Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, August 30, 2023

The Associated Press writes about conservative groups who are planning to remake the U.S. government should Trump once again win the White House.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

A vision... and a handbook.

"We need to flood the zone with conservatives," said Paul Dans, director of the 2025 Presidential Transition Project and a former Trump administration official who speaks with historical flourish about the undertaking.

"This is a clarion call to come to Washington," he said. "People need to lay down their tools, and step aside from their professional life and say, This is my lifetime moment to serve.'"

The unprecedented effort is being orchestrated with dozens of right-flank organizations, many new to Washington, and represents a changed approach from conservatives, who traditionally have sought to limit the federal government by cutting federal taxes and slashing federal spending.

Instead, Trump-era conservatives want to gut the "administrative state" from within, by ousting federal employees they believe are standing in the way of the president's agenda and replacing them with like-minded officials more eager to fulfill a new executive's approach to governing.

The goal is to avoid the pitfalls of Trump's first years in office, when the Republican president's team was ill-prepared, his Cabinet nominees had trouble winning Senate confirmation and policies were met with resistance " by lawmakers, government workers and even Trump's own appointees who refused to bend or break protocol, or in some cases violate laws, to achieve his goals.

While many of the Project 2025 proposals are inspired by Trump, they are being echoed by GOP rivals Ron DeSantis and Vivek Ramaswamy and are gaining prominence among other Republicans.

And if Trump wins a second term, the work from the Heritage coalition ensures the president will have the personnel to carry forward his unfinished White House business.

#1 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2023-08-29 04:19 PM | Reply

reshape and do away with what Republicans deride as the "deep state" bureaucracy,

And replace it with their own "deep state" bureaucracy.

Sounds like they're just gonna fire those who aren't loyal to the GOP and drown the federal government in the bath tub.

#2 | Posted by ClownShack at 2023-08-29 04:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Now they have an actual plan and the necessary recruits to carry out what Steve Bannon said was Trump and the GOP's intention all a long: "deconstruction of the administrative state". What could possibly go wrong?

#3 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2023-08-29 05:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

They all want that sweet donor $$$$.

#4 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2023-08-30 11:39 AM | Reply

They literally said they want people willing to break the rules and laws.

#5 | Posted by Sycophant at 2023-08-30 12:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Not gonna happen.

#6 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2023-08-30 12:46 PM | Reply

Well if this comes to pass, I may have to retire early...

fyi Whatsleft, you just beat me to the punch posting that
article...I was reading the same thing on HuffPo...

#7 | Posted by earthmuse at 2023-08-30 01:02 PM | Reply

In the article I read on HuffPo, the article went on to
say that this idea is spreading amongst the other GOP
POTUS candidates...

The rightwing brain disease appears to be contagious
and likely terminal.

#8 | Posted by earthmuse at 2023-08-30 01:05 PM | Reply

Basically they want to get rid of any checks and balances on the executive branch.

That is who they call the "deep state".

Look no further than when Trump fired Alexander Vindman for being a whistleblower on him extorting Ukraine on another "perfect call".

So Susie Collins, you still think he's learned his lesson?

#9 | Posted by Nixon at 2023-08-30 01:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

If it was anyone other than Trump promoting this I'd consider being on board.

#10 | Posted by BellRinger at 2023-08-30 01:10 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

" If it was anyone other than Trump promoting this I'd consider being on board."

So ... Biden should do this during his second term?

#11 | Posted by Danforth at 2023-08-30 01:24 PM | Reply

" So ... Biden should do this during his second term?

#11 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2023-08-30 01:24 PM | FLAG: "

Under orders from his boss he's already been warping the state toward leftist ends. It's been a constant drumbeat. Pushback is inevitable.

#12 | Posted by BellRinger at 2023-08-30 01:30 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

" Under orders from his boss ... "

Good God, man, did your brain get eaten while on vacation?

#13 | Posted by Danforth at 2023-08-30 01:32 PM | Reply

The goal is to avoid the pitfalls of Trump's first years in office, when the Republican president's team was ill-prepared, his Cabinet nominees had trouble winning Senate confirmation and policies were met with resistance " by lawmakers, government workers and even Trump's own appointees who refused to bend or break protocol, or in some cases violate laws, to achieve his goals.

Soooo fascism.

#14 | Posted by jpw at 2023-08-30 01:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 6

Sure you'd be on board Bellringer...

