The Thread for Democratic Socialists/AOC watch with 24/7 AOC updates

[CNS]

As an avid British cop show watcher I think it's simply that their cops are smarter

Our cops are taking the opportunity to play GI Joe, with access to "eff yes!" military type outfits, guns, tactical vehicles, etc, without having to go to bootcamp, get exposed to burn pits, or really have any discipline. 

It's like paid to larp.

[Sandstone Outcropping]

As an avid British cop show watcher I think it's simply that their cops are smarter

British cops are incredibly smart.

[Kat Kid]

Another area I think the US could improve upon is actually holding our policing institutions accountable. This isn't "a few bad apples" it is clearly a KHP policy and is reinforced with the various insane police professional development seminars where cops learn that they actually have superpowers like this:

https://kansasreflector.com/2023/05/02/khps-two-step-technique-for-launching-vehicle-searches-challenged-on-constitutional-grounds/

In a deposition played for the court, Rohr defended his approach to sorting out who should be placed under a microscope as a possible drug trafficker. He said he relied on extensive training and experience when making subjective determinations, which depended on “more than a hunch.”

The trooper said he was drawn to out-of-state vehicles, especially from drug production states such as California and Colorado or motorists headed toward high drug consumption cities such as St. Louis and Cleveland. He tuned into individuals who appeared nervous or were pulling trailers with no load. He said it was meaningful when vehicles were doused with air freshener to obscure odor or had interiors littered with fast-food wrappers, which was a sign of guilt among people exceptionally eager to keep moving.

So when I hear "more training for cops" these are the types of things that I think of, not evidence based investigation techniques or mental health professionals helping cops learn how to de-escalate with people in crisis. Unless there are meaningful penalties that hold the people that came up with policies specifically designed to violate people's constitutional rights there won't be any changes, even when you get past qualified immunity what is the actual consequence?

[MakeItRain]

Another area I think the US could improve upon is actually holding our policing institutions accountable. This isn't "a few bad apples" it is clearly a KHP policy and is reinforced with the various insane police professional development seminars where cops learn that they actually have superpowers like this:

https://kansasreflector.com/2023/05/02/khps-two-step-technique-for-launching-vehicle-searches-challenged-on-constitutional-grounds/

In a deposition played for the court, Rohr defended his approach to sorting out who should be placed under a microscope as a possible drug trafficker. He said he relied on extensive training and experience when making subjective determinations, which depended on “more than a hunch.”

The trooper said he was drawn to out-of-state vehicles, especially from drug production states such as California and Colorado or motorists headed toward high drug consumption cities such as St. Louis and Cleveland. He tuned into individuals who appeared nervous or were pulling trailers with no load. He said it was meaningful when vehicles were doused with air freshener to obscure odor or had interiors littered with fast-food wrappers, which was a sign of guilt among people exceptionally eager to keep moving.

So when I hear "more training for cops" these are the types of things that I think of, not evidence based investigation techniques or mental health professionals helping cops learn how to de-escalate with people in crisis. Unless there are meaningful penalties that hold the people that came up with policies specifically designed to violate people's constitutional rights there won't be any changes, even when you get past qualified immunity what is the actual consequence?

Good God, it's amazing that they say this crap out loud, thinking it's actual good policy.

[sys]

lol.

https://twitter.com/LinkofSunshine/status/1734395266189431187

[Kat Kid]

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHA SEE THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND ANYTHING!!!!!

Single payer will cost less than the current system. What a dumb poll question.

[CNS]

It should be relatively easy for someone to put the cost of the current system, the percentage of taxes that go towards that, and the anticipated cost of a single payer option all side by side.

I mean, there is a reason that such a graphic isn’t repeatedly used as the way to shut down libs.

[Kat Kid]

It should be relatively easy for someone to put the cost of the current system, the percentage of taxes that go towards that, and the anticipated cost of a single payer option all side by side.

I mean, there is a reason that such a graphic isn’t repeatedly used as the way to shut down libs.

Hur hur hur see you pay MORE in taxes!

Dave Ramsey ass cash envelope budget brain.

[CNS]

Unless something has changed in the last few years, expenditure wise, then it sounds like a pretty easy thing to show folks that the current system is more expensive than single payer, even before we take premiums into account.  Dan Carlin did a podcast on it a few years ago that was pretty easy to follow. 

[sys]

the question clearly states "in federal taxes".

[sys]

the current system is more expensive than single payer, even before we take premiums into account.

i don't really follow what you're saying here, but if it is that us govt hc expenditures are higher currently than they would be expected to be with a single payer system, then no, that is not true (nowhere close to true).

[catastrophe]

the question clearly states "in federal taxes".

That’s why it’s a crappy poll question. It’s providing a hypothetical increase in taxes without also assuming the savings that proponents argue support the system in the first place.

[BIG APPLE CAT]

wait a minute, am i to understand that the federal tax dollars that are taken out of my paycheck are NOT being used to pay for my privatized healthcare???

[CNS]

the current system is more expensive than single payer, even before we take premiums into account.

i don't really follow what you're saying here, but if it is that us govt hc expenditures are higher currently than they would be expected to be with a single payer system, then no, that is not true (nowhere close to true).

