Post Archive

Region: The Confederacy of Free Nations

History

"Don't ask, Don't tell" was a good idea. I don't know why an individual's sexuality should be known while they're serving in the military.

Russkov Soviet wrote:Welcome back Comrade

I prefer the term Kameraden. Lol

Rofl I've walked in on the trans ban in the military. Wonderful.

The Empire Of Handland wrote:I prefer the term Kameraden. Lol

Of course.... mein Kameraden

The Empire Of Handland

Russkov Soviet wrote:Of course.... mein Kameraden

Always remember, viva Franco.

Russkov Soviet

Live Session debate on Sulania's bill soon. Have until 4 pm to show up if interested.

Vista Major, The United Providences Of Perland

Magnatronia wrote:Hey hey hey, since we're all rightists to some extent, would oughtta make some sort of alliance?

I have everything planned. I will contact you all when the poll closes, so that all rightists will be noted and telegramed.

I'm apparently the 3rd oldest NS account in the region.

Russkov Soviet, Jaslandia, Vista Major, The United Providences Of Perland

Neo-Icelandic Commonwealth wrote:Mentally ill people shouldn't be in the military

Better kick out the entire military then, PTSD, depression, and bi-polarism are the majority of the military.

Watching CSPAN to see if the healthcare bill will pass, Senators Heller (whom I'm not going to be voting for after this) and McCain already voted no.

Disappointing.

The United Providences Of Perland

Neo-Icelandic Commonwealth wrote:Mentally ill people shouldn't be in the military

*rolls eyes*

Auxorii wrote:"Don't ask, Don't tell" was a good idea. I don't know why an individual's sexuality should be known while they're serving in the military.

The 'Don't ask' part was fine; it's the 'Don't tell' part that was the problem.

The United Providences Of Perland

Jaslandia wrote:

The 'Don't ask' part was fine; it's the 'Don't tell' part that was the problem.

Don't tell people your sexuality because it can make people uncomfortable. Wow, what a horrible bill.

Auxorii wrote:Watching CSPAN to see if the healthcare bill will pass, Senators Heller (whom I'm not going to be voting for after this) and McCain already voted no.

Disappointing.

I despise this bill, let it die.

Jaslandia, Friedensreich

Auxorii wrote:Don't tell people your sexuality because it can make people uncomfortable. Wow, what a horrible bill.

The constitution and the law forbids discrimination, pardon me for siding with our laws.

Jaslandia

Auxorii wrote:Don't tell people your sexuality because it can make people uncomfortable. Wow, what a horrible bill.

That should be a personal choice, not an official policy where you have to hide who you are in order to serve your country.

Auxorii wrote:Watching CSPAN to see if the healthcare bill will pass, Senators Heller (whom I'm not going to be voting for after this) and McCain already voted no.

Disappointing.

Keep in mind, this is the 'repeal and delay for two years' bill, which basically everyone agrees is a terrible idea. The later votes will be what really matters.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/senate-vote-health-care/

Onocarcass wrote:I'm apparently the 3rd oldest NS account in the region.

Define "oldest". And where did you determine that?

The United Providences Of Perland wrote:Better kick out the entire military then, PTSD, depression, and bi-polarism are the majority of the military.

I agree

The United Providences Of Perland

Cesorion wrote:I have everything planned. I will contact you all when the poll closes, so that all rightists will be noted and telegramed.

Leave us isolationists alone.

Yukona

#UniversalHealthcare

#ChristianSocialiamFTW

Jaslandia

Post self-deleted by The Empire Of Handland.

Neo-Icelandic Commonwealth wrote:I agree

FVKICNG, GENIUS

Neo-Icelandic Commonwealth

The United Providences Of Perland wrote:The constitution and the law forbids discrimination, pardon me for siding with our laws.

Where does the constitution forbid discrimination?

Jaslandia wrote:That should be a personal choice, not an official policy where you have to hide who you are in order to serve your country.

Keep in mind, this is the 'repeal and delay for two years' bill, which basically everyone agrees is a terrible idea. The later votes will be what really matters.

It should be a personal choice. That's why the military shouldn't be covering hormone treatment and sex change operations.

I don't. Repeal Obamacare and don't replace it.

Neo-Icelandic Commonwealth

Auxorii wrote:Where does the constitution forbid discrimination?

It should be a personal choice. That's why the military shouldn't be covering hormone treatment and sex change operations.

I don't. Repeal Obamacare and don't replace it.

The SC has determined the 14th amendment protects against discrimination in general I believe. But at the very least, there are about four large anti-discrimination laws.

Anyone here actually in the military?

Russkov Soviet wrote:Define "oldest". And where did you determine that?

Population can give a good estimate, but it says exactly when a Nation was formed if you search them on NS forums.

Mine was formed on July 18th of 2011.

Yours was formed on April 6th of 2013.

Russkov Soviet, The United Providences Of Perland

Auxorii wrote:

1. It should be a personal choice. That's why the military shouldn't be covering hormone treatment and sex change operations.

2. I don't. Repeal Obamacare and don't replace it.

1. That (whether the military should pay for the cost of transitioning) is an issue I'm still uncertain of, but if a person has already transitioned to their preferred gender, or are identifying with a different gender but are able to stay in their biological gender during their service, they should be allowed to serve.

2. You can't be serious? Basically all the stats and figures show America's healthcare system pre-Obamacare sucked, was the worst in the developed world in terms of cost, and our treatment quality was the same or maybe a little bit worse compared to other nations. We need to do something.

The Empire Of Handland wrote:Anyone here actually in the military?

Iceland doesn't have a military

Neo-Icelandic Commonwealth wrote:Iceland doesn't have a military

Well it wasn't really directed to Non Americans. Sorry champ.

Jaslandia wrote:1. That (whether the military should pay for the cost of transitioning) is an issue I'm still uncertain of, but if a person has already transitioned to their preferred gender, or are identifying with a different gender but are able to stay in their biological gender during their service, they should be allowed to serve.

2. You can't be serious? Basically all the stats and figures show America's healthcare system pre-Obamacare sucked, was the worst in the developed world in terms of cost, and our treatment quality was the same or maybe a little bit worse compared to other nations. We need to do something.

Plus Obamacare has uh.... proven to work, soooooo.....

Jaslandia

Friedensreich wrote:Plus Obamacare has uh.... proven to work, soooooo.....