Until another Democrat came to the White House.

The GOP is filled with Cherry Pickers. Old ones.
Aging every day...

#15 | Posted by earthmuse at 2023-08-30 01:58 PM | Reply

I'd consider being on board.

#10 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

No need to equivocate. You're fine with it, even under Trump.

#16 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2023-08-30 02:11 PM | Reply

#2

Yup, with one caveat.

Loyalty to the GOP is immaterial. It's loyalty to Trump that matters.

#17 | Posted by madbomber at 2023-08-30 04:40 PM | Reply

It's loyalty to Trump that matters.
#17 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

And that's why the GOP is a Cult!

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-08-30 04:40 PM | Reply

"If it was anyone other than Trump promoting this I'd consider being on board."

How about Bernie Sanders?

They are different in some important ways, but also very much alike.

#19 | Posted by madbomber at 2023-08-30 04:41 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

"And that's why the GOP is a Cult!"

Liz Cheney is no longer a Repub?

Dude, look at the numbers. A ridiculous amount of Bernie voters in 2016 supported Trump in 2020?

And you know why. The horseshoe.

#20 | Posted by madbomber at 2023-08-30 04:43 PM | Reply

#30.

Are you denying the GOP is the Trump Cult?

See if you can square that with your observation "It's loyalty to Trump that matters."

#21 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-08-30 04:55 PM | Reply

@#20 ... The horseshoe ...

I had to look that one up.

After scrolling through the listings for Horseshoe Bars, i found this...

Horseshoe theory
en.wikipedia.org

... In popular discourse, the horseshoe theory asserts that the far-left and the far-right, rather than being at opposite and opposing ends of a linear continuum of the political spectrum, closely resemble each other, analogous to the way that the opposite ends of a horseshoe are close together.[1] The theory is attributed to the French philosopher and writer of fiction and poetry Jean-Pierre Faye in his 2002 book, Le Sicle des idologies ("The Century of Ideologies").[2]

Several political scientists, psychologists, and sociologists have criticized the horseshoe theory.[3][4][5] Proponents point to a number of perceived similarities between extremes and allege that both have a tendency to support authoritarianism or totalitarianism; this does not appear to be supported by scholars in the field, and the few peer-reviewed research on the subject is scarce, with existing studies and comprehensive reviews often finding only limited support and only under certain conditions, and that generally contradict the theory's central premises.[6][7][8] ...



#22 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-08-30 04:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Liz Cheney is no longer a Repub?

She defied the will of Trump.

She put America and democracy ahead of party loyalty and blind obedience.

#23 | Posted by ClownShack at 2023-08-30 05:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

They are different in some important ways, but also very much alike.
#19 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

What a meaningless statement.

You could say that about you and Trump.

You're bother different in some important ways, but also very much alike.

Bravo.

#24 | Posted by ClownShack at 2023-08-30 05:07 PM | Reply

19

Yeah, they are both Populists.

Rwing populists gave us Hitler, and now Trump.

Lwing populism gave us social democracies, where the happiest people in the world live.

#25 | Posted by Corky at 2023-08-30 05:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

They are different in some important ways, but also very much alike.
#19 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

What a meaningless statement.

Meaningless statements are his bread and butter.

#26 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-08-30 05:27 PM | Reply

They are different in some important ways, but also very much alike.

#19 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Not. Even. Close.

#27 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2023-08-30 06:23 PM | Reply

"Lwing populism gave us social democracies, where the happiest people in the world live."

Yeah. Lwing populism gave us Stalin. And Mao.

You can credit Reagan for the existence of social democracy, the alternative having been socialism, which people older than me were rightly intent on avoiding.

#28 | Posted by madbomber at 2023-08-30 06:33 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

No silly rabbit... Stalin and Mao gave us Stalin and Mao through force... which is what Trump now intends to do.

#29 | Posted by Corky at 2023-08-30 06:42 PM | Reply

"You can credit Reagan for the existence of social democracy"

And you can credit Hitler for the VW Bug.
And it's just as relevant as crediting Reagan for anything.

#30 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-08-30 06:44 PM | Reply

"You can credit Reagan for the existence of social democracy, the alternative having been socialism"

Right, because there's only one alternative.
It's amazing you remember to breathe.

#31 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-08-30 06:45 PM | Reply

"Yeah. Lwing populism gave us Stalin. And Mao."