Admittedly, I am not a well informed person on this.  However, the podcast I mentioned lays out a few things(pardon my memory):
1. Current govt expenditures on heath care related costs is currently most of any 1st world country. by far.
2. Statement in podcast was basically that per capita cost for our system was wildly above per capita cost of any other nation, none of which includes the consideration of the monthly premiums we pay ourselves.

[sys]

things could get somewhat close depending on what is included/excluded as health care and/or if you took 2020, the height of govt spending due to covid, while many non-covid procedures were deferred as your datapoint.  but the basic picture is that govt pays for about 40% of health care in the us while euro countries pay about 65% what we pay in total health care costs (as a % of gdp).

https://www.pgpf.org/sites/default/files/healthcare-spending-blog-chart-3.jpg

https://infogram.com/us-health-care-from-a-global-perspective-2022-accelerating-spending-worsening-outcomes-exhibit-1-1hxj48pdjlqeq2v


keep in mind that this does not imply that our costs would fall by 33% if we switched to a single payer system and even the most wildly optimistic projections of us hc spending under a single payer system do not predict that.

[sys]

That’s why it’s a crappy poll question. It’s providing a hypothetical increase in taxes without also assuming the savings that proponents argue support the system in the first place.

i mean, you can take your pick between progressive voters are unwilling to fund the programs they claim to want and progressive voters lack a basic understanding of how the world works.  we have a fair bit of evidence aside from this poll that both are true and both are funny.

[Kat Kid]

That’s why it’s a crappy poll question. It’s providing a hypothetical increase in taxes without also assuming the savings that proponents argue support the system in the first place.

i mean, you can take your pick between progressive voters are unwilling to fund the programs they claim to want and progressive voters lack a basic understanding of how the world works.  we have a fair bit of evidence aside from this poll that both are true and both are funny.

There has been a decades long and ongoing massive concerted effort to protect the powerful middle men in our system to continue to drain public and private money, it is not surprising that people don't have a good grasp on single payer and how it would be cheaper/cover more people. Not sure why you are insistent on celebrating it.

[BIG APPLE CAT]

That’s why it’s a crappy poll question. It’s providing a hypothetical increase in taxes without also assuming the savings that proponents argue support the system in the first place.

i mean, you can take your pick between progressive voters are unwilling to fund the programs they claim to want and progressive voters lack a basic understanding of how the world works.  we have a fair bit of evidence aside from this poll that both are true and both are funny.

There has been a decades long and ongoing massive concerted effort to protect the powerful middle men in our system to continue to drain public and private money, it is not surprising that people don't have a good grasp on single payer and how it would be cheaper/cover more people. Not sure why you are insistent on celebrating it.

sys truly in his heart believes in trickle-down economics. like dead ass full on believes in that supply side nonsense, so this kind of thing is like catnip for him

[michigancat]

lol.

https://twitter.com/LinkofSunshine/status/1734395266189431187

I mean, if you toggle to percent of income you get some kooky results. Even Clinton voters (smart adults who understand how the world works) didn't seem to have a good sense of how dollars spent relates to percent of income.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/4/14/11421744/bernie-sanders-tax-revolution

[Kat Kid]

But the whole thing is dumb because with insurer based healthcare, most people have no clue what their total costs for health care are during a total year, nor what their potential costs they would be responsible for.

I bet most very smart people here have no real idea.

Even if they could tell you their monthly premiums, employee match and ball park their out of pocket co pays, there are just a completely insane number of variables--in or out of network, emergency, office visit, Rx, Rx discount, referral, the list of surprise nightmares is long.

[Dugout DickStone]

But the whole thing is dumb because with insurer based healthcare, most people have no clue what their total costs for health care are during a total year, nor what their potential costs they would be responsible for.

I bet most very smart people here have no real idea.

Even if they could tell you their monthly premiums, employee match and ball park their out of pocket co pays, there are just a completely insane number of variables--in or out of network, emergency, office visit, Rx, Rx discount, referral, the list of surprise nightmares is long.

My insurance company has made an astounding amount of money off of me since I stopped making babies that had to be birfed.  Like $10k/yr easily

[catastrophe]

That’s why it’s a crappy poll question. It’s providing a hypothetical increase in taxes without also assuming the savings that proponents argue support the system in the first place.

i mean, you can take your pick between progressive voters are unwilling to fund the programs they claim to want and progressive voters lack a basic understanding of how the world works.  we have a fair bit of evidence aside from this poll that both are true and both are funny.

This isn't either of those.

#1 has never been the case. Very few people are willing to pay for single-payer unless it means medical costs are cheaper. This isn't like, "would you be willing to spend $1000 more in taxes to have better roads?" The greatest benefit to single-payer is not the fact of universal healthcare, it's the bargaining power the single-payer has.

#2 just isn't fair. The poll is asking a hypothetical question. If you're operating in a hypothetical world, you should also include in the question a component of how much the average american would save on health care costs as a result of the $1,000 tax imposed.

[CNS]

I would bet that a long term effect of everyone having quality care when needed would be less overall need.

[wetwillie]

Is single payer going to solve our obesity problem?

[steve dave]

Is single payer going to solve our obesity problem?

No, but GLP1 drugs will. Obesity will be non existent in the USA in a decade.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk