It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
onenerdykidHardly true... the USA has a very false sense of personal freedom and we pale in comparison to many countries. According to this index, the USA ranks 26th in personal freedom. Not even remotely close to the bastion of autonomy that we often think we are.
And? Did you expect us to be #1? Go look at the data and tell me some similarities of every single country on the top 25. They're all tiny. Germany is by far the largest country which has a higher ranking than us and they only have 25% of the people we have. Go down the list to try to find a country comparable in size to us and at 72 you will find Indonesia which has 80% of our population. And then at 77 you find Mexico. We are by far the most populated country that is ranked high on the list. Don't even tell me that this is irrelevant. We both know it isn't.
Plus their variables don't take into account things that MANY people see as valuable. Why do you think Canadians come here for healthcare in emergencies? Why don't they have the 'freedom' to get expedited care there? Yuck, I don't even want that version of 'freedom'
onenerdykidHardly true... the USA has a very false sense of personal freedom and we pale in comparison to many countries. According to this index, the USA ranks 26th in personal freedom. Not even remotely close to the bastion of autonomy that we often think we are.
Well whatever. My point should still hold, correct me if there's a more populated country ahead of us or anywhere near us in that other index. They seem to be pretty different.. Almost as if freedom isn't very quantifiable....? LOL
milk_manAnd? Did you expect us to be #1? Go look at the data and tell me some similarities of every single country on the top 25. They're all tiny. Germany is by far the largest country which has a higher ranking than us and they only have 25% of the people we have. Go down the list to try to find a country comparable in size to us and at 72 you will find Indonesia which has 80% of our population. And then at 77 you find Mexico. We are by far the most populated country that is ranked high on the list. Don't even tell me that this is irrelevant. We both know it isn't.
Plus their variables don't take into account things that MANY people see as valuable. Why do you think Canadians come here for healthcare in emergencies? Why don't they have the 'freedom' to get expedited care there? Yuck, I don't even want that version of 'freedom'
Perhaps you were joking when you said "Maybe it only happens here because we're the only nation in the world where we can kinda do whatever we want? Trade offs..." It seemed like you were expecting us to be #1? I was just showing you that DESPITE country size, other countries offer their citizens a higher degree of personal freedom than what is given in the USA. What citizens can and cannot do is not dependent on the population of a country but instead based on the rules within that country. If a country allows gay marriage, drug usage, prostitution, gambling, complete religious freedom, etc. while another country does not, the latter country does not allow as much personal freedom as the former. That's one of the metrics they use to quantify it, which they go into detail per country.
milk_manWhy do you think Canadians come here for healthcare in emergencies? Why don't they have the 'freedom' to get expedited care there? Yuck, I don't even want that version of 'freedom'
That's only true for elective non-life threatening surgeries. Important surgeries get treated right away.
ski.loonSure. I can't stand and shoot more than one gun at a time, so why do I need more than 1? You answered your own question. If I'm shooting a gun and my mag runs out or I run out of ammo and I going to just drop the gun and use the next one in my bag of 10 guns. I have a feeling most gun users would have more ammo.
I would be willing to bet that most people if operating a store that sold guns and weapons, would be nervous selling 10 guns to someone. Sure maybe he didn't buy them all at once, or even at the same place, but can we not put legislation in place that limits how many guns one person can own? I would like to think that both sides could come to some sort of agreement there. But of course the NRA would lose money, and god forbid we have less money in politics.
The solution to your guys' problem is definitely not limiting the number of guns someone can own... How would you even enforce that on the used market? Not even Canada has gone that absurd with our gun laws. It's just as easy to bring a bunch of magazines with you to orchestrate a mass shooting than to bring 20 different guns, actually its way easier and more effective. I think a rule like that would just be hurting gun enthusiasts, and I'd be willing to bet most of the crazy people that do these mass shootings just own 1 gun that they bought solely for the purpose of the shooting.