And you can credit Stalin for defeating Hitler.

#32 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-08-30 06:48 PM | Reply

Gorby wanted for the Soviet Union the kind of social democracy that Northern Europe already had.

Reagan the Crony Capitalist was the model for the Russian Oligarchy who picked Putin as their Authoritarian Dear Leader.

#33 | Posted by Corky at 2023-08-30 06:50 PM | Reply

You can credit Reagan for the existence of social democracy,

Your ignorance of American history is showing.

FDR ushered socialism into America.

Created our version of social democracy.

Which has been whittled away by republicans ever since. Including Reagan.

Prior to FDR, America more resembled a libertarian society.

#34 | Posted by ClownShack at 2023-08-30 06:52 PM | Reply

"Gorby wanted for the Soviet Union the kind of social democracy that Northern Europe already had."

Most Americans want that too.

We're as likely to get it as the Russians are.

#35 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-08-30 06:55 PM | Reply

Public sidewalks are Stalinist stains on
'Murica!

Don't get me started on public schools, libraries, and parks.

#36 | Posted by Corky at 2023-08-30 06:59 PM | Reply

Don't you worry Corky.

Republicans are furiously fighting to shut down all public schools, libraries, and parks.

#37 | Posted by ClownShack at 2023-08-30 07:03 PM | Reply

Same as it ever was ...

We enter the Reichstag to arm ourselves with democracy's weapons. If democracy is foolish enough to give us free railway passes and salaries, that is its problem ... We are coming neither as friends or neutrals. We come as enemies! As the wolf attacks the sheep, so come we.

-Joseph Goebbels

#38 | Posted by donnerboy at 2023-08-30 07:06 PM | Reply

Yeah. Lwing populism gave us Stalin. And Mao.
You can credit Reagan for the existence of social democracy, the alternative having been socialism, which people older than me were rightly intent on avoiding.

#28 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Never heard of FDR or Truman, or even Eisenhower apparently.

Reagan was about as corporatist as they get.

And populism doesn't always lead to the same result. Sanders is NOTHING like the authoritarians, Stalin and Mao.

#39 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2023-08-30 08:21 PM | Reply

Ah ... off to the gulags for all the "commie pinko ----?" Sure Jan ...

And sorry for directly quoting known lexicon of of early thru mid 20th century.

www.opednews.com

#40 | Posted by Bluewaffles at 2023-08-30 08:26 PM | Reply

So, Conservatives wanting to downsize the Federal government and/or at least have their own people in the unelected positions = bad....but

Liberals wanting Joe to further weaponize the justice system, expand the supreme court, and end the filibuster = good?

This is why you people are so out of touch with reality. Why downtown San Francisco turned into a ready-made set for the Walking Dead and you are left clueless how this could have come to pass.

Here is the reality - Liberalism taken to its extreme gives us San Francisco - a city filled with drugs, crime, streets littered with used needles and human feces, middle class and jobs fleeing in droves, and the most unequal distribution of wealth one could ever fathom. Why would any sane person want these same policies applied to their city?

#41 | Posted by Claudio at 2023-08-30 11:14 PM | Reply

Claudio, obviously, lives on the set of the Twilight Zone...

I love these Alternate Realities the GOPers live in
their Insulated Thought Bubble Universe...they're so quaint!

#42 | Posted by earthmuse at 2023-08-31 07:01 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Right, because there's only one alternative."

Sure. Present me with an alternative.

#43 | Posted by madbomber at 2023-08-31 10:06 AM | Reply

"Gorby wanted for the Soviet Union the kind of social democracy that Northern Europe already had."

Is that what Gorby told you?

#44 | Posted by madbomber at 2023-08-31 10:07 AM | Reply

"FDR ushered socialism into America."

He did?

He ordered that the workers own the means of production?

I guess no one listened?

#45 | Posted by madbomber at 2023-08-31 10:08 AM | Reply

"Reagan was about as corporatist as they get."

You think?

Tell me what you think a 'corporatist is.' Because I don't think you understand the concept of corporatism.

#46 | Posted by madbomber at 2023-08-31 10:10 AM | Reply

This is why you people are so out of touch with reality. Why downtown San Francisco turned into a ready-made set for the Walking Dead

When's the last time you've been there? I never saw hundreds of tech bros riding electric scooters on the Walking Dead.

