What Is Americas Biggest Problem?

[Phi for All]

Cheap gas in the US is one of those bittersweet US problems, where it's nice on the wallet but you know it's keeping us dependent on technology that's bad for breathing and drinking and eating creatures. Has anyone produced figures on what Americans would pay for gas at the pump if we didn't subsidize it? If we did the true free market thang and let them fail or succeed on their own, how much more expensive would petrol be?

 

Would it be expensive enough to make alternative fuels look attractive? When gas hit $5/gallon during the end of the Bush II admin, it sure sparked a lot of interest in solar, wind, and electric cars.

[overtone]

 

 

Has anyone produced figures on what Americans would pay for gas at the pump if we didn't subsidize it? If we did the true free market thang and let them fail or succeed on their own, how much more expensive would petrol be?

Depends on what you mean by "subsidize". The oil companies get a lot of support - the US Army enforcing their contract terms, for example - but the "free market" (externalized cost) price of oil is pretty low.

[dimreepr]

You actually do pretty well in terms of efficiency, though (4th only behind UK, Sweden, and New Zealand in terms of % of people reporting spending a lot of time on paperwork or disputes related to medical bills, at 5% compared the US' 18%): http://www.vox.com/2014/6/16/5812898/five-ways-the-american-health-care-system-is-literally-the-worst

 

 

There is a price to pay for universal free health care, that being, every man/woman and their dog claims their problems deserve treatment however trivial, for instance, where does one draw the line, in terms of pain both physical and mental; how much is 1, 2, 3... years of extra life worth? And who should pay? A struggle the NHS is currently mired in.

 

I’m not suggesting free health care shouldn’t be the ambition of all nations, especially nations that have money to burn on weapons/armies/space, but when that wealth is spent on protecting the guilty rather than the innocent, that nation needs to wake up and smell the coffee.

 

Maybe Canada is closer to the ideal than most.

On reflection perhaps this should be another topic, if a mod agrees, please split.

[Phi for All]

There is a price to pay for universal free health care, that being, every man/woman and their dog claims their problems deserve treatment however trivial,

 

Citation, please? This sounds like one of a number of talking points that seems to make sense, but is not reflective of reality. I pay for my healthcare with insurance, but I sure wouldn't go all the time even if I had no co-pay. If it were free, I'd be more encouraged to go in for preventative care, and that's actually better for the system.

 

"Every man/woman and their dog" is hyperbole, and trivially false.

[Willie71]

There is a price to pay for universal free health care, that being, every man/woman and their dog claims their problems deserve treatment however trivial, for instance, where does one draw the line, in terms of pain both physical and mental; how much is 1, 2, 3... years of extra life worth? And who should pay? A struggle the NHS is currently mired in.

 

I’m not suggesting free health care shouldn’t be the ambition of all nations, especially nations that have money to burn on weapons/armies/space, but when that wealth is spent on protecting the guilty rather than the innocent, that nation needs to wake up and smell the coffee.

 

Maybe Canada is closer to the ideal than most.On reflection perhaps this should be another topic, if a mod agrees, please split.

The health care issue is a real one. We claim to be an egalitarian system (we aren't) and we know the majority of an individual's lifetime health spending is in the last year of life, often in the last few months. There is an argument that this isn't wise or equitable. (Rule based utilitarianism) We also know that 5% of people use 60% of the health care budget iirc. Don't quote me on that. What gets ignored is that much of our health budget is spent on management and administration, a highly disproportionate amount. I would have to research the numbers. They were part of my ethics course, and it was an online text, which I can't access now. We could provide an egalitarian system in Alberta if we restructured the system. We spend more than enough, but the front line is understaffed and underfunded, and decisions on delivery of services are inefficient, reactive, and result in revolving door services. Very inefficient. Very little prevention.

 

I second splitting the health care topic from this thread.

[dimreepr]

 

If it were free, I'd be more encouraged to go in for preventative care, and that's actually better for the system.

 

"Every man/woman and their dog" is hyperbole, and trivially false.

 

 

 

Agreed on both counts but it rather depends on the care one seeks, if for instance, I decide my body’s not perfect at what point does that decision affect my health? And how much should everyone else be expected to pay for my choice?

Edited February 10, 2016 by dimreepr

[overtone]

 

 

Agreed on both counts but it rather depends on the care one seeks, if for instance, I decide my body’s not perfect at what point does that decision affect my health? And how much should everyone else be expected to pay for my choice?