At the very least, it's a lot better than what we had before. Obamacare still has a few kinks to work out, and I think a universal healthcare/single-payer system would work better, but I don't see that happening in the U.S. any time soon.

Friedensreich

Onocarcass wrote:Population can give a good estimate, but it says exactly when a Nation was formed if you search them on NS forums.

Mine was formed on July 18th of 2011.

Yours was formed on April 6th of 2013.

Ah. I see. xD

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=peoples_liberation_republic/detail=factbook/id=859982

check it out. If any of you are interested in purchasing PLR weapons, especially missile systems and missile defense systems then please TG me with what you would like. I have countless other military factbooks if you are looking for something in particular to purchase from the PLR.

The United Providences Of Perland

The Empire Of Handland wrote:Anyone here actually in the military?

Neo-Icelandic Commonwealth wrote:Iceland doesn't have a military

The Empire Of Handland wrote:Well it wasn't really directed to Non Americans. Sorry champ.

Take note, Ice. You only qualify as "anyone" if you're American, apparently.

Neo-Icelandic Commonwealth

Friedensreich wrote:Plus Obamacare has uh.... proven to work, soooooo.....

What planet are you on? It hasn't worked for the ten million people who got kicked off of their healthcare plans, or the 70% of counties that have just one or two choices of health insurer, or the hundreds of insurers that are pulling out of the system. The mortality rate has increased and life expectancy reduced for the first time since the 1930s under Obamacare. Premiums, deductibles and copays have all skyrocketed. Obamacare has been a disaster and leftists can't even defend it. Literally the only 'positive' statistic to come out of the ACA has been an increase in the number of insured, which isn't exactly hard to do when you force people to buy insurance. The insurance market is collapsing and everyone knows it. Obamacare has failed horrendously.

Neo-Icelandic Commonwealth

Jaslandia wrote:2. You can't be serious? Basically all the stats and figures show America's healthcare system pre-Obamacare sucked, was the worst in the developed world in terms of cost, and our treatment quality was the same or maybe a little bit worse compared to other nations. We need to do something.

"Doctor, this man has a brain tumour that requires urgent care."

"My God, we have to save him! Nurse, hand me my gun."

"Uh... why?"

"If we shoot him in the head, we'll destroy the tumour!"

Government has ravaged the healthcare system by systematically subsidising demand and repressing supply. Medicare, Medicaid, COBRA, the AMA, state lines, and many, many other things have made the US healthcare system extraordinarily expensive and inefficient. The solution isn't more government, but in fact less government. https://mises.org/blog/fix-healthcare-we-need-repeal-lot-more-obamacare

Jaslandia wrote:1. That (whether the military should pay for the cost of transitioning) is an issue I'm still uncertain of, but if a person has already transitioned to their preferred gender, or are identifying with a different gender but are able to stay in their biological gender during their service, they should be allowed to serve.

2. You can't be serious? Basically all the stats and figures show America's healthcare system pre-Obamacare sucked, was the worst in the developed world in terms of cost, and our treatment quality was the same or maybe a little bit worse compared to other nations. We need to do something.

1. No, they shouldn't. It is a personal surgery and it should not be the military's money to spend, the money belongs to hard working Americans.

2. A free market would be more than exceptional at providing the best quality healthcare and the lowest cost. Free market or single-payer.

The United Providences Of Perland wrote:The SC has determined the 14th amendment protects against discrimination in general I believe. But at the very least, there are about four large anti-discrimination laws.

Okay, and?

The Empire Of Handland wrote:Anyone here actually in the military?

I'm a recruit for the Nevada Army National Guard.

Auxorii wrote:Don't tell people your sexuality because it can make people uncomfortable. Wow, what a horrible bill.

And, as we all know, it is the government's most sacred task to ban anything and everything that makes other people uncomfortable.

For that matter, let's immediately kick out anyone whose sexuality is shared. A man mentions he has a wife? Kicked out. A woman doesn't shield her letter to her boyfriend from her colleagues when she writes "Love and miss you"? Kicked out.

Jaslandia, The United Providences Of Perland

Continental Commonwealths wrote:And, as we all know, it is the government's most sacred task to ban anything and everything that makes other people uncomfortable.

For that matter, let's immediately kick out anyone whose sexuality is shared. A man mentions he has a wife? Kicked out. A woman doesn't shield her letter to her boyfriend from her colleagues when she writes "Love and miss you"? Kicked out.

In the military, they should be focused soley on defending the United States. So, yes.

Strawman. Sexuality wasn't allowed to be discussed. Not partners, etcetera

Parliament Notice:

Two new bills are up for debate in the parliament! Go check them out now.

Signed,

Perland

Deputy Speaker of Parliament

Oelesa, Penguania And Antarctica

Nuevo Pevvania wrote:What planet are you on?

1) It hasn't worked for the ten million people who got kicked off of their healthcare plans, or the 70% of counties that have just one or two choices of health insurer, or the hundreds of insurers that are pulling out of the system.

2) The mortality rate has increased and life expectancy reduced for the first time since the 1930s under Obamacare.

3) Premiums, deductibles and copays have all skyrocketed. Obamacare has been a disaster and leftists can't even defend it.

Planet Earth? Damn, I didn't know you didn't know that.

Anyway, let's break this down:

1) Good job at taking numbers at face value and not understanding the reasoning why!

Here's the reasoning behind that for you:

"Millions aren’t eligible for coverage under the law because they’re not in the U.S. legally. Another 3 million are in the so-called “Medicaid gap,” meaning they would be eligible for Medicaid under the ACA except their states opted not to accept the expansion after the Supreme Court effectively ruled the expansion optional."

So, you can blame illegal immigration and states generally being stubborn for this number, not the bill itself.

2) What planet are you on?

Again, oh my God I can't make up the hilarity of this up, but the mortality rate increase isn't because of Obamacare. The rise in mortality rates is from an increase in auto fatalities, homicides, suicides, and overdoses. Good job for once again accepting a number at face value and not understanding the reasons behind it.

"Life expectancy in the United States fell last year for the first time since 1993, as a record high was seen in deaths from drug overdoses, along with disturbing spikes in car crash fatalities, and gun-related homicides and suicides."

Notice that the above quote says 1993, not 1930. So your attempt at shocking people is obviously a lie!