#47 | Posted by JOE at 2023-08-31 10:39 AM | Reply

Tell me what you think a 'corporatist is.' Because I don't think you understand the concept of corporatism.

#46 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Let's see...

1. Gutting worker safety protections from OSHA etc.
2. Massive tax cuts to the rich and corporate America instead of workers and small businesses
3. Huge subsidies to corporate America
4. Gutting consumer protection laws
5. Refusing to enforce Anti-Trust laws
6. Gutting environmental protections

Guess which boxes Reagan checked off? (Hint: All of them)

#48 | Posted by Sycophant at 2023-08-31 11:31 AM | Reply

#45

Stop conflating socialism with the "democratic socialism". You know what he meant.

#46

Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages Learn more
corporatist
/krp(')r'd'st/
OFTEN DEROGATORY
noun
1. a person who advocates for the control of a state or organization by large interest groups.
"we knew that they would uphold the ban because they are corporatists"
adjective
1. relating to or characterized by advocacy for the control of a state or organization by large interest groups.
"they are beholden to corporatist interests and that's why they're making this secret side deal"

-Corporate tax cuts
-Corporate subsidies
-Union busting
-Deregulation

... All at the behest of corporate interests. Yeah, Reagan smelled like a corporatist.

Now, perhaps you can explain how Reagan contributed strongly to "social democracy".

#49 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2023-08-31 11:48 AM | Reply

If it was anyone other than Trump promoting this I'd consider being on board.

#10 | Posted by BellRinger

So as a small gubmint "c-c-conservative," you'd be onboard with power being concentrated in one person and the rest being soulless sycophants willing to break laws and do whatever necessary to make the one person's commands come true?

#50 | Posted by jpw at 2023-08-31 11:53 AM | Reply

"Here is the reality - Liberalism taken to its extreme gives us San Francisco."

LOL

Conservatism taken to its extreme gives us the Taliban.

And Mississippi.

#51 | Posted by donnerboy at 2023-08-31 12:00 PM | Reply

Liberalism taken to its extreme gives us San Francisco

You mean the place with some of the highest housing costs in the world because so many people want to be there?

The literal innovation hub of North America?

The place that doesn't even crack the top 100 US cities for violent crime rates, a list that is littered with cities in Texas?

The most scenic, temperate, beautiful, city in the entire country?

Wow, liberalism sounds amazing.

#52 | Posted by JOE at 2023-08-31 12:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

44

No, that's what subject scholars would tell you were you to read them as some of us have.
.

#53 | Posted by Corky at 2023-08-31 12:51 PM | Reply

Conflating Socialism with social democracy is just about all that Myth B has ever had.

#54 | Posted by Corky at 2023-08-31 12:55 PM | Reply

MadBomber is turning into a drive by poster.

He posts stupid ---- and then goes to the next thread where he posts stupid ---- and then goes to the next thread where he posts the same stupid ----.

#55 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-08-31 01:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Conservatism taken to its extreme gives us the Taliban.
And Mississippi.

#51 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY

Oh please.

Even the Taliban think Mississippi is too extreme.

#56 | Posted by Sycophant at 2023-08-31 01:34 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"FDR ushered socialism into America."

He did?
#45 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

More than Reagan.

You ignorant troll.

#57 | Posted by ClownShack at 2023-08-31 04:39 PM | Reply

#48

The reason I asked the question about corporatism, it's because you don't know that corporatism is an actual thing, and it has nothing to do with corporations.

"Corporatism is a collectivist political ideology which advocates the organization of society by corporate groups, such as agricultural, labour, military, business, scientific, or guild associations, on the basis of their common interests.

As originally conceived, and as enacted in fascist states in mid-20th century Europe, corporatism was meant to be an alternative to both free market economies and socialist economies.[1] The hypothesis that society will reach a peak of harmonious functioning when each of its divisions efficiently performs its designated function, as a body's organs individually contribute to its general health and functionality, lies at the center of corporatist theory. Corporatism, socioeconomically, is based on an organization called a corporation, whence it gets its name."

en.wikipedia.org

Do you STILL think Reagan was a 'corporatist?'

#58 | Posted by madbomber at 2023-09-01 05:03 AM | Reply

#50

If it were Bernie Sanders looking to consolidate power in order to impliment his vision of what the US should look like, wouldn't you be supportive?

#59 | Posted by madbomber at 2023-09-01 05:04 AM | Reply

"Conflating Socialism with social democracy is just about all that Myth B has ever had."

