerous for inmates and staff, and often fail to deliver the savings they promise. Yet despite their track record of failure, private prison companies continue to secure contracts, spending millions on lobbyists and campaign donations to influence elected officials. Private prisons cut corners to boost profits, putting inmates, staff and the public at risk Private prisons are frequently understaffed, experience high turnover and officers are undertrained and underpaid. The companies also boost profits by providing inmates with substandard medical care and often house inmates in squalid conditions. • In 2015, 2,000 inmates rioted at the Willacy County Correctional Center in Texas, operated by the Management and Training Corporation (MTC). The uprising — ignited by MTC’s failure to provide basic medical care, excessive use of solitary confinement, and disgusting living conditions — took two days to subdue and rendered the facility uninhabitable, requiring all inmates to be relocated. 1 • In 2014 the FBI launched an investigation of the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), America’s largest private prison company, over its operation of the Idaho State Correction Institution. Nicknamed “Gladiator School” by inmates, the prison had four times the number of inmate-on-inmate assaults than the state’s seven other prisons combined. 2 An external audit found that CCA employees falsified reports to conceal 26,000 hours of understaffing in 2012 alone. 3 • In 2012, the Department of Justice released a report detailing staggering abuses at the Walnut Grove Youth Correctional Facility in Mississippi operated by the Geo Group. 4 According to the report, corrections officers had sex with inmates, provided them with weapons, and even joined their gangs. During one riot, a corrections officer walked through a cell block freeing members of her gang. The beatings and stabbings that ensued sent six inmates to the hospital, one with permanent brain damage. 5 • A Tennessee study found that over a two-and-a-half year period — from January 2009 through June 2011 — assaults on inmates and employees were much more frequent at the three facilities operated by CCA, compared with the eight facilities operated by the state. 6 • In Mississippi in 2012, the state’s four privately run prisons had assault rates three times higher than facilities operated by the state. 7 The most recent nationwide Bureau of Justice Assistance report comparing public and private prisons found that nationwide, private prisons had 65.8 percent more inmate assaults and 48.7 percent more assaults on staff than public prisons. 8 Private prisons often fail to deliver on promised savings, costing taxpayers Private prisons are operated for one purpose: to maximum profits for their investors. Even though private prison companies are incentivized to slash spending on staff, medical care and rehabilitation programs, they still often fail to deliver on the cost savings promised to taxpayers. • Between 1996 and 2007, the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the University of Cincinnati, The U.S. Bureau of Justice Assistance and the University of Utah all conducted major reviews of private prison costs, examining data from dozens of studies. Each time, researchers reached the conclusion that private prisons failed to deliver on promised savings. 9 • Private prison companies also manipulate contract terms to lock in profits. These strategies include bed guarantees that require states to keep a facility full or pay for unused beds and the ability to “cherry-pick” less expensive inmates (such as those without medical or mental health issues). 10 • In Ohio, CCA purchased the Lake Erie Correctional Institution in 2011, negotiating a 90 percent bed guarantee. The company quickly jammed an additional 300 beds into the facility to lock-in additional profits, leading to crowded conditions that contributed to skyrocketing assault rates. 11 The facility grew so violent that in one year, local law enforcement officers responded to four times as many calls from the prison as the previous five years combined. 12 Private prisons depress local economies, and can devastate communities when they close At private prisons, employees earn low wages that contribute to high turnover and limit their ability to contribute to the local economy, while profits are sent out of the community to executives and shareholders. Often, financing is structured in a manner that leaves communities stuck paying off the debt if the private companies decide to pull out. • A 2013 study from Washington State University found that “the privatization of prisons often has a negative impact on employment prospects in host counties.” Private prisons typically fail to deliver on promised cost savings, even though median wages at private prisons are more than 25 percent lower than those at public facilities. 13 With privatization, the local economy loses the economic benefit that comes with fairly-paid public employees spending their paychecks locally. • The closure of the Willacy County Correctional Center in Texas in 2015 has left hundreds unemployed and eliminated 25 percent of the county’s budget. The county is now at risk of defaulting on its debt, and its bonds are considered “junk” by ratings agencies. 14 Littlefield, Texas — a community of just over 6,000 residents — has been paying $1 million per year since 2009 to cover the debt and maintenance costs for its empty prison, after Geo Group pulled out of the facility, eliminating 100 local jobs. 15/16 Profit-driven private prison companies corrupt policy making, foster injustice, and incentivize corruption. Private prison companies have spent millions on lobbying and campaign contributions to secure contracts and manipulate public policy. The profit motive also incentives corruption, exposing the most vulnerable to abusive sentencing. • Since 1989, private prison companies have funneled more than $10 million to candidates and spent nearly $25 million on lobbying. Despite their record of failure, this spending has allowed them to continue securing contracts, and private prisons now house 157,000 inmates, including half of the nation’s immigration detainees. 