More background checks and shit like we have in Canada might help a bit, it's pretty easy to get through them though, you can put 2 friends as your references and have a clean criminal record and you don't get denied. Lots of people probably buy the guns with responsible intentions and then turn batshit insane years down the road. I honestly think it's a culture thing in America with these crazy fuckers, and a full on ban of guns wouldn't solve it. Don't know how you stop people from wanting to kill people for no reason.
BrawnTrendsDoctors? Surgeons? Idk man... Who do you think?
Which one is more urgent? Blood clot in your brain or a mole on your leg? Which one should go first? Probably the brain one, no?
**This post was edited on Oct 3rd 2017 at 9:56:51am
I've had a non life threatening procedure done (got a mole on my back biopsied) in a country with socialized healthcare (UK). I waited maybe a week to have it done and literally didn't hear a thing about it after. I've also had far more serious procedures done in America which involved more waiting, more doctor fuck-ups, and I'll be paying bills for next few years despite the fact that I have health insurance.
TheDoughAbidesI've had a non life threatening procedure done (got a mole on my back biopsied) in a country with socialized healthcare (UK). I waited maybe a week to have it done and literally didn't hear a thing about it after. I've also had far more serious procedures done in America which involved more waiting, more doctor fuck-ups, and I'll be paying bills for next few years despite the fact that I have health insurance.
Coming from a country that has universal healthcare, I really don't understand why some Americans are so scared of it. I broke my front teeth when I was 19, it cost me 80 euros to have them fixed (had to wait a week for an appointment, big deal!) the rest was covered by my social security. I'm 34 now and I've never had to go back to the dentist to have them redone or anything like that.
My dad had open heart surgery 4 years ago, he didn't spend a dime on it. Social security (or whatever you want to call universal healthcare system) paid for most of it, his private insurance paid for the rest. The only thing he had to spend money on was an extra to have a room by himself at the hospital. The same surgery in the US costs around $100,000. How much does basic health insurance cover of that?
BrawnTrendsComing from a country that has universal healthcare, I really don't understand why some Americans are so scared of it. I broke my front teeth when I was 19, it cost me 80 euros to have them fixed (had to wait a week for an appointment, big deal!) the rest was covered by my social security. I'm 34 now and I've never had to go back to the dentist to have them redone or anything like that.
My dad had open heart surgery 4 years ago, he didn't spend a dime on it. Social security (or whatever you want to call universal healthcare system) paid for most of it, his private insurance paid for the rest. The only thing he had to spend money on was an extra to have a room by himself at the hospital. The same surgery in the US costs around $100,000. How much does basic health insurance cover of that?
Because Americans are all ignorant and scared of the word socialism. It's unreal how many brainwashed morons actually think universal healthcare=Far left Stalinism. And then you get the typical "Uh healthcare isn't a right it's a privelage". Roads aren't a right. The military isn't a right. But no one says "Uh roads are a privelage not a right". I seriously can't fathom the reasoning behind these fucking idiots. "Well I don't want to pay for someone else's healthcare". Well I don't want to go fucking bankrupt for my own healthcare. Every other developed nation looks at the US and laughs. This is not the greatest country on the earth, but blind nationalism masquerading as patriotism convinces Americans that it is. The US fucking sucks. "Well why don't you leave". I'd love to leave this shithole and go live in Europe. Despite what retardlicans say, it's not some desolate socialist wasteland overrun by muslims. I have lost all respect for my country. Patriotism is defending your country when it deserves it. The US has yet to regain my respect.
BrawnTrendsComing from a country that has universal healthcare, I really don't understand why some Americans are so scared of it. I broke my front teeth when I was 19, it cost me 80 euros to have them fixed (had to wait a week for an appointment, big deal!) the rest was covered by my social security. I'm 34 now and I've never had to go back to the dentist to have them redone or anything like that.
My dad had open heart surgery 4 years ago, he didn't spend a dime on it. Social security (or whatever you want to call universal healthcare system) paid for most of it, his private insurance paid for the rest. The only thing he had to spend money on was an extra to have a room by himself at the hospital. The same surgery in the US costs around $100,000. How much does basic health insurance cover of that?