You're funny. Because conflating the two is EXACTLY what you do. I try and point out that A) they are different, and B) you already live in a social democracy, if you live in the US or western europe.

#60 | Posted by madbomber at 2023-09-01 05:06 AM | Reply

You're funny.
#60 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

You're a troll.

Corky's got you pegged and this lame attempt to play semantics is all you got.

You're a troll and a waste of time.

And everyone knows it.

#61 | Posted by ClownShack at 2023-09-01 05:11 AM | Reply

#61

So let me pitch this question to you and the other clowns.

If you no-kidding know what socialism is, why you do you continue to refer to something that isn't socialism with the same term.

I don't understand it. Social Democracies are 100% funded by capitalism, both internally and externally. I would argue that socialism was also funded by capitalism, but only externally. Socialist countries produced inexpensive products that were purchased by the west, providing socialist economies the hard currency needed to keep food on the table.

#62 | Posted by madbomber at 2023-09-01 05:22 AM | Reply

I think it must be either A) the concept of "socialism" is still to sacrosanct to criticize, even if it has proved to provide a substandard output, or B) It would be wrong to credit capitalism with providing the outputs that socialism cannot.

But I'll let you give me the real answer. I don't want to put words in your mouth.

#63 | Posted by madbomber at 2023-09-01 05:24 AM | Reply

" Socialist countries"

Did the workers own the means of production? NO?!? Then NOT Socialist.

#64 | Posted by Danforth at 2023-09-01 09:55 AM | Reply

"you already live in a social democracy, if you live in the US or western europe."

Not really. Not the US. This is not the US:

It is characterized by a commitment to policies aimed at curbing inequality, eliminating oppression of underprivileged groups, and eradicating poverty,[15] as well as support for universally accessible public services like child care, education, elderly care, health care, and workers' compensation.[16] It has strong connections with the labour movement and trade unions, being supportive of collective bargaining rights for workers and measures to extend decision-making beyond politics into the economic sphere in the form of co-determination, or social ownership, for employees and stakeholders.[17] en.m.wikipedia.org

#65 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-09-01 09:57 AM | Reply

What is with this constant, years-long desire by MadBomber to litigate and republisplain the definition of socialism?

The American left just wants normal first world humane social policy (i.e. paid leave, single payer, etc). Who cares what that is called?

#66 | Posted by JOE at 2023-09-01 10:00 AM | Reply

B) It would be wrong to credit capitalism with providing the outputs that socialism cannot.

#63 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Like grinding poverty? Slave wages? A staggering and increasing wealth gap? Insane housing prices? More insane college costs? Even more insane medical care costs? Rising food costs driven by greedflation?

Why is it either full tilt capitalism or full tilt communism (that you call Socialism)? There is a middle ground. Many European countries don't have these issues even with their mainly capitalist economies.

#67 | Posted by Sycophant at 2023-09-01 10:33 AM | Reply

#65

So, based on what you provided, there are few, if any, true social democracies.

What you're really describing is corporatism. which may be the term for that third-way that everyone has been searching for.

#68 | Posted by madbomber at 2023-09-01 11:18 AM | Reply

Grinding poverty???

I don't think you know what poverty is. (Hint: not being able to buy the newest iphone every year is NOT poverty.)

#69 | Posted by madbomber at 2023-09-01 11:20 AM | Reply

The American left just wants normal first world humane social policy (i.e. paid leave, single payer, etc). Who cares what that is called?

Other than change it to the average American not just the American left I think most people agree.

Names are important as identifiers but to quote Shakespeare "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." Maybe we should create a party called the Turbo Awesome Ninja Super Triumphant Amazing Achieving Freedom League get everyone to join cause of the cool name then we can actually do something.

#70 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2023-09-01 12:53 PM | Reply

What is with this constant, years-long desire by MadBomber to litigate and republisplain the definition of socialism?

He's a troll.

As Occam's razor as it gets.

#71 | Posted by ClownShack at 2023-09-01 02:19 PM | Reply

"Other than change it to the average American not just the American left I think most people agree."

I don't think the average American wants to be told what healthcare they are going to get and when they are going to get it. They want choice.

I'm not sure why the US left wants to go high and right and ban private healthcare (the Bernie model) when there are a myraid of different options employed in western Europe that seem to accommodate most healthcare needs.