17 • An investigation revealed that Arizona’s law making it a misdemeanor for resident immigrants to fail to have proper documentation in their possession and to require police to make a determination of immigration status during stops, detentions and arrests was drafted behind the scenes by private prison companies. After the legislation was introduced, the companies quickly hired a lobbyist to work the capital and funneled donations to legislators to secure passage. 18 • In Pennsylvania, two judges accepted more than $2.6 million in bribes and kickbacks to orchestrate the closure of the county’s public detention center, facilitate the construction of private facilities, and sentence thousands of children and teenagers — some as young as eleven — to the facilities. To increase their earnings, the judges routinely ignored requests for leniency from prosecutors and probation officers. 19 TO BE CONTINUED
Spoiler: Prisons Cont. Privatization can creep into “public” facilities, endangering staff and inmates Even at government-operated facilities with public corrections officers, private companies often try to profit by convincing officials to outsource health care, food services and other positions. • In June 2013, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction turned prison food service over to Aramark. Since then, service has been plagued by violations. Aramark employees have served prisoners maggot-infested food, formed inappropriate sexual relationships with inmates and endangered staff by importing contraband. 20 Prisons have been forced to relocate lieutenants and captains to monitor the undertrained Aramark staff. 21 Aramark’s track-record in other states is similar — in 2014, 30 inmates in Michigan contracted food poisoning after maggots and fly larvae were found in a food serving line. 22 • Between 2008 and 2013, the country’s largest prison health care provider, Corizon Health, was sued 660 times for malpractice.23 In Florida, inmate deaths spiked to a 10-year high after Corizon took over care. One inmate’s undiagnosed lung cancer was treated with Tylenol and warm compresses, leading to her death. 24 When another Florida inmate “felt his intestines escaping from his rectum” after Corizon staff ignored his worsening medical condition, a nurse simply obtained some K-Y Jelly and pushed the intestines back in. 25 Abusive private probation companies trap low-income people in a cycle of spiraling debt For-profit companies aren’t just targeting prisons. In many cities and towns, they have replaced public probation officers. These private companies extort huge fees from low-income individuals who owe minor court debts, often forcing them to choose between paying exorbitant fees and going to jail where taxpayers foot the bill. • In 2014, Human Rights Watch released a report documenting how private probation companies in several states are allowed to impose administrative fees on offenders that can total thousands of dollars, even for individuals ticketed for misdemeanor offenses.26 For example, when an impoverished man in Georgia could not afford to pay a $200 ticket, a private probation tacked on over $1,000 in fees, and then had the man thrown in jail for failing to pay27 • In 2015, the Southern Poverty Law Center filed a federal lawsuit against the private probation company Judicial Correction Services. The lawsuit detailed how the company extorted lowincome residents in Alabama by threatening them with jail time for falling behind on paying fees.28 One Alabama judge called that system a “judicially sanctioned extortion racket.”29 1 http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/02/willacy-prison-uprising-immigrants 2 http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...tion-idaho-gladiator-school-article-1.1714357 3 http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/bois...et-audit-understaffing-declared-inconclusive/ 4 http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/depar...ings-walnut-grove-youth-correctional-facility 5 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...prison-as-for-profit-model-put-blood-on-floor 6 http://www.privateci.org/private_pics/CCA TDOC violence rates 2011.pdf 7 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...prison-as-for-profit-model-put-blood-on-floor 8 http://www.privateci.org/private_pics/CCA TDOC violence rates 2011.pdf 9 http://www.inthepublicinterest.org/sites/default/files/Prison Costs Backgrounder Brief_Template.pdf 10 http://www.inthepublicinterest.org/sites/default/files/Prison Costs Backgrounder Brief_Template.pdf 11 http://www.inthepublicinterest.org/sites/default/files/Criminal-Lockup Quota-Report.pdf 12 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/02/lake-erie-correctional-institution_n_2599428.html 13 http://cooley.libarts.wsu.edu/hooks/prisonprivatizationgmh.html 14 http://www.texasobserver.org/south-texas-prison-riot-willacy-county-economic-future/ 15 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...migrants-as-answer-to-prison-debt-muni-credit 16 http://www.npr.org/2011/03/28/134855801/private-prison-promises-leave-texas-towns-in-trouble 17 http://www.washingtonpost.com/poste...ome-the-biggest-lobby-no-one-istalking-about/ 18 http://www.npr.org/2010/10/28/130833741/prison-economics-help-drive-ariz-immigration-law 19 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/books/review/kids-for-cash-and-the-injustice-system.html 20 http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2014/04/18/prison_meals.html 21 http://www.afscme.org/blog/ocsea-beats-aramark-price-on-food-service-bid 22 http://www.freep.com/article/20140630/NEWS06/306300136/prison-food-maggots-Aramark 23 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mary-bottari/inmates-die-in-droves-aft_b_5996012.html 24 http://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/news...rida-deadly-pa/nhWkX/#4366c8e4.3974883.735724 