3) Just going to leave this here:

"Yet for those buying insurance on an exchange or private market plan for 2017, the average increase before subsidies was a shocking 25 percent. For 2016 among the roughly 85 percent of HealthCare.gov consumers with premium tax credits, the average monthly net premium increased just $4, or 4 percent, from 2015 to 2016, according to an HHS report."

So you can bitch and moan about the ACA being too expensive and premiums rising, but let us not forget that the grass ain't greener on the private side.

I mean, 25% increase in one year? There goes your romanticized "affordable private insurance" man.

And, I would like to close this out by reminding you that, once again, nothing is perfect. And until I see a better alternative coming along, I'm going to accept the ACA- not only because it allows low income families like mine to afford to get their medication and see the physician- but because it's better than what was around before it was established.

Jaslandia

Auxorii wrote:In the military, they should be focused soley on defending the United States. So, yes.

Strawman. Sexuality wasn't allowed to be discussed. Not partners, etcetera

Almost as though the discussion or even implication of romantic and, dare I say it, sexual partners implies sexuality.

Do you always look at the world through a paper towel roll? It can't be good for your eyes. All that squinting until the world blurs enough to mesh with your particular brand of arbitrary alignment. I suppose it calms that nagging cognitive dissonance, though.

Jaslandia, Friedensreich

Nuevo Pevvania wrote:"Doctor, this man has a brain tumour that requires urgent care."

"My God, we have to save him! Nurse, hand me my gun."

"Uh... why?"

"If we shoot him in the head, we'll destroy the tumour!"

Government has ravaged the healthcare system by systematically subsidising demand and repressing supply. Medicare, Medicaid, COBRA, the AMA, state lines, and many, many other things have made the US healthcare system extraordinarily expensive and inefficient. The solution isn't more government, but in fact less government. https://mises.org/blog/fix-healthcare-we-need-repeal-lot-more-obamacare

I'm not sure if supply and demand really plays a role here, since healthcare is different beast altogether: People can't shop around for hospitals in an emergency, and a person doesn't really have a choice in whether to get healthcare or not. Because of this, companies have raised the prices of medical devices and procedures to an absurdly high rate, and since the individual consumers can't negotiate, no one can stop those high prices. That's why universal healthcare would work (and has worked in countries all over the world): The national healthcare system is able to negotiate by offering contracts to providers with the lowest prices. Thus, the consumers pay less.

Friedensreich

Continental Commonwealths wrote:Almost as though the discussion or even implication of romantic and, dare I say it, sexual partners implies sexuality.

Do you always look at the world through a paper towel roll? It can't be good for your eyes. All that squinting until the world blurs enough to mesh with your particular brand of arbitrary alignment. I suppose it calms that nagging cognitive dissonance, though.

It does. However, it doesn't violate 'don't ask, don't tell'

Good argument.

Friedensreich wrote:Planet Earth? Damn, I didn't know you didn't know that.

Anyway, let's break this down:

1) Good job at taking numbers at face value and not understanding the reasoning why!

Here's the reasoning behind that for you:

"Millions aren’t eligible for coverage under the law because they’re not in the U.S. legally. Another 3 million are in the so-called “Medicaid gap,” meaning they would be eligible for Medicaid under the ACA except their states opted not to accept the expansion after the Supreme Court effectively ruled the expansion optional."

So, you can blame illegal immigration and states generally being stubborn for this number, not the bill itself.

Nice, blame the Republicans, always a good dodge. The Supreme Court should have gone further and ruled Medicaid unconstitutional, because it is and all federal healthcare programs are. Nowhere in the Constitution is there allocated power for a federal welfare program of any kind. And before you jump to muh general welfare clause, that and the other parts of the preamble can only be applied when tied to one of the enumerated powers. James Madison would be horrified at the current welfare-warfare state we've developed. (Also, Medicaid is bad for a whole host of other reasons that I could spend pages talking about, but the only stat you need to know is that you're more likely to die being on Medicaid than not having freaking insurance.

Friedensreich wrote:2) What planet are you on?

Again, oh my God I can't make up the hilarity of this up, but the mortality rate increase isn't because of Obamacare. The rise in mortality rates is from an increase in auto fatalities, homicides, suicides, and overdoses. Good job for once again accepting a number at face value and not understanding the reasons behind it.

"Life expectancy in the United States fell last year for the first time since 1993, as a record high was seen in deaths from drug overdoses, along with disturbing spikes in car crash fatalities, and gun-related homicides and suicides."

Notice that the above quote says 1993, not 1930. So your attempt at shocking people is obviously a lie!

Nice, except none of that's true.

"What happens when we calculate the death rate after excluding all external causes of morbidity (ICD-10 codes for deaths caused by drugs, alcohol, assault, suicide, and accidents — in short, anything that is not due to an internal illness)? For the decade 2004-2013, the death rate is 247.4 people per 100,000 population. It is more stable than the all-cause death rate, with a low of 244.7, a high of 249.9, and a standard deviation of 1.7.

With Obamacare extending insurance to 15 million more people, this death rate should fall to 238 per 100,000. The 2014-15 data show the actual reported death rate among U.S. adults, excluding external causes, is … 252.9."

http://www.dailywire.com/news/15801/obama-lied-people-died-mortality-rate-increases-john-nolte#

I stand corrected on the 1930s statistic, but apart from that, yes, internal illnesses have killed more people under Obamacare. The only people that have benefitted from it are the insurance lobbyists that wrote it and saw their profits double between 2008 and 2016. Congratulations, great job.

3

Friedensreich wrote:) Just going to leave this here:

"Yet for those buying insurance on an exchange or private market plan for 2017, the average increase before subsidies was a shocking 25 percent. For 2016 among the roughly 85 percent of HealthCare.gov consumers with premium tax credits, the average monthly net premium increased just $4, or 4 percent, from 2015 to 2016, according to an HHS report."

So you can bitch and moan about the ACA being too expensive and premiums rising, but let us not forget that the grass ain't greener on the private side.

I mean, 25% increase in one year? There goes your romanticized "affordable private insurance" man.

And, I would like to close this out by reminding you that, once again, nothing is perfect. And until I see a better alternative coming along, I'm going to accept the ACA- not only because it allows low income families like mine to afford to get their medication and see the physician- but because it's better than what was around before it was established.

