Universal healthcare

[happyone]

2 hours ago, ed2 said:

USA has no free health care, but as @Thestarider has pointed out several times here, if you absolutely cannot afford it, the state (in American terminology: government) will cover basic insurance. It is not the same as universal health care though.

I do not know about other world governments, but for the USA whenever the government tries to run and manage commerce, manage the building of  something, or a business like enterprise---costs increase, money is wasted, red tape and regulations  becomes overbearing so little or nothing is accomplished.  It has been proven, at least in the USA, that private enterprise does a much more cost effective and efficient job than the government does.  Our governments (both State and Federal) are spending too much time, energy, and resources on trying to manage more than what was originally intended for them  to do IMO

[Maturin]

1 hour ago, happyone said:

I do not know about other world governments, but for the USA whenever the government tries to run and manage commerce, manage the building of  something, or a business like enterprise---costs increase, money is wasted, red tape and regulations  becomes overbearing so little or nothing is accomplished.  It has been proven, at least in the USA, that private enterprise does a much more cost effective and efficient job than the government does.  Our governments (both State and Federal) are spending too much time, energy, and resources on trying to manage more than what was originally intended for them  to do IMO

But you keep voting for the same politicians that are part of your not fit for purpose two party system but still moan that every government you get screws you over?

[happyone]

7 minutes ago, Maturin said:

But you keep voting for the same politicians that are part of your not fit for purpose two party system but still moan that every government you get screws you over?

So what are the other choices, besides who is on the 2 party ballot?????

It isn't like some corporation where the electorate can bring in a CEO from a different country 😏

[Maturin]

24 minutes ago, happyone said:

So what are the other choices, besides who is on the 2 party ballot?????

It isn't like some corporation where the electorate can bring in a CEO from a different country 😏

It's the whole two-party system that your politicians have abused. Neither party is for the people, they are both for businesses first. The Democrats would have acted in exactly the same way as the GOP is acting now - not taking action until crashing markets and business required them to. The US was built on revolution and throwing out the government/monarchy that was not representing them - it really is about time that something similar happens again in your country now. The Dems don't care about your health, nor do the Republicans - they both only care about campaign money and pandering to lobbyists, most notably from the health insurance sector.

I hope that once the dust has settled on this virus and the US has paid not too steep a price for the inaction of your politicians, that people will take the opportunity to question whether that political system is fit for purpose.  The richest country the world has ever known should not be having to fly in testing kits from Italy, the 2nd worst affected nation for coronavirus. That this is a fact is a symptom of many years of you being goverened, "by some people, for themselves."  You should not have to choose between the lesser of two evils every election cycle.

Just my two cents and I genuinely hope it's not as bad for the US as the figures are predicting it will be.

[ed2]

7 minutes ago, happyone said:

I do not know about other world governments, but for the USA whenever the government tries to run and manage commerce, manage the building of  something, or a business like enterprise---costs increase, money is wasted, red tape and regulations  becomes overbearing so little or nothing is accomplished.  It has been proven, at least in the USA, that private enterprise does a much more cost effective and efficient job than the government does.  Our governments (both State and Federal) are spending too much time, energy, and resources on trying to manage more than what was originally intended for them  to do IMO

A big part of that, IMO, is that many of your institutions are far too big, bureucratic and undemocratic. ALOT more power should be moved from the federal level, and down to the states or even the counties. Untill a few years ago, hospitals here in Norway were run by the counties, not by the state. I believe it is the vast distance between the ground and the decission makers that make everything so extremely unefficient and undemocratic. All power should be at the lowest level possible, and that's why I am agains the EU too, it is too big and unefficient. That said, a private enterprice might always be alittle bit more efficiently run than a public one, but the surplus in efficiency doesn't always end up resulting in a better services, it very often just end up in the pockets of the billionar owner(s). Then it becomes a question of when you think it is worth it, and not.

Another issue is how your democracy is built up. Corporporatives can almost rig who wins an election, by pouring money into a third party PAC, and therefore it is more important for most of your mainstream politicians to stay in good relationship with the big corporporatives than it is for them to stay in good relationship with the electorate. Because the corporporatives basically paid for their whole campaign. This could easily be improved by making a law against PACs, only persons can contribute directly to the campaigns, and setting a roof  for single donations. The election of Trump was a pretty clear protest against this system, I had hoped that with him in office some of these things might change, but it hasn't yet. It is Congress that is the legislator, and it is still made up of career politicians, who are too dependent on these PACs.

[ed2]

4 hours ago, happyone said:

So what are the other choices, besides who is on the 2 party ballot?????