It has to do with the mentality of many Americans that focuses on individuality and individual liberties, decades of pushing back against entitlement programs, and the lack of bipartisan support for it at the federal level for various political reasons.
Don't forget that the US, unlike much of Europe (save Switzerland) didn't have to rebuild itself after the World Wars. It's much easier to start building a program from scratch in a short time than it is to reshape and reform it.
In a nutshell, Americans don't like being told what to do. It doesn't matter how beneficial it may be for us, we're going to fight against it.
BTW, ignore the post above when he talks about the military and roads. He doesn't seem to grasp the concept of free-riders and public goods.
.MASSHOLE.Don't forget that the US, unlike much of Europe (save Switzerland) didn't have to rebuild itself after the World Wars. It's much easier to start building a program from scratch in a short time than it is to reshape and reform it.
Canda, Australia, New Zealand or Argentina didn't have to rebuild themselves after the WWs either. And yet they all have better healthcare systems. I lived in the US for 5 years and I'm glad I never had to go to the hospital there. Time to wake up, guys.
BrawnTrendsCanda, Australia, New Zealand or Argentina didn't have to rebuild themselves after the WWs either. And yet they all have better healthcare systems. I lived in the US for 5 years and I'm glad I never had to go to the hospital there. Time to wake up, guys.
You're discounting the entire premise of my post, the idea of individuality in the US. Not a single country you listed focuses on individuality like the US does.
I'm not saying the fact that much of Europe was destroyed by two world wars led to a single-payer system, I'm saying it helps when a country can start from scratch as it allows for a blank slate, in both the healthcare system and country's mentality, that can sometimes overpower that idea of individualism.
Mike-OSo what is the actual cost of the surgery in your country? Not what your father paid, not what insurance paid, what is the actual cost?
Honestly I don't even know. While I was writing my post I searched for the price and I couldn't find it on Google. Price for the surgery in the US was literally on the top of the first page though.
What I found though, is that the cost of heart transplant is roughly 350,000 euros, whereas in the US it's almost $800,000. Maybe it can give us an idea.
**This post was edited on Oct 3rd 2017 at 1:29:00pm
BrawnTrendsHonestly I don't even know. While I was writing my post I searched for the price and I couldn't find it on Google. Price for the surgery in the US was literally on the top of the first page though.
I'm sure, and I'm also sure that price does have a lot of air in it, but I also know that the cost of operations can be very high in nations with "universal healthcare", it's only subsidized by very heavy taxation. It's a system that can't bear too much stress and relies on the welfare of a nation to operate functionally. Why do you think it's access to free/low cost healthcare that starts getting the biggest cuts when recessions/depressions hit? There's no perfect system yet, and the functionality of universal healthcare depends almost solely on the current wealth and future aspects of a nation, but maybe most importantly on its demographics.
I think the US is simply too large and its demographics too wide to ever have universal healthcare.
Mike-OI'm sure, and I'm also sure that price does have a lot of air in it, but I also know that the cost of operations can be very high in nations with "universal healthcare", it's only subsidized by very heavy taxation. It's a system that can't bear too much stress and relies on the welfare of a nation to operate functionally. Why do you think it's access to free/low cost healthcare that starts getting the biggest cuts when recessions/depressions hit? There's no perfect system yet, and the functionality of universal healthcare depends almost solely on the current wealth and future aspects of a nation, but maybe most importantly on its demographics.
I think the US is simply too large and its demographics too wide to ever have universal healthcare.
I don't necessarily agree. We will have universal healthcare at one point or another in the future here. We can see that coming down the pipe with expansion of Medicare/Medicaid....and a lot of countries have done the same thing....we will slowly expand Medicare and Medicaid until it envelops the entirety.
Also lol at the republicans that think Medicare is a Democrat thing. Romneycare paved the way for the ACA.