You lack a fundamental understanding of healthcare in America: it's not private. Private in name only, perhaps. The US government spends the most as a percentage of GDP on healthcare in the world. The health insurance 'market' either pre- or post-Obamacare is absurdly regulated and beholden to special interests. Monopolies and monopsonies dominate the industry in dozens of states. Get rid of all the regulations, mandates, taxes and programs and you'd see a colossal increase in supply, reduction in costs and subsequent reduction in prices. Perhaps the only issue with privatising healthcare in the US is that prices would come down so much, there'd be less incentive for insurers to compete. My evidence to support this claim? The CBO estimated that the current Obamacare repeal bill, which just repeals most of Obamacare, expands HSAs and restructures Medicaid - leaving most government controls of healthcare untouched - would reduce premiums by between 5 and 30% by 2027. That's astronomical. When was the last time premiums came down even just a little bit? Off the top of my head, it was a few years in the late 90s. But since the creation of Medicaid and Medicare in the 60s there's scarcely been any extended period where healthcare costs have gone down.

It's unfortunate, because cases like the ACA are what happens all over the world. Government gets involved in a market, and as a result, bad things happen. People cry for more government to fix the problem, and the problem gets worse, leading to total domination and or nationalisation of the market. The ACA was a trojan horse for single-payer the whole time. Written in the dark and intentionally so in order to deceive Americans, it's a terrible, unconstitutional law that's dying a violent death, and taking millions of Americans down with it.

Neo-Icelandic Commonwealth

Just a kindly non-threatening post passing by

Jaslandia, Tserra

Nuevo Pevvania wrote:Written in the dark and intentionally so in order to deceive Americans

I would just like to point out that the process of writing the ACA/Obamacare was much more transparent and open than the repeal bill you're praising.

http://www.snopes.com/aca-versus-ahca/

Nuevo Pevvania wrote:The CBO estimated that the current Obamacare repeal bill, which just repeals most of Obamacare, expands HSAs and restructures Medicaid - leaving most government controls of healthcare untouched - would reduce premiums by between 5 and 30% by 2027.

"Average premiums in the nongroup market (for individual policies purchased through the marketplaces or directly from insurers) would increase by roughly 25 percent—relative to projections under current law—in 2018. The increase would reach about 50 percent in 2020, and premiums would about double by 2026."

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52939

Jaslandia wrote:I'm not sure if supply and demand really plays a role here, since healthcare is different beast altogether: People can't shop around for hospitals in an emergency, and a person doesn't really have a choice in whether to get healthcare or not. Because of this, companies have raised the prices of medical devices and procedures to an absurdly high rate, and since the individual consumers can't negotiate, no one can stop those high prices. That's why universal healthcare would work (and has worked in countries all over the world): The national healthcare system is able to negotiate by offering contracts to providers with the lowest prices. Thus, the consumers pay less.

News flash: supply and demand play a role in everything. Labour, services, raw materials, education, healthcare - everything. The first rule of economics is that resources will always be scarce. The second rule is that a free market pricing mechanism is the most efficient way to allocate resources. Why should this be different with healthcare? Government healthcare only 'works' in market economies because they can be sustained by, well, market economies. This doesn't mean that these will be able to go on forever, far from it. In the UK, our 70+ year old National Health Service is beginning to collapse, because when government provides anything for "free", it is always over consumed. The Nordic countries, too, have had to privatise, cut and deregulate many of their government programs over the past 25 years because they almost brought their economies to collapse in the early 90s.

Nevertheless, America is more or less the wealthiest nation in the world and has advanced at a greater pace than almost all other industrialised nations* in no small part due to its unwillingness to nationalise healthcare and other industries.

*Except Norway, which has boundless supplies of oil, no minimum wage laws, a great regulatory regimen and free trade policies.

Neo-Icelandic Commonwealth

http://i.imgur.com/OInOggh.png

Dark Green > Light Green > Yellow > Orange > Light Red > Dark Red > Black

In terms of how much I'd want to visit these places.

Onocarcass wrote:http://i.imgur.com/OInOggh.png

Dark Green > Light Green > Yellow > Orange > Light Red > Dark Red > Black

In terms of how much I'd want to visit these places.

Why do you not want to visit France?

Friedensreich wrote:Planet Earth? Damn, I didn't know you didn't know that.

Anyway, let's break this down:

1) Good job at taking numbers at face value and not understanding the reasoning why!

Here's the reasoning behind that for you:

"Millions aren’t eligible for coverage under the law because they’re not in the U.S. legally. Another 3 million are in the so-called “Medicaid gap,” meaning they would be eligible for Medicaid under the ACA except their states opted not to accept the expansion after the Supreme Court effectively ruled the expansion optional."

So, you can blame illegal immigration and states generally being stubborn for this number, not the bill itself.

2) What planet are you on?

Again, oh my God I can't make up the hilarity of this up, but the mortality rate increase isn't because of Obamacare. The rise in mortality rates is from an increase in auto fatalities, homicides, suicides, and overdoses. Good job for once again accepting a number at face value and not understanding the reasons behind it.

"Life expectancy in the United States fell last year for the first time since 1993, as a record high was seen in deaths from drug overdoses, along with disturbing spikes in car crash fatalities, and gun-related homicides and suicides."

Notice that the above quote says 1993, not 1930. So your attempt at shocking people is obviously a lie!

3) Just going to leave this here:

"Yet for those buying insurance on an exchange or private market plan for 2017, the average increase before subsidies was a shocking 25 percent. For 2016 among the roughly 85 percent of HealthCare.gov consumers with premium tax credits, the average monthly net premium increased just $4, or 4 percent, from 2015 to 2016, according to an HHS report."

So you can bitch and moan about the ACA being too expensive and premiums rising, but let us not forget that the grass ain't greener on the private side.

I mean, 25% increase in one year? There goes your romanticized "affordable private insurance" man.

And, I would like to close this out by reminding you that, once again, nothing is perfect. And until I see a better alternative coming along, I'm going to accept the ACA- not only because it allows low income families like mine to afford to get their medication and see the physician- but because it's better than what was around before it was established.

Continental Commonwealths wrote:Almost as though the discussion or even implication of romantic and, dare I say it, sexual partners implies sexuality.

Do you always look at the world through a paper towel roll? It can't be good for your eyes. All that squinting until the world blurs enough to mesh with your particular brand of arbitrary alignment. I suppose it calms that nagging cognitive dissonance, though.

