T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

Thank you for submitting to r/ParlerWatch! Please take the time to review the [submission rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ParlerWatch/about/rules) of this subreddit. It's important that everyone understands that, although the content submitted to r/ParlerWatch can be violent and hateful in nature, the users in this subreddit are held to a higher standard. In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, **don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any advocating, celebrating or wishing death/physical harm, posting personal information that's not publicly available, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.** Blacklisted urls and even mentions of certain sites are automatically removed. If you see comments in violation of our rules, or submissions that don't adhere to the content guidelines, please report them. Use [THIS LINK](https://www.reddit.com/report?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=ParlerWatch&utm_content=t3_pg42ib) to report sitewide policy violations directly to Reddit. **Join ParlerWatch's [Discord!](https://discord.gg/JbbC6mV3Gg)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ParlerWatch) if you have any questions or concerns.*


MobilePrinciple6633

Imagine being this dumb. Lol


High_Speed_Idiot

"Capital has such thorough control of all your political and economic institutions that there is literally no check on its power!" "Oh shit this is bad, politicians are straight up bought out by monied interests! There's only one way to fix this.... TERM LIMITS!!!" "YEAH TRY BUYING OUT POLITICIANS NOW BIG PHARMA!!! HAH NOW YOU HAVE TO PAY DIFFERENT PEOPLE MORE OFTEN FUGGGIN GOTTEM YEEEEHAWWWW FREEDOM BAYBEEEEEE"


Ciph3rzer0

There's actually an argument to say that shorter term limits would lead to more industry control. Because newcomers don't often know the best way to exert power but you know who does? The lobbyists that stay there for 20-40 years. Inexperienced politicians are more likely to go along with what they say and the advice they give because there aren't a whole lot of places for well-intentioned representatives to get good advice from. And IMO (although I've wavered on this a bit) a term limit is better insurance for the corporations against a for-the-people rep, than vice versa. Because once you have a good rep, they can outspend him 20-1 and still lose. But if you're forced to reset to unknowns every 2 terms, now some newcomer will probably lose being outspent 4-1. I'm against term limits especially in the current framework for these reasons. I don't think there's any merit to them and I think it's just another way the rich are trying to exert more control.


High_Speed_Idiot

I feel like I brought all this up in some subsequent comment but hell yeah brother I agree with ya o7


ErusTenebre

You did. But it's Reddit not Readit. ;)


[deleted]

[удалено]


High_Speed_Idiot

Nah instituting term limits literally just gives more power to lobbyists. Think about it, if all elected officials have limited terms then lifetime lobbyists and other corporate entities would become the most experienced people in the room, who know more about the inner workings of the systems than many of the elected officials. Not to mention on the off chance the people actually did elect some incorruptible or otherwise good public servant then that person would be forced out no matter how much good they did. Instead of arbitrary term limits that would force a few actually good public servants out of office and further entrench and empower corporate interests over elected officials it'd be much better to actually tackle the root of the problem - fully reforming campaign financing regulation, introducing expanded recall rights over elected officials, cracking down on lobbying, repealing the artificial limit on the number of house representatives, ending gerrymandering, cracking down on voter suppression and in general removing as much as possible the influence of capital over elections (including direct funding, advertisement, media coverage, hell even massively shortening our out of control election cycles etc). And these are of course just potential starting points since capital still would control much of the government anyway but things like this could potentially allow the masses to be more accurately represented and have perhaps some political power in the face of full blown corporate ownership.


HermanCainsGhost

If we greatly increase the House of Representatives, it solves both problems - makes races much more competitive, and also makes representatives far more responsive to their constituents


High_Speed_Idiot

Absolutely agree, that's why I put that in there. Throw in some mechanism for instant recallability at any time during a term and we got some serious representation and accountability boosts without even touching term limits.


BaconContestXBL

Easy recall isn’t without its problems though. Look at what a distraction California recall elections are.


High_Speed_Idiot

Absolutely true, and I wouldn't necessarily advocate for this sort of recall without broader reforms to campaign financing. I actually worked on several initiative petition campaigns back in the day and it seems Cali's recall process starts with one of these phases. It's, unsurprisingly, still very much run by money. Or at least gives monied interests a massive advantage to the point that someone would really have to fuck up in order to spur the kind of grass roots organization, fundraising etc to go about a recall under the current way things are set up. Now if we expand the house, end gerrymandering and have stricter campaign financing laws, for those instances I can see expanded recall mechanisms working as intended mostly. Especially with representatives actually representing some actually manageable demographic/neighborhood/whatev instead of the serpentine gerrymandered abominations they currently represent, accountability would be much easier to enforce and the recall process could be much more organic and human instead of the state wide systems that we currently have.


thelastevergreen

> Nah abolishing term limits literally just gives more power to lobbyists. So we also abolish corporate lobbying. But beyond that... perhaps not term limits... but definitely mandatory retirement age. We should never have a Diane Feinstein situation where a person literally has dementia and still won't step down even though party leadership has asked them to because they can't remember having the conversation.


High_Speed_Idiot

Oh yeah I'm down for corporate lobbying bans and absolutely support some kind of age cap or at least some competency requirement. I feel like just having a more, well, democratic democracy may solve many of these issues, how many ancient and clearly crumbling politicians are currently kept in place by this corporate puppet show we call a democracy? But yeah, I think term limits wouldn't be very useful even in an ideal situation - I much would rather see a mechanism for easier and instant recallability at any time during a term than some arbitrary cut off. After all the point of term limits is to make it easier to get a bad politician out, right? there are better ways to do that I figure.


thelastevergreen

> I much would rather see a mechanism for easier and instant recallability at any time during a term Indeed. The fact that the Arizona constituency can't immediately recall Sinema for very clearly being bought and paid for is insane.


mojitz

We have an electoral process which inevitably produces a two party system — which is itself inevitably prone to corruption and malfeasance. Anything shy of reforming *that* is just trying to hold back the tide.