If the healthcare industry in America wasn't so heavy regulated it would be cheaper and better quality. Universal healthcare can work but not when the system runs like crap. (like ours does)
.MASSHOLE.You're discounting the entire premise of my post, the idea of individuality in the US. Not a single country you listed focuses on individuality like the US does.
I'm not so sure that's true. How come you arrive at that? In these countries (NZ especially) they arguably place a higher premium on personal freedom than the US does. And from what I've experienced in central Europe over the last 7 years, I have yet to encounter anyone who thinks they are a gear in the greater machine, or any other evil socialist metaphor :) Everyone I know is just as much an individual as anyone I know in the US. Moreover, they are free to live any life they choose, just like in the US. If anything, they often have more choices and opportunities than the average American.
onenerdykidI'm not so sure that's true. How come you arrive at that? In these countries (NZ especially) they arguably place a higher premium on personal freedom than the US does. And from what I've experienced in central Europe over the last 7 years, I have yet to encounter anyone who thinks they are a gear in the greater machine, or any other evil socialist metaphor :) Everyone I know is just as much an individual as anyone I know in the US. Moreover, they are free to live any life they choose, just like in the US. If anything, they often have more choices and opportunities than the average American.
I probably shouldn't have used an absolutism, always a mistake.
As you're probably well aware, individualism is an important trait to American citizens. It is everywhere. It is at the personal, familial, and even state level when the federal government gets involved. We don't like being told what to do.
Hell, if anything this past election showed us how important individualism at an international level is as well.
More importantly, it can be seen in our view of the "state" and the role it plays in our life. As linked in the Pew Studies, Americans tend to feel that they can get ahead in life purely by hard work, and that the "state" is actually more of an impediment than anything else.
In a study by Geert Hofstede, he found that the UK followed by the US, Australia, and then the rest of Western Europe were the most individualistic countries in the world. This leads into my next point about why WWI and WWII were important.
Save Australia, almost all of those countries experienced devastation and were given the chance to rebuild their healthcare systems.
(Here is where I'm just hypothesizing)
After the World Wars, countries needed to rebuild themselves and the most efficient way was to put aside their individualistic ideologies and embrace collectivist ones. Part of this involved healthcare, as a healthy population would likely lead to faster growth.
I'd reckon almost every Western EU country adopted a formal policy of universal healthcare after WWII/during the 50s. I know England and Austria did :)
The US, as a whole, didn't go through this and didn't need to put aside their individualistic ideologies.
**This post was edited on Oct 4th 2017 at 6:03:40am
**This post was edited on Oct 4th 2017 at 7:56:59am
.MASSHOLE.As you're probably well aware, individualism is an important trait to American citizens. It is everywhere. It is at the personal, familial, and even state level when the federal government gets involved. We don't like being told what to do.
Hell, if anything this past election showed us how important individualism at an international level is as well.
More importantly, it can be seen in our view of the "state" and the role it plays in our life. As linked in the Pew Studies, Americans tend to feel that they can get ahead in life purely by hard work, and that the "state" is actually more of an impediment than anything else.
These polls are primarily interested in the scope of individualism as self-sufficiency and how that relates to the size of government. I would definitely agree that most Americans think that the state is bad (or at least an impediment) while most Europeans would think that the state is good (or at least an enabler). And I think both sides would argue that this is how you best arrive at personal freedom and a good life. Two different approaches at arriving at the same goal really.
No European understands why Americans (generally) don't want universal healthcare and free universities. To them, things like this is what gives their citizens the ability to be more free and do more with their lives & free time. And concerning free time- Europeans are generally super perplexed why Americans want to work so much. They see no need to pour that much time into a job and would rather spend their time with their families, friends, and hobbies. They would never give that up and as such they would always say that having a larger government is a better thing because it allows them to do more and to be more free. When given the choice to be fully self-sufficient but a high chance of not being the person you want to be or giving up some self-sufficiency but with a greater chance of being the person you want to be, Europe clearly embraces the latter. They want the state to be an enabler to help them realize their individuality.