Now children, let's not let this get outta hand. Seriously let's keep it civil.

Jaslandia, Andromitus, Nuevo Pevvania

Jaslandia wrote:I would just like to point out that the process of writing the ACA/Obamacare was much more transparent and open than the repeal bill you're praising.

http://www.snopes.com/aca-versus-ahca/

Snopes, how unbiased.

This is patently false. Not a single member of Congress read the full text of the ACA because they were unable to. It was written by lobbyists, was available to read for only 24 hours before the vote, and is over a thousand pages long. Don't tell me that the Republican bill has been less transparent. It was roughly 200 pages long and Senators had a week to read it.

Some choice quotes from Democrats on this:

"We have to pass the bill to see what's in it" - Nancy Pelosi

"Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. Call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically, that was really, really critical for the thing to pass." - Jonathan Gruber

"An individual mandate for healthcare is like mandating the homeless to buy a house" - Senator Barack Obama, 2008

Neo-Icelandic Commonwealth

Mesopotamia-Kurdistan wrote:Why do you not want to visit France?

I haven't really seen or learned anything about France that interests me.

Mesopotamia-Kurdistan wrote:"Average premiums in the nongroup market (for individual policies purchased through the marketplaces or directly from insurers) would increase by roughly 25 percent—relative to projections under current law—in 2018. The increase would reach about 50 percent in 2020, and premiums would about double by 2026."

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52939

Dude, this is out-of-pocket costs, i.e. buying insurance directly. This has been absurdly expensive since the war when the IRS introduced a special employer tax credit. It'll take a lot more than Obamacare repeal to make this come down. Getting rid of the tax credit would be a good start.

Unbiased America's analysis of the CBO report said that average premiums would come down by between 5% and 30% by 2027.

Magnatronia wrote:Now children, let's not let this get outta hand. Seriously let's keep it civil.

Of course, I'm always civil.

"The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

Neo-Icelandic Commonwealth

Onocarcass wrote:http://i.imgur.com/OInOggh.png

Dark Green > Light Green > Yellow > Orange > Light Red > Dark Red > Black

In terms of how much I'd want to visit these places.

The USA is such a dark green, this optical illusion makes you think its purple!

'Murica

But I do agree with you that Australia would be an interesting place to visit, thats one nation I'd adore to visit

The United Providences Of Perland

Nuevo Pevvania wrote:Of course, I'm always civil.

"The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

LOL, a conservative calling a liberal ignorant lol. Conservatives are renown for bigotry.

Andromitus wrote:The USA is such a dark green, this optical illusion makes you think its purple!

'Murica

But I do agree with you that Australia would be an interesting place to visit, thats one nation I'd adore to visit

I just realized that I forgot about Burundi

Andromitus

Nuevo Pevvania wrote:Dude, this is out-of-pocket costs, i.e. buying insurance directly. This has been absurdly expensive since the war when the IRS introduced a special employer tax credit. It'll take a lot more than Obamacare repeal to make this come down. Getting rid of the tax credit would be a good start.

Unbiased America's analysis of the CBO report said that average premiums would come down by between 5% and 30% by 2027.

Sorry for not seeing that. I am more tired than usual today.

"In 2020, average premiums for benchmark plans for single individuals would be about 30 percent lower than under current law. A combination of factors would lead to that decrease—most important, the smaller share of benefits paid for by the benchmark plans and federal funds provided to directly reduce premiums."

Doesn't that quote from the CBO's more detailed document disprove your point that government intervention in healthcare doesn't end up too well?

Nuevo Pevvania wrote:Of course, I'm always civil.

He knows, just a friendly reminder to ya filthy cappie heathens

Jaslandia, Nuevo Pevvania

Magnatronia wrote:Now children, let's not let this get outta hand. Seriously let's keep it civil.

I worry that, as further evidenced by your suppression spree yesterday, you mistake civility for calm and conformity. From what I've seen, there has been no name calling, threats, or attemps to enact discrimination.

Disagreements, alternative views, and critiques, yes. All of which can be done with bolded text, exclamation marks, and facetiousness while still remaining civil. This NationStates, afterall; very much a place where people of differing backgrounds and ideologies come together to discuss, debate, and challenge.

Jaslandia, Clemodecralia

Post self-deleted by Nuevo Pevvania.

The United Providences Of Perland wrote:LOL, a conservative calling a liberal ignorant lol. Conservatives are renown for bigotry.

First of all, I didn't call liberals ignorant, quite the opposite. I have many very intelligent, funny, loving liberal friends.

And I'm not a conservative, buddy. But nice ad hominem-straw man sandwich nonetheless.

Clemodecralia, Neo-Icelandic Commonwealth

Onocarcass wrote:http://i.imgur.com/OInOggh.png

Dark Green > Light Green > Yellow > Orange > Light Red > Dark Red > Black

In terms of how much I'd want to visit these places.

You'd rather visit Afghanistan and Sudan than France? What do you have against France?

Nuevo Pevvania wrote:Snopes, how unbiased.

This is patently false. Not a single member of Congress read the full text of the ACA because they were unable to. It was written by lobbyists, was available to read for only 24 hours before the vote, and is over a thousand pages long. Don't tell me that the Republican bill has been less transparent. It was roughly 200 pages long and Senators had a week to read it.

Some choice quotes from Democrats on this:

"We have to pass the bill to see what's in it" - Nancy Pelosi

"Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. Call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically, that was really, really critical for the thing to pass." - Jonathan Gruber

"An individual mandate for healthcare is like mandating the homeless to buy a house" - Senator Barack Obama, 2008

Snopes is a reliable source. They cite their sources and show where their information is coming from, and they've received frequent praise.

And the repeal bill you're praising? People couldn't read that because changes were made mere few hours before the senators were due to vote on it. Laws in general are long, because policy is complicated and Congress has to put in a lot of procedural or legalese stuff, so this stuff about 200 pages doesn't hold water. At least Obamacare had public hearings.

And I doubt you'll care, but all those quotes are taken out of context.

http://www.snopes.com/pelosi-healthcare-pass-the-bill-to-see-what-is-in-it/ (She was really trying to say: "We need to pass the bill to know it's full effects.")

http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/gruber.asp (He apologized for his comments, saying he spoke inappropriately)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2017/07/22/cbo-three-fourths-of-coverage-difference-between-obamacare-gop-bills-driven-by-individual-mandate/#3ad250053627 (Real quote, but that was before the CBO informed Obama that Obamacare couldn't survive without an individual mandate)

Mesopotamia-Kurdistan wrote:Sorry for not seeing that. I am more tired than usual today.