This is the kind of thing already addressed in, for example, Medicare.

 

As far as splitting from the thread, the health care system in the US is a possible contender for "biggest problem" - anyone want to make the argument?

 

That would make two contenders:

1) the current Republican Party

2) the current health care system.

[Phi for All]

As far as splitting from the thread, the health care system in the US is a possible contender for "biggest problem" - anyone want to make the argument?

 

 

While I think healthcare and education are among our biggest problems, and I think we've shown the Republican Party is making those problems almost intolerable while pretending their monkey wrench platform helps the country (which is sort of two problems joined at the hip, they make a mess and then don't help with cleanup), I think the source of those problems is the lax regulations that allow big business to manipulate outcomes involving taxpayer dollars unfairly. It should also be intolerable to us that corporations get to help write legislation that legalizes banditry, monopolization, and bribery.

 

We can point to the GOP as a big culprit in all this, but the system is allowing them to do this legally, and the megacorps are manipulating that system. The GOP is being financed by bigger interests, and I think we need to take aim at some of those as a contender for biggest problems.

 

I find it more than a bit weird when a GOP supporter hardly bats an eye when unfair corporate influence is mentioned. That seems to be an acceptable crime to them, and it seems ruthless business and ruthless businessmen, a la Trump, are actually admired for their ability to screw the competition AND the consumers and bring in a profit by any means.

[rangerx]

 

While I think healthcare and education are among our biggest problems, and I think we've shown the Republican Party is making those problems almost intolerable while pretending their monkey wrench platform helps the country

 

A good reason why healthcare should not be split from the discussion. The example being, Willie71 making valid points to flaws in the Canadian system. He did well to criticize, but not deride or demean. It's not a perfect system and could be managed better, but gets to the heart of the matter with a few well-framed sentences. This is not what Republicans do though. Instead, they'll cook up an insidious boogieman. The recent attacks on Planned Parenthood are a perfect example. Clearly that video was fake and the producers were indicted because of it, yet the battery of Republican presidential candidates parrot it's rhetoric as though it were true. Fiorino (who's now out) spouts it verbatim. Rubio makes no bones about forcing women to be incubators for the welfare state in every case. The rest waffle political correctness or rule of law as it suits the last thing they said. In campaign platforms, they make no bones about overturning Rowe v Wade on one hand while insisting the 2nd Amendment is carved on stone. Off the table. Taboo. It's the height of hypocrisy. These outbursts are not legal interpretations by scholars, they are dogmas by fabricated by malcontents. So long as Americans conflate them as one, the entire discussion id dead in the water the moment it's launched.

 

I mentioned climate change earlier. Democrats are not above this either, but definitely not to the degree of outright denial by Republicans. I don't deny climate change (I see changes in my work, some natural, some not), but am driven by science and understand the differences accordingly, yet it's been my impression many things are frivolously laid at the feet of man made climate change in the absence of evidence (the insidious boogieman thing mentioned earlier). This is why I choose to target pollution instead. It's tangible to the issues at hand, but chips away at the bigger issue in the long term. Canada's former prime minister took the position that conservatism trumps science. He gagged federal scientists and burned the Department of Fisheries research libraries without digitizing them, as to fast track pipeline and tar sand projects. How does a person even remotely consider this reasonable? no less a compromise or concession? It's not. It's fascism, dictatorship and corporate welfare. He was thrown out on his ass in disgrace after the last election. He tore a page out of the Bush - Cheney book only to end up the same way, as the worst leader in the country's history.

 

The Republican take on religion is the same double standard. Excluding religion and race whilst imposing religion and race is something they'll do at the drop of a hat as though the marriage of church and state is the rule of law. Some conservatives will concede to political correctness, but at the end of the day it remains on the agenda. In fact, it's expected and mandatory to the doctrine. "Not conservative enough" has become the meme for extremism being the only alternative to any political stripe.

 

Once again, in every discussion demonization rears it's ugly head. The modus operandi in any hot button issue.

[overtone]

 

 

We can point to the GOP as a big culprit in all this, but the system is allowing them to do this legally, and the megacorps are manipulating that system. The GOP is being financed by bigger interests, and I think we need to take aim at some of those as a contender for biggest problems.

The objection I have to naming corporate attempts at influence as a big problem is that they are intrinsic and inevitable - they're a feature of having capitalist corporations in the first place. It's like naming gravity, or greed, or lust, or the Second Law of Thermodynamics, as the biggest problem. The existence of aspects of reality don't belong in this list, however troublesome they may be.