If individualism is to be measured in terms of personal freedom, then I don't see how the US can claim to win this argument (we're currently sitting 26th in relation to other countries in the world, according to this source at least: http://www.prosperity.com/rankings). The US is fairly ok "on paper" but in reality lags far behind in terms of social tolerance of anything different (sexual orientation, religion, immigrants, etc.), the freedom to do with your body what you want, and personal responsibility for your own actions. While don't like being told what to do, we're super quick to tell others how they ought to live- tolerance of diversity isn't something we're known to excel at. And while we're quick to freely do what we want (when/where we're allowed), if we get hurt we're very quick to sue others to correct for our mistakes.
Long story short, the importance of individuality isn't something unique to the US and it depends on how you define it and how you think it's best achieved.
milk_manIf the healthcare industry in America wasn't so heavy regulated it would be cheaper and better quality. Universal healthcare can work but not when the system runs like crap. (like ours does)
Deregulation isn't the answer to everything. Obamacare isn't a universal healthcare system. It is a series of guidelines and rules healthcare companies have to follow. Obamacare sucks, but it's better than the price gouging that would occur otherwise (and already does).
milk_manIf the healthcare industry in America wasn't so heavy regulated it would be cheaper and better quality. Universal healthcare can work but not when the system runs like crap. (like ours does)
Are you fucking kidding dude? You really think the assholes at the helm of the healthcare industry really give a fuck about the quality of your care or the amount of money you have left over after said care has been administered? To them, you and I just more sucker that will unknowingly (or at least unwillingly) help pay for their second ski-in/ski-out. I will never understand why conservatives contort themselves into bootlicking puppets under a few anarcho-capitalistic sociopaths.
**This post was edited on Oct 4th 2017 at 3:50:38pm
DIRTYBUBBLEDeregulation isn't the answer to everything. Obamacare isn't a universal healthcare system. It is a series of guidelines and rules healthcare companies have to follow. Obamacare sucks, but it's better than the price gouging that would occur otherwise (and already does).
I sure hope you realize price gouging is possible because of the regulations that make competition slim
milk_manI sure hope you realize price gouging is possible because of the regulations that make competition slim
I hope you realize that the healthcare system before Obamacare made health coverage unaffordable for nearly 50 million Americans. Seems pretty unChristian of you to be okay with that.
Charlie_KellyI hope you realize that the healthcare system before Obamacare made health coverage unaffordable for nearly 50 million Americans. Seems pretty unChristian of you to be okay with that.
I hope you realize that even before Obamacare we have literally the same problem that we have now. O care is irrelevant.
milk_manI hope you realize that even before Obamacare we have literally the same problem that we have now. O care is irrelevant.
ummm, no. 20 million people are now covered by insurance that weren't....and now insurance is now required to cover the 10 essential health benefits, and there is no longer a cap on insurance coverage. huge steps. ACA has a lot of faults but you are nitpicking the wrong ones dude
Profahoben_212ummm, no. 20 million people are now covered by insurance that weren't....and now insurance is now required to cover the 10 essential health benefits, and there is no longer a cap on insurance coverage. huge steps. ACA has a lot of faults but you are nitpicking the wrong ones dude
I literally never said anything about Obamacare dude, I said Obamacare is irrelevant to our specific conversation lol
Profahoben_212You stated that prior to ACA we were having these same issues.. I was stating that Obama care did make massive strides in providing care to people.
I agree with you on the money/financing side. I don't know much about that, but it seems fucked.
Yessir but I'm not talking about how many people are getting care, I'm talking about the efficiency and therefore pricing and quality of the system. It's absurd, it was absurd and it still is. Nothing changed in that way
TheDoughAbidesAre you fucking kidding dude? You really think the assholes at the helm of the healthcare industry really give a fuck about the quality of your care or the amount of money you have left over after said care has been administered? To them, you and I just more sucker that will unknowingly (or at least unwillingly) help pay for their second ski-in/ski-out. I will never understand why conservatives contort themselves into bootlicking puppets under a few anarcho-capitalistic sociopaths.