It isn't like some corporation where the electorate can bring in a CEO from a different country 😏

I followed your elections 4 years ago very close. You had 4 parties running for office! The Republican party, the Democratic party, the Libertarian party and the Green party. Only two of them mattered, the others have never gotten a single seat. I'll try to explain.... USA, just like the UK, has majority elections. It means if the Democratic party get 50% of the votes in California, it will get all of California's seats in Congress. You either win majority, or you are out of the game, it is extremely difficult for a third or forth party to get represented, and that is what makes it a two party system. Most democracies in Europe (not UK though) have representative elections. It means if a party get 50% of the votes in a region, it will only get half of that region's seats in Parliament, the rest of the seats goes to the smaller parties.  For example, if a get 20% of the votes, it will have 20% of seats. We might have many parties represented in Parliament, and very often none of them have majority.  But believe it or not, this is actually making it more effective. All parties are always ready to make compromisses and collaborate to forward their cause. Whereas in your system things tend to get abit polarized between the two parties, and they often block each other's policies.

[Thestarider]

25 minutes ago, ed2 said:

I followed your elections 4 years ago very close. You had 4 parties running for office! The Republican party, the Democratic party, the Libertarian party and the Green party. Only two of them mattered, the others have never gotten a single seat. I'll try to explain.... USA, just like the UK, has majority elections. It means if the Democratic party get 50% of the votes in California, it will get all of California's seats in Congress. You either win majority, or you are out of the game, it is extremely difficult for a third or forth party to get represented, and that is what makes it a two party system. Most democracies in Europe (not UK though) have representative elections. It means if a party get 50% of the votes in a region, it will only get half of that region's seats in Parliament, the rest of the seats goes to the smaller parties.  For example, if a get 20% of the votes, it will have 20% of seats. We might have many parties represented in Parliament, and very often none of them have majority.  But believe it or not, this is actually making it more effective. All parties are always ready to make compromisses and collaborate to forward their cause. Whereas in your system things tend to get abit polarized between the two parties, and they often block each other's policies.

Your thinking of the presidential election and presidential electoral college. All states have US house of representative seats based on population of each state elected to the US House of Representatives, then each state has 2 Senators in in the US Senate. Only the Presidential Election is decided by the Electoral College for fairness for all of the 50 states regardless of population. 

This what is called equal and fair representation for all of the US citizens regardless of where you live in this great country and how densely populated your state is.

We have 3 branches of government. The House of Representatives is the legislative branch, they develop, debate, and write the laws (435 in total). The Senate (100) and President are the Executive Branch, and pass and enact, and sign the bills into laws. Then there is the Judicial Branch which decides whether laws are constitutional or not. Each of the 50 state governments has very same structure. Wikipedia explains this very well and why our fore fathers decided to do things this way when they developed the constitution and bill of rights.

[ed2]

4 minutes ago, Thestarider said:

Your thinking of the presidential election and presidential electoral college. All states have US house of representative seats based on population of each state elected to the US House of Representatives, then each state has 2 Senators in in the US Senate. Only the Presidential Election is decided by the Electoral College for fairness for of the 50 states regardless of population. 

This what is called equal and fair representation for all of the US citizens regardless of where you live in this great country.

No, that's not what I mean. I'm talking about party representation.

I called it majority voting, but I see the English term is plurality voting.

[Thestarider]

15 minutes ago, ed2 said:

No, that's not what I mean. I'm talking about party representation.

I called it majority voting, but I see the English term is plurality voting.

9 States Where Registered Independents Outnumber Both Major Political Parties

Millions of voters are not just choosing to self-identify as independent of the two major parties, they are dumping their party registrations in droves.

In about half the states that register voters by party, independent voters outnumber at least one of the two major political parties. But here are 9 states where independents not only outnumber registered Republicans AND Democrats, they are also having a significant impact on political developments within the state.

Only 33 of the 50 require a registered voter to identify party affiliation.

[ed2]

I still don't think you fully understood what I meant. Yes, as I said, it is possible for more parties to run in an election in both USA and UK, it is just much harder to get represented, because you have a system of plurality voting instead of proportionate voting. I have studied political sience for 3 years in university, I especially love electoral systems, so I know this, but my English isn't always technical enough to explain what I mean. You could try reading this:

Plurality voting - Wikipedia

EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG

Proportional representation - Wikipedia

EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG

 

[ed2]

BTW, Bernie Sanders has always sat as an independent, both as senator and as governor of Vermont. I was actually surprised he didn't run against Hillary and Trump.

[ed2]

I hope you guys are not ones to take political disagreements too seriously. I am an European socialist and you are American conservatives. We come from extremely different backgrounds, so we will probably never see eye to eye on this, but I enjoid the factual debate with you guys. Remember, we are still friends who love to spy on RLC girls.