"In 2020, average premiums for benchmark plans for single individuals would be about 30 percent lower than under current law. A combination of factors would lead to that decrease—most important, the smaller share of benefits paid for by the benchmark plans and federal funds provided to directly reduce premiums."

Doesn't that quote from the CBO's more detailed document disprove your point that government intervention in healthcare doesn't end up too well?

Apparently so, but connecting government spending to lower costs is puzzling, nonetheless. I haven't read the brief - does it go into detail about how that would reduce premiums? Because 50-odd years of rampant spending hasn't done the job too well so far.

The United Providences Of Perland wrote:LOL, a conservative calling a liberal ignorant lol. Conservatives are renown for bigotry.

I don't think you should use rhetoric like that. It doesn't contribute to a healthy debate, and when you imply someone's side is bigoted, you're just opening up the door to escalation. Tone it done.

Jaslandia, Andromitus, Magnatronia, Nuevo Pevvania, Neo-Icelandic Commonwealth

Continental Commonwealths wrote:I worry that, as further evidenced by your suppression spree yesterday, you mistake civility for calm and conformity. From what I've seen, there has been no name calling, threats, or attemps to enact discrimination.

Disagreements, alternative views, and critiques, yes. All of which can be done with bolded text, exclamation marks, and facetiousness while still remaining civil. This NationStates, afterall; very much a place where people of differing backgrounds and ideologies come together to discuss, debate, and challenge.

Are you questioning my authority?

Nah I'm just kidding I gotchu dude. I talked it out with RCP yesterday and we came to an agreement. I was just reminding everyone to keep the debate civil as it was.

Jaslandia

Republic City Police wrote:I don't think you should use rhetoric like that. It doesn't contribute to a healthy debate, and when you imply someone's side is bigoted, you're just opening up the door to escalation. Tone it done.

Ditto.

Jaslandia

Political terms in America are such a mess. The label liberal only applies to social liberals and social democrats, so market liberals have adopted the term libertarian to describe themselves, even though there are many types of libertarianism that are left-wing. And Americans seem to think that liberals and conservatives are completely opposed to each other, even though American conservatives are liberal conservatives, believing in the liberal principles of representative democracy and the rule of law.

Jaslandia, Nuevo Pevvania, Neo-Icelandic Commonwealth

Jaslandia wrote:Snopes is a reliable source. They cite their sources and show where their information is coming from, and they've received frequent praise.

It's a reliable source for liberals wanting to confirm their biases. It's run by leftists and produces left-leaning content, and has been caught doing so many times before. It's received praise from the rest of the establishment media - which is, funnily enough, run by leftists. Go figure.

Jaslandia wrote:And the repeal bill you're praising? People couldn't read that because changes were made mere few hours before the senators were due to vote on it. Laws in general are long, because policy is complicated and Congress has to put in a lot of procedural or legalese stuff, so this stuff about 200 pages doesn't hold water. At least Obamacare had public hearings.

Point taken, I have criticisms of the repeal bill like anyone else, but I don't think we can find a more hastily cobbled together, widely misunderstood law than the PPACA.

Jaslandia wrote:And I doubt you'll care, but all those quotes are taken out of context.

http://www.snopes.com/pelosi-healthcare-pass-the-bill-to-see-what-is-in-it/ (She was really trying to say: "We need to pass the bill to know it's full effects.")

http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/gruber.asp (He apologized for his comments, saying he spoke inappropriately)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2017/07/22/cbo-three-fourths-of-coverage-difference-between-obamacare-gop-bills-driven-by-individual-mandate/#3ad250053627 (Real quote, but that was before the CBO informed Obama that Obamacare couldn't survive without an individual mandate)

Nancy Pelosi isn't known for speaking well. Gruber had to apologise because there was a national uproar.

Neo-Icelandic Commonwealth

Mesopotamia-Kurdistan wrote:Political terms in America are such a mess. The label liberal only applies to social liberals and social democrats, so market liberals have adopted the term libertarian to describe themselves, even though there are many types of libertarianism that are left-wing. And Americans seem to think that liberals and conservatives are completely opposed to each other, even though American conservatives are liberal conservatives, believing in the liberal principles of representative democracy and the rule of law.

Indeed, they're much simpler in Europe. I suppose I'd consider myself a liberal in the original sense, not that it means much anymore.

The United Providences Of Perland

Nuevo Pevvania wrote:First of all, I didn't call liberals ignorant, quite the opposite. I have many very intelligent, funny, loving liberal friends.

And I'm not a conservative, buddy. But nice ad hominem-straw man sandwich nonetheless.

Sounded like an insult to me *shrug*

Republic City Police wrote:I don't think you should use rhetoric like that. It doesn't contribute to a healthy debate, and when you imply someone's side is bigoted, you're just opening up the door to escalation. Tone it done.

Yes officer, but in fairness he insulted me first.

Jaslandia wrote:You'd rather visit Afghanistan and Sudan than France? What do you have against France?

Snopes is a reliable source. They cite their sources and show where their information is coming from, and they've received frequent praise.

And the repeal bill you're praising? People couldn't read that because changes were made mere few hours before the senators were due to vote on it. Laws in general are long, because policy is complicated and Congress has to put in a lot of procedural or legalese stuff, so this stuff about 200 pages doesn't hold water. At least Obamacare had public hearings.

And I doubt you'll care, but all those quotes are taken out of context.

http://www.snopes.com/pelosi-healthcare-pass-the-bill-to-see-what-is-in-it/ (She was really trying to say: "We need to pass the bill to know it's full effects.")

http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/gruber.asp (He apologized for his comments, saying he spoke inappropriately)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2017/07/22/cbo-three-fourths-of-coverage-difference-between-obamacare-gop-bills-driven-by-individual-mandate/#3ad250053627 (Real quote, but that was before the CBO informed Obama that Obamacare couldn't survive without an individual mandate)

It might not be fair, but it has to do with the French people I've met.

The Empire Of Handland wrote:Anyone here actually in the military?