**This post was edited on Oct 4th 2017 at 3:50:38pm
Make it their 4th or 5th ski in -ski out. The whole idea that deregulatory policy changes will help anyone other than the top .01% is ludicrous. These guys are just cashing in on Citizens United and getting every regulation slashed that they can. For anyone who doesn't know, Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission was a supreme court case that basically allowed corporate interests unlimited power to donate money to political causes under the guise of "free speech." From wikipedia: "The United States Supreme Court held (5–4) on January 21, 2010 that freedom of speech prohibits the government from restricting independent political expenditures by nonprofit corporations, for-profit corporations, labor unions, and other associations." Basically that now means people like the Koch Brothers (or anyone on the other side of the aisle) can donate as much money as possible to any political causes they wish. How they've been doing it is setting up tax free "philanthropic non-profits" that specialize in "education" or "political theory." They then donate to the non-profits that they control, paying no taxes on them, and use the funds to pay for lobbyists, "grass roots" political movements (think tea-party), and running think tanks that push a far right, pro-fossil fuel agenda.
I've read a lot about the subject but the thing is bartending in Jackson Hole I deal with these people every day. They come in from their multi-million dollar homes on the golf courses (usually one of several vacation/golf homes across the country, not including wherever they actually live), and get hammered and harass the cute waitresses and say blatantly racist ignorant shit all while bragging how much money they just donated to the Koch's network and how they saw him speak at the last "American's for Prosperity" conference that costs 2 million to attend. Of course espousing christian values and pro-life sound bites all while actively trying to fuck a chick who's 40-50 years younger than them. And they're all married!! Many of them often tip 6-8% when industry standard is 20, because, I already get paid, right? Why should they give me extra. We get paid 4 dollars an hour and tips make up the rest, but they have no fucking clue how the world works because they've lived their entire lives in board rooms and on golf courses and yacht clubs.
They are so far out of touch with the needs, realities and challenges of real American life. They love to push the self made man story, but most of them fucking inherited it! And don't pay any taxes on any of that money when it earns millions+ a year. Sure, some successful business men started in bad families and grind it all the way to the top, but unless you're a CEO you are not even in the ball park of what I'm talking about. People rail against the 1%, but thats only 250,000 a year. Honestly that's not a lot of money in modern day America if you think about putting several kids through college and owning a house big enough for a large family to live in.
If you think any of the people funding the far right these days give a FUCK about anyone who makes less than 500,000 a year you are completely delusional. They literally refer to you as the non-sophisticate and talk about how they need your support to pass their deregulatory agenda in order to save themselves more money, find more tax loopholes, and donate to tax deductible "philanthropic non-profits" that LITERALLY only fund their own lobbyists in Washington. If you're not like them then your lazy and its your own fault. Don't have healthcare? it's your fault and your lazy, regardless of the fact that employer offered care that is still expensive often will not cover anything you actually need.
Any conservative on this website, I challenge you to actually see what your party has become. You are being lied to and led to the slaughter. You are voting in direct conflict with your own interests. Yes, lower taxes and fewer regulations on small businesses could certainly help stimulate the economy, and yes we do want a dynamic free market to stimulate growth. However, the billionaires club at the top which has all of the political influence does not support a free market. They support themselves. They want every regulation that says they cannot do something destroyed. Most of those regulations (anti-trust, environmental, etc.) are to preserve the free market and prevent them from pillaging our public lands and polluting our rivers. It is support for corporate anarchy. Any rule against a corporation is a violation of their speech, it is an infringement of their rights, it is socialism and as such it should be destroyed. What a fucking joke, what about the rights of the employees you've poisoned in your mines, the towns whose children all have cancer because of your chemical factories, or the millions of livelihoods ruined by your financial crisis.
AMERICA WILL NOT BE FREE UNTIL CITIZEN'S UNITED IS REVERSED. Everyone who voted for Trump is voting for their own enslavement to the corporate oligarchs, and please enjoy Neil Gorsuch because he sure as shit will not be reversing the whole corporate money is free speech thing. Welcome to 21st century America you fucking serfs.