I am also not sure why the US left is so against a VAT. Not that the right wouldn't be, but VATs provide significant funding for many of the European services the US left claims to want.

#72 | Posted by madbomber at 2023-09-01 02:28 PM | Reply

I am also not sure why the US left is so against a VAT. Not that the right wouldn't be, but VATs provide significant funding for many of the European services the US left claims to want.

#72 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Because a VAT doesn't generally place equal burden upon those who hoard wealth. It places the most burden upon those who must spend their money to live.

#73 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2023-09-01 02:35 PM | Reply

"I am also not sure why the US left is so against a VAT."

If you listened to us, you'd know.
But you don't listen.

#74 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-09-01 02:41 PM | Reply

"I don't think the average American wants to be told what healthcare they are going to get and when they are going to get it."

Why not? Currently, Americans get told that by their insurance company and provider, respectively.

"They want choice."

Choice of what? Abortion? Sorry, illegal for half of American women now.
Currently, Americans get to change insurance once a year during Open Enrollment, assuming your employer offers a choice.
Does your employer offer a choice? Does your employer cover abortions?

#75 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-09-01 02:43 PM | Reply

"Because a VAT doesn't generally place equal burden upon those who hoard wealth. It places the most burden upon those who must spend their money to live."

Cool. Stop saying you want some sort of western-European style system. You don't.

You're looking for something a bit more 'Marxist.'

#76 | Posted by madbomber at 2023-09-01 02:56 PM | Reply

"top saying you want some sort of western-European style system. "

The VAT is simply a funding mechanism. One that's easy to apply. It's not an important part of "the system." You could do it with any other sort of revenue generator.

What is your basis for insisting tax revenues aren't fungible, and that any sort of Western European welfare system must be paid for with a VAT?

It's precisely this kind of relentless wrong-headedness that makes you such a whiny little bitch who refuses to learn anything.

Whichever school gave you that Master's in Business Administration, you are an embarrassment to them. And to your uniform.

#77 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-09-01 03:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Why not? Currently, Americans get told that by their insurance company and provider, respectively."

100% falsch.

In the US, I can go to any doctor I want to. I don't need the government to approve my choice.

#78 | Posted by madbomber at 2023-09-01 03:14 PM | Reply

My daughter has done it several times since she has been back there.

#79 | Posted by madbomber at 2023-09-01 03:14 PM | Reply

"Does your employer offer a choice? Does your employer cover abortions?"

I don't know that it matters. I live in Germany. Abortion is illegal here.

#80 | Posted by madbomber at 2023-09-01 03:14 PM | Reply

"I live in Germany. Abortion is illegal here."

You're funny.

#81 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-09-01 03:16 PM | Reply

"In the US, I can go to any doctor I want to. I don't need the government to approve my choice."

You're saying German nationals can't go to whatever doctor they want to?
Let's say a German national is staying in Mannheim on a six-month work assignment. The government has to approve his choice of doctor, before he can see any of the thousands of doctor in Mannheim?

Let me put it another way: I don't believe you.

#82 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-09-01 03:19 PM | Reply

#76 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

It seems like your largest objection is that you don't want to see higher taxes on wealthier people. Pretty funny, coming from a person whose life has probably been significantly subsidized by democratic socialism.

#83 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2023-09-01 03:20 PM | Reply

"I'm not sure why the US left wants to go high and right and ban private healthcare (the Bernie model) when there are a myraid of different options employed in western Europe that seem to accommodate most healthcare needs."

Yeah you are not fooling anyone.

The answer is almost always somewhere between the two extremes. Perhaps a combination of private and public care is the answer.

It's just too bad that extreme options are the only ones you and republicans act like exist and want to talk about.

Remember the whole remove and replace fiasco? Yeah. There was never any reasonable plan put forward to replace Obamacare with. They just wanted to repeal it. Period.

Because they hated Obama. And they almost did. If not for John McCain. There never was any plan to replace it with something better.

Revenge and retribution is no way to run a government ... or a business.

#84 | Posted by donnerboy at 2023-09-01 03:21 PM | Reply

"What is your basis for insisting tax revenues aren't fungible, and that any sort of Western European welfare system must be paid for with a VAT?"

I'm not insisting on anything. Just curious why the whole of Europe chose to go with a VAT, when you seem to be insisting it is the wrong move.