25 http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/article1955813.html 26 http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us0214_ForUpload_0.pdf 27 http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us0214_ForUpload_0.pdf 28 http://www.splcenter.org/get-inform...company-alabama-city-over-racketeering-scheme 29 http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...emeanor-probation-industry-faces-new-scrutiny SEE ALSO: Further Evidence of Prison System Exploitation This demonstrates that the private, for-profit prison-industrial complex is composed of a small group of fantastically rich individuals taking advantage of millions of Americans annually for the sake of profit. They do this after having lobbied for policies and regulations that are favorable to business at the extreme expense of the inmates, the employees, and the American taxpayer. The rights of the many are being trampled in the name of the profits for a few. TO BE CONTINUED
Spoiler: The Case for Universal Health Care The founding documents of the United States provide support for a right to health care. The Declaration of Independence states that all men have "unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness," [42] which necessarily entails having the health care needed to preserve life and pursue happiness. The purpose of the US Constitution, as stated in the Preamble, is to "promote the general welfare" of the people. [43] According to former Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), as part of efforts to "promote the general welfare," health care "is a legitimate function of government." [44] Instituting a right to health care could lower the cost of health care in the United States.According to a 2013 study, under a single-payer system, in which all citizens are guaranteed a right to health care, total public and private health care spending could be lowered by $592 billion in 2014 and up to $1.8 trillion over the next decade due to lowered administrative and prescription drug costs. [51] According to the American Medical Association, on average, private health insurance plans spend 11.7% of premiums on administrative costs vs. 6.3% spent by public health programs. [52] According to a study in the American Journal of Public Health, Canada, a country that provides a universal right to health care, spends half as much per capita on health care as the United States. [53] In 2010 the United Kingdom, another country with a right to health care, managed to provide health care to all citizens while spending just 41.5% of what the United States did per capita. [48] A right to health care could save lives.According to a 2009 study from Harvard researchers, "lack of health insurance is associated with as many as 44,789 deaths per year," which translates into a 40% increased risk of death among the uninsured. [59] Another study found that more than 13,000 deaths occur each year just in the 55-64 year old age group due to lack of health insurance coverage. [60] In addition, a 2011 Commonweath Fund study found that due to a lack of timely and effective health care, the United States ranked at the bottom of a list of 16 rich nations in terms of preventable mortality. [112] In Italy, Spain, France, Australia, Israel, and Norway, all countries with a right to health care, people live two to three years longer than people in the United States. [62] The right to health care is an internationally recognized human right. On Dec. 10, 1948 the United States and 47 other nations signed the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The document stated that "everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of oneself and one's family, including... medical care." [49] In 2005 the United States and the other member states of the World Health Organization signed World Health Assembly resolution 58.33, which stated that everyone should have access to health care services and should not suffer financial hardship when obtaining these services. [16]According to a 2008 peer-reviewed study in the Lancet, "[r]ight-to-health features are not just good management, justice, or humanitarianism, they are obligations under human-rights law." [50] The United States and Mexico are the only countries of the 34 members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) that do not have universal health care. [37] As of 2013 over half of the world's countries had a right to health care in their national constitutions. [45] A right to health care could make medical services affordable for everyone. According to a 2012 study from Consumer Reports, paying for health care is the top financial problem for US households. [18]According to a peer-reviewed study in Health Affairs, between 2003 and 2013, the cost of family health insurance premiums has increased 80% in the United States. [96]According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 26% of Americans report that they or a family member had trouble paying for medical bills in 2012, and 58% reported that they delayed or did not seek medical care due to cost. [64]According to one estimate of a proposed bill to implement a single-payer health care system in the United States (HR 676), 95% of US households would save money [51] and every individual in the United States would receive guaranteed access to publically financed medical care. [69] Providing all citizens the right to health care is good for economic productivity. When people have access to health care, they live healthier lives and miss work less, allowing them to contribute more to the economy. A Mar. 2012 study by researchers at the Universities of Colorado and Pennsylvaniashowed that workers with health insurance miss an average of 4.7 fewer work days than employees without health insurance. [55]According to an Institute of Medicine report, the US economy loses $65-$130 billion annually as a result of diminished worker productivity, due to poor health and premature deaths, among