SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The New York Times has an article asking readers to select (from their list) what questions they'd like to ask the 2016 presidential candidates.
It's clear that both candidates haven't given specific answers to questions about issues which directly affect us. What questions would Soylentils ask the candidates (your choices, not mine as in the NYT article) to identify their positions on issues which matter to you?
Some of the questions I'd like to see answered are:
How would you work with a Congress which isn't aligned with the goals of your administration to actually get something accomplished?
Does money equal speech? If so/not so, why and how?
How will you rein in our intelligence agencies that are unconstitutionally spying on U.S. citizens?
What specific steps would you take (if any) to combat anthropogenic climate change?
Would you allow non-American foods to be cooked in the White House kitchen? If not, what steps will you take to reduce the obesity problem that will inevitably ensue?
What about the rest of you? What questions would you like to see answered by the candidates?
(Score: 3, Informative) by CirclesInSand on Saturday September 24 2016, @03:49PM
How will you minimize the domestic threat of home-grown terrorists?
Presumes we have some problem with home grown terrorists.
What should be done to strengthen the Social Security system so it can keep supporting retirees now and in the future?
Presumes we can and should keep social security.
The racial divide on policing and politics seems wider than ever. How could the next president help turn this around?
Presumes there is a racial divide, not a cultural divide.
What evidence-backed measures should be taken to improve the public school experience for every child?
Presumes the feds should be involved in public schooling.
It is widely accepted scientific fact that climate change is real and potentially catastrophic. What specific action will you take in the next four years?
Presumes....well they just said it didn't they. Some people have noticed that the climate catastrophists have never gotten anything right.
There are 43 million people living in poverty in this country. What will you do about this?
Presumes that the standard of American poverty is somehow actually poverty (it isn't), and assumes government should be involved in the solution (which has never worked).
Health insurance premiums and out-of-pocket costs are rising rapidly. What would you do to control them?
Presumes the feds should be involved in medicine....
Sanctions and global condemnation haven’t deterred North Korea’s nuclear ambitions. What would you do?
Presumes this is an issue for the president rather than congress. We did used to have a constitution.
How do you plan to get money out of politics?
Presumes that money should be removed from politics. In America, the defined solution to "bad speech" was always more speech, not restrictions. See first amendment.
What specific actions or tactics will you use to fight the Islamic State that the Obama administration hasn’t already tried?
Trump has gone on record saying he won't broadcast his "tactics". This question is an obvious jab at Trump, NY times isn't even trying to hide it.
What would your administration do to reduce gun violence and mass shootings?
"Gun violence". Using that term makes you an idiot. It makes an arbitrary distinction of violence, like somehow it is worse to be killed with a gun than killed with a gang beating in the subway.
What are three important initiatives you could accomplish despite Congressional gridlock?
Presumes the president should act on his own despite no approval from congress.
What would you do to reduce the extreme income inequality in this country?
Presumes that income inequality is a problem. It isn't. One man's gain is not another man's loss.
Where would you set the limits of surveillance by the U.S. government?
It's not "surveillance". It is tresspassing and theft in violation of the 4th amendment.
Where has American policy on Syria failed? Should something be done militarily to stop the slaughter?
LOL. "Should something be done to stop the slaughter". A question intended to make it seem like they aren't trying as hard as they can to support Hillary. Expect to see "See? we mentioned Syria, so we're not biased" in the news.
This is why no one cares what the NY Times has to say. They are dying, no one wants to read their DNC blog. Trying to say "well our viewers chose these questions" is an incredibly weak attempt to hide their use of their position as moderators to cheerlead for Hillary. Are they really this scared of Hillary facing Trump in a debate?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mcgrew on Saturday September 24 2016, @05:38PM
Presumes. You apparently presume that the government should not have anything to do with medicine, so I presume you know little history and even less of other countries' experiences. Why do you presume the "free market" should have anything to do with medicine when there's no way healthcare can possibly be?
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by CirclesInSand on Saturday September 24 2016, @06:44PM
Medicine is not a scarce resource. Nothing prevents it from being free market besides public policy.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Sunday September 25 2016, @04:07PM
"...besides public policy."
Bingo! It's not a free market because you have no choices. After an eye operation I was prescribed antibiotic eyedrops, so I called around to find the best price. Their list prices varied from $65 to well over a hundred, but no matter the actual cost of the drug, my co-pay was twenty five bucks.
Its retail price in Canada is twenty four.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 1) by tftp on Sunday September 25 2016, @05:15AM
Short of the government directly hiring and employing doctors, like it was in USSR, the government can only add overhead to the costs. High barriers of entry stop new practitioners; demand for zero errors causes expensive trials and even more expensive malpractice insurance; patents stop others from making live-saving drugs available. Is some or all of that necessary? Perhaps; or maybe not. It's nice to have a doctor who makes no mistakes; but it is not so nice that you cannot afford him, and you die from the disease anyway. High cost of healthcare is not simply invented, it is based on expenses that providers are burdened with. The fact that the doctor drives the latest car is in the noise if you consider how much he pays to the insurance company and to manufacturers of his equipment. But if you ask the manufacturers, they will gladly point you at the tomes of government rules that dictate how medical equipment must be designed and produced. A single X-ray sensor that dentists shove into your mouth costs $5K [lionsdentalsupply.com] - and you need more than one. But, at least, at this price it may not shock you - but even a $10K unit is just a USB device, so in the end all that lies between your soft body and the 120V AC is the cheapest Chinese PC power supply that the money can buy. The sensor may be encased in plastic, but don't bite on that cable.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Sunday September 25 2016, @04:00PM
Look to Europe and Canada. Their health care costs are far lower than ours, and their medical outcomes are far better. There should be no health insurance. It only adds another layer of unproductive money drain; companies must earn profits, governments are under no such restraints. Governments make the best insurers.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org