 

Organized crime does the same thing, and if one's government succumbs that is a problem - but the problem one has as a citizen of that polity is with that government. The organized criminals are merely behaving by nature. It's the corrupted government that has to be "solved".

 

The means we have for dealing with those corporations, organized criminals, foreign enemies, inconveniently flooding rivers, tendency of fires to spread and destroy, etc, is government.

 

There's nothing intrinsic or inevitable about a fascist takeover of a major political Party. It's not inherent in the nature of political Parties to inevitably become as the current Republican Party has become.

[Willie71]

A good reason why healthcare should not be split from the discussion. The example being, Willie71 making valid points to flaws in the Canadian system. He did well to criticize, but not deride or demean. It's not a perfect system and could be managed better, but gets to the heart of the matter with a few well-framed sentences. This is not what Republicans do though. Instead, they'll cook up an insidious boogieman. The recent attacks on Planned Parenthood are a perfect example. Clearly that video was fake and the producers were indicted because of it, yet the battery of Republican presidential candidates parrot it's rhetoric as though it were true. Fiorino (who's now out) spouts it verbatim. Rubio makes no bones about forcing women to be incubators for the welfare state in every case. The rest waffle political correctness or rule of law as it suits the last thing they said. In campaign platforms, they make no bones about overturning Rowe v Wade on one hand while insisting the 2nd Amendment is carved on stone. Off the table. Taboo. It's the height of hypocrisy. These outbursts are not legal interpretations by scholars, they are dogmas by fabricated by malcontents. So long as Americans conflate them as one, the entire discussion id dead in the water the moment it's launched.

 

I mentioned climate change earlier. Democrats are not above this either, but definitely not to the degree of outright denial by Republicans. I don't deny climate change (I see changes in my work, some natural, some not), but am driven by science and understand the differences accordingly, yet it's been my impression many things are frivolously laid at the feet of man made climate change in the absence of evidence (the insidious boogieman thing mentioned earlier). This is why I choose to target pollution instead. It's tangible to the issues at hand, but chips away at the bigger issue in the long term. Canada's former prime minister took the position that conservatism trumps science. He gagged federal scientists and burned the Department of Fisheries research libraries without digitizing them, as to fast track pipeline and tar sand projects. How does a person even remotely consider this reasonable? no less a compromise or concession? It's not. It's fascism, dictatorship and corporate welfare. He was thrown out on his ass in disgrace after the last election. He tore a page out of the Bush - Cheney book only to end up the same way, as the worst leader in the country's history.

 

The Republican take on religion is the same double standard. Excluding religion and race whilst imposing religion and race is something they'll do at the drop of a hat as though the marriage of church and state is the rule of law. Some conservatives will concede to political correctness, but at the end of the day it remains on the agenda. In fact, it's expected and mandatory to the doctrine. "Not conservative enough" has become the meme for extremism being the only alternative to any political stripe.

 

Once again, in every discussion demonization rears it's ugly head. The modus operandi in any hot button issue.

A good list of the major grievances against Canada by Harper:

 

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/08/10/Harper-Abuses-of-Power-Final/

 

It seems corporatist conservatism was our biggest problem. Thankfully we booted them out both in Alberta and federally, and didn't glorify him. I can't imagine what process would happen to get us to glorify Harper like Reagan was glorified. I hope I don't ever find out.

[imatfaal]

 

... In campaign platforms, they make no bones about overturning Rowe v Wade on one hand while insisting the 2nd Amendment is carved on stone. Off the table. Taboo. It's the height of hypocrisy. These outbursts are not legal interpretations by scholars, they are dogmas by fabricated by malcontents. ..

 

Just to be clear I am considered stupidly liberal in NWE and hate gun ownership and am pro a women's right to chose...but

 

Roe v Wade (which I presume you meant) was a decision made in expediency with little legal backing and absolutely no real constitutional strength (the power of the judgment is founded in a previous judgment of the same court and the long term acquiescence of the other two wings of government) - even though I think it was the right thing to do. The Second Amendment followed the spirit and the letter of the protocols to amend the constitution - even though I think it is bollox.

 

With respect, and from a legal standpoint - one can quite clearly be seen as activist judges overstepping the mark and the other is the act of a properly constituted legislature working in hand with the individual states. The import of the two matters may be seen at a similar level - but from the legal view there is a huge gulf. And regarding your jibe about legal scholars - at least one of the people making the claims in this Republican Primary season is an former clerk to William Rehnquist (who sat on the case itself) when he was Chief Justice of the USA - another is a JD.