What's up

Nuevo Pevvania wrote:News flash: supply and demand play a role in everything. Labour, services, raw materials, education, healthcare - everything. The first rule of economics is that resources will always be scarce. The second rule is that a free market pricing mechanism is the most efficient way to allocate resources. Why should this be different with healthcare? Government healthcare only 'works' in market economies because they can be sustained by, well, market economies. This doesn't mean that these will be able to go on forever, far from it. In the UK, our 70+ year old National Health Service is beginning to collapse, because when government provides anything for "free", it is always over consumed. The Nordic countries, too, have had to privatise, cut and deregulate many of their government programs over the past 25 years because they almost brought their economies to collapse in the early 90s.

Nevertheless, America is more or less the wealthiest nation in the world and has advanced at a greater pace than almost all other industrialised nations* in no small part due to its unwillingness to nationalise healthcare and other industries.

*Except Norway, which has boundless supplies of oil, no minimum wage laws, a great regulatory regimen and free trade policies.

It won't work with healthcare for the reasons I just told you: People can't shop around for the best deal, and in an emergency, you have no choice but to go to the nearest place regardless of their quality or prices. Unlike a regular free market, people often can't choose their healthcare.

And that stuff about "free healthcare is over-consumed" is disputed, and isn't absolute fact.

https://youtu.be/q0OtUbDYdxw?t=1m25s

Nuevo Pevvania wrote:It's a reliable source for liberals wanting to confirm their biases. It's run by leftists and produces left-leaning content, and has been caught doing so many times before. It's received praise from the rest of the establishment media - which is, funnily enough, run by leftists. Go figure.

*rolls eyes* I strongly disagree, I don't think I can convince you when it comes to the whole "liberal media bias" stuff, so let's just leave it alone.

Friedensreich

Jaslandia wrote:

*rolls eyes* I strongly disagree, I don't think I can convince you when it comes to the whole "liberal media bias" stuff, so let's just leave it alone.

*But I don't think

The United Providences Of Perland wrote:Sounded like an insult to me *shrug*

Yes officer, but in fairness he insulted me first.

Who’s more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows him? :P

Jaslandia, Republic City Police, Yukona

Nuevo Pevvania wrote:Apparently so, but connecting government spending to lower costs is puzzling, nonetheless. I haven't read the brief - does it go into detail about how that would reduce premiums? Because 50-odd years of rampant spending hasn't done the job too well so far.

No, and it doesn't even go into detail regarding the benchmark plans either, which is a bit suspicious. This briefing's main focus is the bill's impact on the rate of insurance, not on premiums.

Jaslandia wrote:It won't work with healthcare for the reasons I just told you: People can't shop around for the best deal, and in an emergency, you have no choice but to go to the nearest place regardless of their quality or prices. Unlike a regular free market, people often can't choose their healthcare.

And that stuff about "free healthcare is over-consumed" is disputed, and isn't absolute fact.

https://youtu.be/q0OtUbDYdxw?t=1m25s

*rolls eyes* I strongly disagree, I don't think I can convince you when it comes to the whole "liberal media bias" stuff, so let's just leave it alone.

"Librul media bias" and "you're in college and your professors pushed their librul agenda on you already" are among my favorite cuck cop outs.

The United Providences Of Perland

Jaslandia wrote:You'd rather visit Afghanistan and Sudan than France? What do you have against France?

What do you have against Afghanistan and Sudan which values France over them?

Penguania And Antarctica wrote:Who’s more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows him? :P

Damn.

Penguania And Antarctica

Penguania And Antarctica wrote:Who’s more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows him? :P

Questions like this won't matter when the universe's heat death comes.

The United Providences Of Perland wrote:Sounded like an insult to me *shrug*

Yes officer, but in fairness he insulted me first.

"He started it" isn't an excuse at all, and furthermore, I don't even see anything rule-breaking from Pevvania's posts.

Friedensreich wrote:"Librul media bias" and "you're in college and your professors pushed their librul agenda on you already" are among my favorite [B]cuck[/B] cop outs.

*glares threateningly* You should also be careful where you're going with that.

Jaslandia, Penguania And Antarctica, The United Providences Of Perland, Yukona, Magnatronia

Republic City Police wrote:*glares threateningly* You should also be careful where you're going with that.

When did the region become this strict?

Clemodecralia wrote:What do you have against Afghanistan and Sudan which values France over them?

What do you mean? If you're asking if I have anything against Afghanistan and Sudan, I don't; I'm sure they have a lot of history and interesting sights. I just wouldn't go there, nor would I recommend anyone else go there, due to concerns over safety and lack of basic infrastructure (healthcare, clean water, etc.).

Friedensreich wrote:"Librul media bias" and "you're in college and your professors pushed their librul agenda on you already" are among my favorite cuck cop outs.

It's funny hearing leftists using the term 'cuck'. Can you disprove that there's a fundamental liberal media bias, and that all the cultural centres of power - education, films, music, media - are controlled by leftists? The percentage of journalists that identify as conservative is in the single digits, many of the executives and heads of the big networks have familial or marriage connections to the Clinton and Obama administration, extensive surveys (and common knowledge) tell us that education is dominated by liberals, etc etc etc. Can you deny any of this?

Why can't you just admit that your ideology has the advantage of being backed by the establishment? If anything, it's something to take comfort in.

Clemodecralia, Neo-Icelandic Commonwealth

Republic City Police wrote:"He started it" isn't an excuse at all, and furthermore, I don't even see anything rule-breaking from Pevvania's posts.

*glares threateningly* You should also be careful where you're going with that.

Damn, caught it first.

Republic City Police

Mesopotamia-Kurdistan wrote:When did the region become this strict?

I also wonder.

The popo needs to stop expressing FOS

Mesopotamia-Kurdistan wrote:When did the region become this strict?

Enforcing the rules and trying to keep things civil isn't anything new, nor is trying to limit the use of insulting language as much as possible.

Yukona, Magnatronia

The United Providences Of Perland wrote:The popo needs to stop expressing FOS

Damn, I need to stop expressing my freedom of speech.

Republic City Police

The United Providences Of Perland wrote:The popo needs to stop expressing FOS

Assuming you mean 'freedom of speech', that's only allowable as far as the laws of NS and the region will allow, and the laws here don't look kindly on insulting language.

Yukona

Friedensreich wrote:"Librul media bias" and "you're in college and your professors pushed their librul agenda on you already" are among my favorite cuck cop outs.