the uninsured. [105] In a Jan. 14, 2014 speech, World Bank President Jim Yong Kim stated that all nations should provide a right to health care "to help foster economic growth." [56] A right to health care could improve public health. According to a 2012 study in the Lancet that looked at data from over 100 countries, "evidence suggests that broader health coverage generally leads to better access to necessary care and improved population health, particularly for poor people.” [99] In the United States, people are 33% less likely to have a regular doctor, 25% more likely to have unmet health needs, and over 50% more likely to not obtain needed medicines compared to their Canadian counterparts who have a universal right to healthcare. [63] According to a 2008 peer-reviewed study in the Annals of Internal Medicine, there were 11.4 million uninsured working-age Americans with chronic conditions such as heart disease and diabetes, and their lack of insurance was associated with less access to care, early disability, and even death. [65] Because the United States is a very wealthy country, it should provide health care for all its citizens. Many European countries with a universal right to health care, such as Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and Italy, have a lower Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita than the United States, [47] yet they provide a right to health care for all their citizens. As of 2012, 47.9 million people (15.4% of the US population) did not have health insurance [1] and, according to a June 2013 study, even with the Obamacare reforms as many as 31 million people will still be uninsured in 2016. [46] The United States spent $8,508 per person on health care in 2011, over 2.5 times the average spent by member countries of the OECD ($3,322 per person). [48] With that level of spending, the United States should be able to provide a right to healthcare to everyone. Providing a right to health care could benefit private businesses. If the United States implemented a universal right to health care, businesses would no longer have to pay for employee health insurance policies. As of 2011, 59.5% of Americans were receiving health insurance through their employer. [66] According to the Council on Foreign Relations, some economists believe the high costs of employee health insurance place US companies at a "competitive disadvantage in the international marketplace."[67] According to the Business Coalition for Single-Payer Healthcare, a right to healthcare under a single-payer-system could reduce employer labor costs by 10-12%. [103] A right to health care could encourage entrepreneurship. Many people are afraid to start their own businesses for fear of losing the health insurance provided at their existing jobs. The Kauffman-RAND Institute for Entrepreneurship Public Policy estimated that a 33% increase in new US businesses may result from the increased access to health insurance through the Obamacare health insurance exchanges. [57] A 2001 study found that providing universal health care in the United States could increase self-employment by 2 to 3.5 percent.[58] A right to health care could stop medical bankruptcies. About 62% of all US bankruptcies were related to medical expenses in 2007, [30] and 78% of these bankruptcies were filed by people who already had medical insurance. [4] In 2010, there were 30 million Americans who were contacted by a collection agency about a medical bill.[57]If all US citizens were provided health care under a single-payer system medical bankruptcy would no longer exist, because the government, not private citizens, would pay all medical bills. A right to health care is a necessary foundation of a just society. The United States already provides free public education, public law enforcement, public road maintenance, and other public services to its citizens to promote a just society that is fair to everyone. Health care should be added to this list. Late US Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) wrote that providing a right to health care "goes to the heart of my belief in a just society." [100] According to Norman Daniels, PhD, Professor of Ethics and Population Health at Harvard University, "healthcare preserves for people the ability to participate in the political, social, and economic life of society. It sustains them as fully participating citizens."[101] TO BE CONTINUED
With the statistical and professional now provided (courtesy of ProCon.org), I would like to examine the claim that "free sh*t" is what supporters of universal health care desire. Spoiler: My Case for Universal, Single-Payer Healthcare First off, one might make the claim that proportional taxation of the wealthy is treating them unequally, and you would be right. However, not taxing them proportionately has fostered an even greater inequality that threatens a staggering number of people, even those who have health insurance. That inequality is that people are already being forced by economic pressures to ration what medical care they receive. This is the primary reason I support Sanders: I am one of these people. I have to take multiple mood regulators and stabilizers as well as anti-anxiety medications to function in my day-to-day life. Autism Spectrum Disorder is a complicated disability that manifests in a vast range of severity and symptoms. The common element in all of them though is social impairment. Social impairment can include stress and anxiety spikes during interpersonal interactions or even result in panic attacks. It also often includes the loss of the innate ability to discern and interpret nonverbal cues like facial expressions, body language, group dynamics, posture, gestures, and more. That isn't to say it becomes impossible for us to do so, rather it just becomes a learned behavior instead of an innate one. Finally, it also often entails some degree of overstimulation, or "information overload" for lack of a better term. The best way for me to describe my experience