[Ten oz]

The objection I have to naming corporate attempts at influence as a big problem is that they are intrinsic and inevitable - they're a feature of having capitalist corporations in the first place. It's like naming gravity, or greed, or lust, or the Second Law of Thermodynamics, as the biggest problem. The existence of aspects of reality don't belong in this list, however troublesome they may be.

 

Organized crime does the same thing, and if one's government succumbs that is a problem - but the problem one has as a citizen of that polity is with that government. The organized criminals are merely behaving by nature. It's the corrupted government that has to be "solved".

 

The means we have for dealing with those corporations, organized criminals, foreign enemies, inconveniently flooding rivers, tendency of fires to spread and destroy, etc, is government.

 

There's nothing intrinsic or inevitable about a fascist takeover of a major political Party. It's not inherent in the nature of political Parties to inevitably become as the current Republican Party has become.

 

Money isn't evil; but the way it is used can be. That is the dichotomy of your point that so often gets ignored overtone. Profit is not an inherently terrible thing. Problems start when that money is used rig the game. For the sake of easily digestible arguments things often get boiled down to impossibly simple levels. Capitalism and the profit motive is treated as benevolent by Republicnas while anything that may interfere with it (regulations, limits, taxes, etc) needs be treated with the highest levels of suspicion. To prevent monopolies and market manipulation we do need our government to do more than cheerlead capitalism.

 

Perhaps there should not be a profit motive attached to all things. That thought should not read as anti capitalist and yet to some I am sure it does. Yet no one can tell me with a straight face that allowing the profit motive in our prison system hasn't lead to people being incarcerated at levels that do not serve any public good. Or that the profit motive in medicine hasn't resulted in people dying because they could not get care. There are areas where profit doesn't belong or should be limited and rather than acknowledging that point Republicans reference it as collateral damage; can't make an omlet without breaking a few eggs. They falsly remind us that it is the price of freedom and better than the alternative.

 

The FDA catches a company selling tainted food and Republicans argue that it is an example of the system working. Then they work to cut and limit the FDA's authority. The democratic party is not perfect but that isn't the dichotomy we are faced with; perfect vs flawed. The Republican party runs on a platform that openly seeks to destroy the EPA, privatize education, privatize Social Sercurity, and promises private contractor led war & torture. The dichotomy is corporatocracy vs democracy.

[Phi for All]

The objection I have to naming corporate attempts at influence as a big problem is that they are intrinsic and inevitable - they're a feature of having capitalist corporations in the first place. It's like naming gravity, or greed, or lust, or the Second Law of Thermodynamics, as the biggest problem. The existence of aspects of reality don't belong in this list, however troublesome they may be.

 

Organized crime does the same thing, and if one's government succumbs that is a problem - but the problem one has as a citizen of that polity is with that government. The organized criminals are merely behaving by nature. It's the corrupted government that has to be "solved".

 

The means we have for dealing with those corporations, organized criminals, foreign enemies, inconveniently flooding rivers, tendency of fires to spread and destroy, etc, is government.

 

There's nothing intrinsic or inevitable about a fascist takeover of a major political Party. It's not inherent in the nature of political Parties to inevitably become as the current Republican Party has become.

 

 

I agree that the attempts to procure illicit favors and exemptions is inevitable; the nature of business is built on seizing opportunities in any way they can get away with. It's the "get away with" process I'd name as one of our biggest problems. It's not a purely Republican Party-caused situation. There are conservative Democrats also guilty of greasing the skids on the way down for many, while accepting favors and funding from the few who can afford to pillage legally.

 

We need to close the loopholes and the engineered thuggery that allow our processes to be compromised. I agree that this is a problem of our government, and not the mega-corps. But if we don't take a hard look at what the mega-corps are doing, and getting away with, our government can't shore up it's regulations and bring these bandits, who seem to have little allegiance to the country that gives them charter to do business in the first place, to heel.

The Republican party runs on a platform that openly seeks to destroy the EPA, privatize education, privatize Social Sercurity, and promises private contractor led war & torture. The dichotomy is corporatocracy vs democracy.

 

This seems to be a separate problem we have. One administration does something they feel is positive (Jimmy Carter and the White House solar project), and another administration tears it down (Ronald Reagan ripping out Carter's working solar panels for no reason). In many cases, acts likes this are completely politically motivated, which translates to mega-corporation motivated.