To deny that the significant majority of media is heavily ingrained in liberalism is to blatantly lie.

When you look at universities and colleges, seeing the pattern of having only either political-neutral classes like STEM, or having obviously liberal classes like liberal arts, certainly raises the concern of universities having a heavy bias towards liberalism.

Nuevo Pevvania

Clemodecralia wrote:To deny that the significant majority of media is heavily ingrained in liberalism is to blatantly lie.

When you look at universities and colleges, seeing the pattern of having only either political-neutral classes like STEM, or having obviously liberal classes like liberal arts, certainly raises the concern of universities having a heavy bias towards liberalism.

But to use this as an excuse to disregard evidence that goes against your claim is very weak argumentation.

Jaslandia

Jaslandia wrote:It won't work with healthcare for the reasons I just told you: People can't shop around for the best deal, and in an emergency, you have no choice but to go to the nearest place regardless of their quality or prices. Unlike a regular free market, people often can't choose their healthcare.

Why not? Why can't people shop around for the best deal? This might be a bit of a far off comparison, but in education many parents forgo sending their children to the nearest school in favour of a higher quality school further away (school choice). Why can't we have healthcare choice? Yes, in an emergency you have to take what you can get, but the vast majority of medical procedures and check-ups are not emergencies.

And I'll take the opportunity to mention that having the individual mandate was an attempt to fix another problem caused by government, which was the passage of COBRA in 1986 which meant that hospitals cannot legally turn away anyone in need of care even if they have health insurance. This, like the whole 'pre-existing condition' debacle, is a classic case of a policy that sounds nice, but in the long run causes more trouble than it's worth.

Neo-Icelandic Commonwealth

Nuevo Pevvania wrote:It's funny hearing leftists using the term 'cuck'. Can you disprove that there's a fundamental liberal media bias, and that all the cultural centres of power - education, films, music, media - are controlled by leftists? The percentage of journalists that identify as conservative is in the single digits, many of the executives and heads of the big networks have familial or marriage connections to the Clinton and Obama administration, extensive surveys (and common knowledge) tell us that education is dominated by liberals, etc etc etc. Can you deny any of this?

Why can't you just admit that your ideology has the advantage of being backed by the establishment? If anything, it's something to take comfort in.

Lol. Dude, if my leftist ideology was the one condoned by the established, the establishment wouldn't exist.

The beautiful irony of your statement and philosophy about the ebul lefties is that they dislike the establishment as much as you do, if not more.

Mesopotamia-Kurdistan wrote:But to use this as an excuse to disregard evidence that goes against your claim is very weak argumentation.

I am not using this as an excuse for anything, I did not make any claim, and I am not participating in any argument which may be happening. I was addressing this comment individually.

Awh damn. My record for not unintentionally suppressing has been broken. Sorry about that, Maggie!

Yukona, Magnatronia

Friedensreich wrote:Lol. Dude, if my leftist ideology was the one condoned by the established, the establishment wouldn't exist.

The beautiful irony of your statement and philosophy about the ebul lefties is that they dislike the establishment as much as you do, if not more.

You're not actually using any facts to justify your argument. But nice try anyway, enjoy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avb8cwOgVQ8

Neo-Icelandic Commonwealth

Nuevo Pevvania wrote:It's funny hearing leftists using the term 'cuck'. Can you disprove that there's a fundamental liberal media bias, and that all the cultural centres of power - education, films, music, media - are controlled by leftists? The percentage of journalists that identify as conservative is in the single digits, many of the executives and heads of the big networks have familial or marriage connections to the Clinton and Obama administration, extensive surveys (and common knowledge) tell us that education is dominated by liberals, etc etc etc. Can you deny any of this?

Why can't you just admit that your ideology has the advantage of being backed by the establishment? If anything, it's something to take comfort in.

Okay, now you're stating to sound a bit too conspiratorial. Leaving aside the stuff about Clinton and Obama connections (again, now you're just sounding like a conspiracy theorist), a certain industry having a lot more liberals than consservatives one thing, but I have seen much less (reliable) evidence that this has influenced coverage or teaching, let alone that it's part of a massive conspiracy to discredit republicans and bring about a Liberal-Socialist World Order. Overall, I have had no reason to entirely discount either the education system or the media: Despite their failing, the reputable institutions among them continue to have high and strict standards, and put out reliable information.

Clemodecralia wrote:To deny that the significant majority of media is heavily ingrained in liberalism is to blatantly lie.

When you look at universities and colleges, seeing the pattern of having only either political-neutral classes like STEM, or having obviously liberal classes like liberal arts, certainly raises the concern of universities having a heavy bias towards liberalism.

And what do you think a 'conservative class' would look like, in comparison?

Nuevo Pevvania wrote:1. Why not? Why can't people shop around for the best deal? This might be a bit of a far off comparison, but in education many parents forgo sending their children to the nearest school in favour of a higher quality school further away (school choice). Why can't we have healthcare choice? Yes, in an emergency you have to take what you can get, but the vast majority of medical procedures and check-ups are not emergencies.

2. And I'll take the opportunity to mention that having the individual mandate was an attempt to fix another problem caused by government, which was the passage of COBRA in 1986 which meant that hospitals cannot legally turn away anyone in need of care even if they have health insurance. This, like the whole 'pre-existing condition' debacle, is a classic case of a policy that sounds nice, but in the long run causes more trouble than it's worth.

1. Not all things are emergencies, true, but people being unable to shop around in an emergency is a legitimate issue, and that's where people get ripped off. Medication is another example: If you need a certain type of medication, but only one company makes it, then they could raise the price sky-high and you'd have no choice but to take it.

2. So you prefer that hospitals turn away people without insurance? And then what happens to people without insurance? If they can't get any charity services, or if the charity services aren't comprehensive enough, they're literally dead.

Friedensreich wrote:Lol. Dude, if my leftist ideology was the one condoned by the established, the establishment wouldn't exist.

The beautiful irony of your statement and philosophy about the ebul lefties is that they dislike the establishment as much as you do, if not more.

In his defense, I don't think he was talking about real far-left leftists. Pevv was likely talking about Clinton-type 'liberals' (which are really more centrist than leftist, but our modern political discourse nowadays means anyone even remotely to the left is described as 'leftist').

Friedensreich

Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.