"It's precisely this kind of relentless wrong-headedness that makes you such a whiny little bitch who refuses to learn anything."

Sorry, lil homey. I live in Europe. I've been all over this place, and most things seem to work OK. My 'wrong-headedness' is really just a reflection of their 'wrong-headedness.' At least in your mind's eye.

Bottom line, I think most of your motivation doesn't come from trying to improve people's lives, it comes from a dislike of the US and how the behavior of US citizens rewards some and fails to reward others. Marx was like that too. He saw himself as being a shepherd amongst sheep. I think you're the same. And sometimes the sheep disagree. Between us gals, that's what pisses you off the most.

#85 | Posted by madbomber at 2023-09-01 03:21 PM | Reply

"It seems like your largest objection is that you don't want to see higher taxes on wealthier people. Pretty funny, coming from a person whose life has probably been significantly subsidized by democratic socialism."

Why not just follow one of the western European models? It seems to me that your largest objection is that you don't want to see higher taxes on lower income earners, even if they are the biggest beneficiaries.

Why is that?

#86 | Posted by madbomber at 2023-09-01 03:23 PM | Reply

"Perhaps a combination of private and public care is the answer."

That is the answer. At least in Europe.

And it seems to work well enough.

#87 | Posted by madbomber at 2023-09-01 03:24 PM | Reply

"Bottom line, I think most of your motivation doesn't come from trying to improve people's lives, it comes from a dislike of the US and how the behavior of US citizens rewards some and fails to reward others."

Hey MadBomber,

When you go off into La-La Land like this, nobody knows what "it comes from a dislike of the US and how the behavior of US citizens rewards some and fails to reward others" means.

You don't even know what that means.

I'll prove that by asking you to tell us what you mean. Something you won't be able to do.

#88 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-09-01 03:25 PM | Reply

Considering that Americans already pay far more per capita on healthcare than any other nation, we wouldn't need a VAT to fund single payer. We could just use every dollar already being spent on our bloated healthcare system and its various entities who skim off the top. No VAT required to do that.

Additionally, paid leave doesn't require a VAT - it merely requires the backbone to legislate that employers must treat their employees like human beings.

So, at least as to the policies i raised, "VAT" is yet another dead horse red herring.

#89 | Posted by JOE at 2023-09-01 03:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"It seems to me that your largest objection is that you don't want to see higher taxes on lower income earners, even if they are the biggest beneficiaries."

Can I see the math, where the lower income earners are the biggest beneficiaries?

Also, can I see the math, for all taxes and beneficiaries, so we can determine if the part where the lower income earners are the biggest beneficiaries is anything out of the ordinary when it comes to these kinds of taxes and expenditures?

Because otherwise your objection is simply a common feature of all such programs, yet you've cherry-picked it to make it seem like it's not the way things normally are.

#90 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-09-01 03:28 PM | Reply

I don't think the average American wants to be told what healthcare they are going to get and when they are going to get it. They want choice.

From Gallup "57% say government should ensure health coverage for all in U.S."

They may want choice as well but it's been a majority for a while.

#91 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2023-09-01 03:56 PM | Reply

That is the answer. At least in Europe.
And it seems to work well enough.

#87 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

I don't think anyone is advocating against using the best parts of other models. It's conservatives and crony capitalists that are decrying "SOCIALISM!!" in favor of keeping our current and extremely inefficient healthcare system.

Why is that?

#86 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Perhaps if those "lower income earners" had the money that their employers are currently putting towards crappy private insurance, they could afford to pay whatever the necessary tax is for a better system. As our per-capita cost of care is already twice as high as most of the developed world, I'd suggest that it's already paid for. In fact, for many of us in the private sector, our deductibles alone are as high as total per capita yearly cost of care in many other countries.

I don't really GAF about the funding methods for universal healthcare as much as I do about making certain the big part of the population doesn't end up bankrupt, trying to keep themselves alive from some major medical malady. And people should not be shackled to their employer by the provided insurance just because they have no other alternative except bankruptcy or death.

#92 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2023-09-01 05:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

As our per-capita cost of care is already twice as high as most of the developed world, I'd suggest that it's already paid for. In fact, for many of us in the private sector, our deductibles alone are as high as total per capita yearly cost of care in many other countries.

Any time someone brings this up, Madbomber either disappears or ignores the point entirely.

The "cost" of single payer is the biggest joke of an objection. Anyone raising it is proving themselves irrevocably incompetent.