 

FEMA, same thing. During Republican administrations, programs like these get dumped to the side, underfunded and headed by a lame appointee who's owed favors. And so the program underperforms, and they point to how ineffective it is. Under administrations that care about the programs, they flourish and perform brilliantly, just like they were designed to. Just like they were designed to.

 

It would be in the country's best interest, imo, to enact some safeguards for such programs, so their funding can't be tampered with, can't be manipulated into crippling stagnation, can't be used to make special favors happen for special companies. If we ever got single-payer universal healthcare (Medicare!), or open education in human knowledge through community college, I'd like to see some language in the bills that keeps any future administrations from bleeding them to make them look sick, or hogtie its officials to reduce their capabilities and make them look bad. We'd need to make sure we can dismantle them or fix them when circumstances warrant, of course, but I'd like to see some discussion about ways to prevent what happens when a conservative administration starts undoing all the social work a previous administration enacted.

 

Perhaps this could be avoided by simply changing from a winner-takes-all voting system.

[StringJunky]

 

...Perhaps this could be avoided by simply changing from a winner-takes-all voting system.

Proportional representation would probably lead to a slower pace of change.

Edited February 11, 2016 by StringJunky

[Phi for All]

Proportional representation would probably lead to a slower pace of change.

 

But what's our pace now, taking two steps forward, then two back?

[StringJunky]

 

But what's our pace now, taking two steps forward, then two back?

True, can't argue with that. In the UK the Liberal Democrats (centrist between Labour and Conservative) have pushed for PR since I can remember but the electorate here seems to prefer a first-past-the-post system. We don't tend to get major reversals of policy with each party that's elected though... it's more subtle.

Edited February 11, 2016 by StringJunky

[Ten oz]

 

 

Perhaps this could be avoided by simply changing from a winner-takes-all voting system.

We do not need a winner takes all system; just one where is representation is true to the population.

 

For example the Senate is controlled by Republicans 54-46 yet Democratic Senators represent 53% of the population and Republican only 47% of the population. So based on population representation the Senate should be controlled by Democrats.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/05/republican-senate_n_6104926.html

 

And the House is even more screwed up than the Senate:

"The result: Even though House Democratic candidates nationally drew 1.4 million more votes than Republicans in 2012, Republicans won 33 more House races."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/03/us/politics/democrats-make-advances-but-house-still-proves-elusive.html?_r=0

[overtone]

 

 

It's the "get away with" process I'd name as one of our biggest problems. It's not a purely Republican Party-caused situation.

Regardless of what its various causes are, the rise of fascism and its co-option of the Republican Party is not a bipartisan feature of the political landscape. The Democratic Party has indeed been moved farther into the right/authoritarian quadrant, and corporate influence is a likely cause, but it has not been co-opted by fascism as the Republican Party has been.

 

The Republican Party is a problem in significant ways the Democratic Party , which is still functioning as a normal political Party in many respects, is not.

[DimaMazin]

Long power of one person is problem of any country. Putin destroyed democracy in Russia. Merkel destroys democracy in Germany.

Second term of presidential authority of one person is main problem of USA.

Edited February 22, 2016 by DimaMazin

[GrahamofNow]

I think America's (and I presume we mean North America) biggest problem is perceivng that focusing on the "biggest", will lead to some sort of utopia, whether it is contained in the form of a question, an ideal, a dream, or a car.

 

What is America's smallest problem?

[John Cuthber]

...

What is America's smallest problem?

Donald Trump's understanding of economics, politics and international relations.

Edited April 22, 2016 by John Cuthber

[dimreepr]

Who knew, America's smallest problem, could become it's biggest...

[Delta1212]

Donald Trump's understanding of economics, politics and international relations.

 

America's smallest problem is Trump's understanding, his hands, his... whatever.

[Phi for All]

I think America's (and I presume we mean North America) biggest problem is perceivng that focusing on the "biggest", will lead to some sort of utopia, whether it is contained in the form of a question, an ideal, a dream, or a car.

 

What is America's smallest problem?

 

It may seem like an obsessive perspective, but in this case it would seem to be the wisest course. Focus on shoring up regulations to reduce corruption, or any other "biggest problem", and you move towards an economy that favors more people evenly. It doesn't have to be a utopia, it just has to be a lot better.

 

America's smallest problem is where to hang all our Corporate Integrity awards. I don't see how fixing that problem helps more than regulating banking and pollution.