.MASSHOLE.That wonderful GOP Free-Market ideology at work here guys.
Incredibly fucked up representation of the GOP's current economic policy, not free market, but crony capitalism, the ancient bastion of corruption. There are cheaper alternatives all over the place, but they want to protect their buddies. For example I can opt to buy 100% green from my utility company for basically the same price because its a hippy co-op in Idaho. But that will hurt coal/gas powered base load and in turn hurt the GOP's darling extractive industries, so it is exactly the type of grassroots consumption discretion they are trying to stop with this sort of regulation.
Simply one of many ridiculous hypocrisies being foisted on the American people by the fossil fuel lobby aka the Republican party. "We absolutely cannot have all this regulation, its gouging the American people and making it impossible to run businesses! Cut the red tape! Drain the swamp! Oh wait, actually not for everything, just for everybody else. Not us or the corporations that fund our campaigns. Ok cool."
The dictionary definition of free market: an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses. Protecting traditional fossil fuel energy companies when green tech is emerging as the cheaper and more efficient option does nothing but protect the wallets of the donor class, hurt the buying power of the American public, and prolong a devastating practice of environmental degradation for the sake of the few.
I'm starting to see people on Facebook sharing crowdfunding pages to help victims of the Vegas shooting pay for their hospital bills, and I find this process as ironic as it is sad...
mikemacIncredibly fucked up representation of the GOP's current economic policy, not free market, but crony capitalism, the ancient bastion of corruption. There are cheaper alternatives all over the place, but they want to protect their buddies. For example I can opt to buy 100% green from my utility company for basically the same price because its a hippy co-op in Idaho. But that will hurt coal/gas powered base load and in turn hurt the GOP's darling extractive industries, so it is exactly the type of grassroots consumption discretion they are trying to stop with this sort of regulation.
Simply one of many ridiculous hypocrisies being foisted on the American people by the fossil fuel lobby aka the Republican party. "We absolutely cannot have all this regulation, its gouging the American people and making it impossible to run businesses! Cut the red tape! Drain the swamp! Oh wait, actually not for everything, just for everybody else. Not us or the corporations that fund our campaigns. Ok cool."
The dictionary definition of free market: an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses. Protecting traditional fossil fuel energy companies when green tech is emerging as the cheaper and more efficient option does nothing but protect the wallets of the donor class, hurt the buying power of the American public, and prolong a devastating practice of environmental degradation for the sake of the few.
FWIW, it is essential to have baseload power to support the reliability of electricity generation. The current system of subsidies we have set up to benefit and promote renewables pretty much fucks baseload generators other than natural gas. The reliability of baseload sources of power should be accounted for in their worth. As a supporter of nuclear power, I'm actually not opposed to this - it has the potential to be really good for the environment if it can draw more nuclear online.
.MASSHOLE.
This is more interesting than Manafort.
Manafort will finally be going down for his lifelong habit of scumbaggery, tax evasion, and taking money from despots and genocidal dictators. That is nothing but a good thing because FUCK that guy. He invented lobbying and for all the conservatives railing against "the swamp" this dude fucking invented it in the 80s so I sincerely hope he goes to jail and gets raped in the ass for the rest of his life (more likely he'll get house arrest in one of his mansions).
But you're right, the Papadopoulos story gets more into the whole collusion aspect, and once this little weasel cracks we'll know the truth. More likely than not the truth is that the entire team was outrageously corrupt and they all knew, all the way to the top. I truly believe that the whole Trump team bought the Clinton corruption bullshit from Fox News, so they thought they could do whatever they wanted and get away with it (just like OBAMA, very bad guy, very BAD! SAD!). Well turns out our institutions do still have some backbone. Trump is pushing every single institution at the core of the Republic to the absolute limit, and in the coming weeks all of Mueller's work as special counsel will serve as the litmus test for our system of checks and balances. Lets just hope we pass the test, because if we don't, it will result in the failure of the great American experiment.