#93 | Posted by JOE at 2023-09-01 06:29 PM | Reply

"I'll prove that by asking you to tell us what you mean. Something you won't be able to do."

Sure.

Progressives take umbrage with the fact that society, a collection of individuals acting in their own best interest (the 'market'), choose economic winners. These winners are not the same people or groups that progressive's think should be winners. That instead, government should determine how resources are allocated, regardless of market forces. Example: An individual whose labor value is low should be subsidized by those whose labor value is higher.

An even better example is income inequality, which is truly a 'rich people problem.' The amount of money I earn or don't earn has no bearing on anyone else's labor value. Whether I'm am desperately poor or fabulously rich, it won't determine your ability to earn an income.

#94 | Posted by madbomber at 2023-09-02 02:46 AM | Reply

"Considering that Americans already pay far more per capita on healthcare than any other nation, we wouldn't need a VAT to fund single payer."

Your first problem is aggregating healthcare spending. People who spend a lot on healthcare or receive premium healthcare benefits may not be interested in being saddled with a lower quality product or output so that someone else who isn't spending anything can have access.

What would you tell those people? That their wants don't matter, even though it is their money that is needed?

#95 | Posted by madbomber at 2023-09-02 02:50 AM | Reply

"Additionally, paid leave doesn't require a VAT - it merely requires the backbone to legislate that employers must treat their employees like human beings."

Legislation? Why?

Teachers already get several months off per year. I don't think it's due to a law requiring it.

#96 | Posted by madbomber at 2023-09-02 02:52 AM | Reply

"Can I see the math, where the lower income earners are the biggest beneficiaries?"

The bottom 50% of taxpayers cover around 2% of the total federal income tax burden, yet they have the same access to the benefits of those taxes as the top 1%. Or top .1% for that matter. And a chunk of those have access to entitlements that those in the top 50% of taxpayers do not.

#97 | Posted by madbomber at 2023-09-02 02:54 AM | Reply

Teachers already get several months off per year. I don't think it's due to a law requiring it.

No, mostly negotiated contracts.

#98 | Posted by REDIAL at 2023-09-02 03:00 AM | Reply

From Gallup "57% say government should ensure health coverage for all in U.S."

So in Switzerland, it is law that you must have a healthcare plan, but all plans are private. There is no single payer.

In Germany, there is a public healthcare plan that is compulsory for anyone making less than ~64K EURO per year. There is a ~16% tax on income that pays for this, half of which is covered by employers if one is not self-employed. Those who make enough money can opt out and use private healthcare systems.

In the UK, healthcare is provided by the NHS. But you can purchase supplemental healthcare that gets you quick access, especially if you need to see a specialist. It also gets you your own room instead of the standard, six bed hospital ward.

All of these are viable options that provide coverage without eliminating choice.

#99 | Posted by madbomber at 2023-09-02 03:06 AM | Reply

"I don't think anyone is advocating against using the best parts of other models. It's conservatives and crony capitalists that are decrying "SOCIALISM!!" in favor of keeping our current and extremely inefficient healthcare system."

Here's the bottom line. I don't think any patient is determined that Cigna or BCBS be able to generate a profit. If they can get the healthcare they want and expect at the same cost or lower, they're going to go for it. I think the challenge is the fear that the quality of the care will decrease. Think about Obama's 'if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor' promise. That turned out to not be true. I don't really blame Obama for that, but a lot of people were not able to keep their doctor. And I would be very wary about a Bernie-style system that prohibited private healthcare altogether, as there would be no market mechanism to compensate for changes in demand. You would get the healthcare the government gave you when they chose to give it to you.

#100 | Posted by madbomber at 2023-09-02 03:12 AM | Reply

"The "cost" of single payer is the biggest joke of an objection. Anyone raising it is proving themselves irrevocably incompetent."

The cost to whom?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the best way forward as you see it would be to take all the money being spent on different forms of healthcare, put it all into one pot, and use it to provide one single plan for everyone.

Is that correct?

#101 | Posted by madbomber at 2023-09-02 03:15 AM | Reply

What would you tell those people?

That Medicare likely has a higher patient satisfaction rating than their current insurer, and if they don't like it they are free to waste their money on supplemental insurance to augment M4A.

#102 | Posted by JOE at 2023-09-02 08:17 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2023 World Readable

Drudge Retort