is this: When I enter a room I literally cannot stop trying to process anyone in my line of sight. My brain tries to read and listen to every nuance of behavior and speech. In one-on-one interactions, this is actually a pretty neat ability as it allows me to tell a friend what transpires in a conversation over fifty feet away. The price for this is a steep one though, whenever I enter a room that has roughly seven or more other people I "shut down" per say. When you get a virus on your computer and it opens up hundreds of flashing windows, your computer slows down and stutters as it tries to process everything. That is basically what happens to me. It is extremely stressful and even physically painful to deal with situations like that. Such group interactions are inevitable in our social way of life. The medications I take practically eliminate this issue of overstimulation. They are in fact, so effective, that I have received multiple awards for public speaking at events with over 500 persons present. Five years ago, I could get a month's dose of the name brand of my main prescription for about $50 after insurance. Today, I need to pay upwards of $250 monthly for the generic version, (which functions at less than half of the efficacy of the name brand), and my insurance refuses to cover the cost of the name brand at all anymore because there is the cheaper generic available. The sole reason for this is that the rights to make this drug generically have been put into the hands of three manufacturers who all have histories of price gouging or recalls due to inferior quality. As a result, I have had to stretch a single month's dose across two or even three months at a time. I have to decide each day if I can afford to take my medication so that I can go to work or school and live without the terror and pain I otherwise would experience. The number of days that I have needed to try and bear with it have steadily increased, and it is only getting worse. I am not asking for "free sh*t", I am asking to be able to AFFORD to LIVE. America has tried mandating that insurance coverage be available to everyone, but that is only treating a symptom instead of the cause of the problems we face. The insurance companies exist because they negotiate lower prices from service providers and offer some funding to pay for medical care. In response to this decrease in revenue, pharmaceutical companies and service providers have hiked prices across the board so that their margins stayed the same. In response to the hikes, the insurance companies cover less and charge their customers more so that they can maintain their margins. This has become a vicious cycle that has rapidly spiraled out of control. Both providers and insurers are acting in basic accordance to economic principles with the economic freedom that they are entitled to. This freedom of theirs is now impinging on mine and many other peoples' rights to life and economic freedom. These companies have zero incentive to put an end to this cycle. The free market has not and will not do anything to lower the price of medical care now that everyone is legally required to have health insurance. This leaves it to the government to put a stop to this and the way to do that is through a single-payer system of universal health care. A single-payer healthcare system would let the government collaborate with doctors and researchers to evaluate and establish fair, economically-viable prices for all drugs and treatments. It is important to note that this policy cannot function effectively in a health-insurance-coverage based system because it still allows for wealthier individuals to receive preferential access to medical care than less fortunate individuals. In a single-payer system, everyone has equal access to health care and the medical industry is still able to make a profit. Sanders has proposed that this be paid for by a 6.2 percent income-based health care premium paid by employers, a 2.2 percent income-based premium paid by households, progressive income tax rates, taxing capital gains and dividends the same as income from work, limiting tax deductions for the rich, adjusting the estate tax, and savings from health tax expenditures. What it is vital to understanding the viability of this proposal is that it is replacing our current system, not adding to it. Households making $250,000 or less would actually see their annual expenditures DECREASE because of the removal of health insurance expenditures and price gouging practices. Businesses likewise see their expenditures decrease as they no longer need to pay the approximately $4,500 per year per worker to health insurers. Simply put, the amount a 6.2% tax hike to businesses would be substantially less than the $4,500 per worker annually they already pay. Yes, those making more than $250k do have a higher tax burden in this scenario and lose access to several tax loopholes that have benefited them greatly, but it should be noted that the sting of this would be mitigated by the economic prosperity that would result from this proposal. Just so we are clear, this proposal effectively allows over 90% of the population to make use of a substantially larger portion of their annual income in commerce without the need to stockpile thousands of dollars in case of a medical emergency. More goods and services being purchased means more revenue for all businesses. No fear of medical bills bankrupting a worker makes for a less stressed, healthier workforce which in turn makes for higher productivity. These are as reliable economic truths as those of supply and demand. In conclusion, I agree with your sentiment that my actions and wishes should not impinge on the rights of others, but I must point out that my rights are currently those being impinged upon. The rights of a few pursuing profit should never supplant the rights of the many to live.
Also, technical point: no one has freedom in this county. You have liberty. Big difference. You don't want everyone having freedom.