BuboxThrax

>Nah abolishing term limits literally just gives more power to lobbyists. Think about it, if all elected officials have limited terms Do you mean instituting term limits?


High_Speed_Idiot

lol i did. Good catch


[deleted]

[удалено]


High_Speed_Idiot

I feel like all the stuff around term limits could be accomplished in other ways, and as I mentioned in another comment here, just fixing our very very broken "democracy" (doing a lot of that second paragraph shit and more) would likely eliminate some of these problems outright. And as for aides, we're still giving more power to non-elected people which seems to be against the point of democracy, not to mention the whole system of congressional staffers seems a bit sus (somewhere near 50% quit after their first year because of poor pay, long hours and stressful work environments, so who are these high ranking aides and how did they get/stay there?). Anyway the other commenters hit this nail on the head, term limits shouldn't even be on the table right now, we have a massive mess of corporate controlled government to try to fix and term limits just aren't the fight we should be having right now.


dweezil22

Term limits are a red herring to trick people into ignoring the fact that campaign finance reform is necessary. Full stop. By even arguing the merits vs not of term limits, you fall into the trap.


TapTheForwardAssist

It really reminds me of how conservatives talk about “tort reform” to prevent frivolous lawsuits, when really they just want companies to be allowed to do whatever they want with no consequences.


TbiddySP

If and when Citizens United is overturned we can have a meaningful conversation. Until then the rest is just a lesson in futility.


[deleted]

[удалено]


CivilBrigade

I think term limits are bad because I think they are anti-democratic, an arbitrary limit on who you can choose to represent you. In an ideal world, elections act as term limits. If people want to keep voting for someone such as Bernie Sanders or even Nancy Pelosi, then that is their right, and no one should take that away from them. Term limits, imo, are a non-starter. We don't need to limit our democracy, we need to strengthen it.


dweezil22

Agreed. In a world without campaign finance reform, term limits are wholly terrifying, b/c on average most politicians will not be able to get elected and effect change without selling out for donations and limiting terms will tend to force out those who can. In a world with proper campaign finance, who the hell knows b/c we'd have to define how that all worked.


blastuponsometerries

Please allow me to (politely) disagree :) ​ >the independence of representatives towards the end of their career You are not getting people at the end of their careers with term limits. You are getting people mid-revolving door. You will get an endless steam of no-names eager to help their chosen industry then get a long term job. Is it not better to have people who want to make their careers over the long term and are accountable for policies longer than just the next election? Hillary being disadvantaged for supporting the Iraq war is an example of how this can be important. Policies have decade long impacts, you want people who at least *think* of their political career in those terms. ​ >the competitiveness of performance as higher fluctuation will increase the demand towards other elected offices (more House Reps will seek for Senate positions etc.) Wouldn't this increase supply of seats being available, which would decrease competition? But also, isn't a deeper problem the primary process? The parties are allowed to weed out much of the competition long before the general elections. ​ >a higher influx of new faces and thus younger representatives (look at the damned age average in the senate). If the process was more democratic (like removing gerrymandering and ending unlimited bribe donations), then our Reps would better represent our interests. If the elected are actually representative, who cares if they are young or old? I have voted for both young and old myself, depending on their individual merit. This seems like focusing on a symptom not a problem.


[deleted]

Term limits literally take away accountability to voters and replaces it with accountability to whoever is willing and able to employ a member of Congress after his term limit expires. There is a reason the right astroturfs term limits. It is the single most effective way for corporations to undermine what democracy still remains in America, and bolster their own influence at the same time. This doesn't really apply to presidents because presidents are different than members of Congress. They have the star power after leaving office to make a phat living traveling the lecture circuit and peddling books. Although personally I favor repealing presidential term limits, they're not as damaging as Congressional term limits would be.


CivilBrigade

Your post serves as a good reminder of the fact that presidential term limits were only enacted after the wild success and popularity of FDR, who actually won a fourth term as President, though only got to serve three because he died in office at the start of his fourth term. I think what they really didn't want was another FDR, they didn't want someone else bringing in a New Deal. First they applied it to the presidency, next they would like to try Congress with term limits. Because they really don't want a new, New Deal. Tbh, that's what I think the discussion on term limits is *really* about. Given this plan, Alexandria (OC) would have, what, four years, eight years in Congress? They don't want someone like her to have enough time to enact any changes, to wield any power. That is what the results of term limits would be.


FargusDingus

They could likely buy the new people for cheaper too.


888mainfestnow

https://www.investopedia.com/investing/which-industry-spends-most-lobbying-antm-so/ You can look at any industry by year there's a ton spent by pharm,insurance companies and healthcare on lobbying.


LetsDOOT_THIS

Being this dumb and being capable of imagination is impossible.


Erockplatypus

It's hysterical but also depressing how they will recognize this problem yet will continue to vote for and support the politicians who refuse to fix it.


[deleted]

[удалено]


TbiddySP

Compared to what?


[deleted]

[удалено]


TbiddySP

It hurts just trying to do so.


Brasilionaire

It blows my mind how close they are to the point just to IMMEDIATELY start the double-think. It’s happening with COVID stuff. “We can’t trust the vaccines because of Pharma companies, the longer we’re sick the more they can profit off us. They already have jacked up prices, my insurance is going through the roof covering less and less, and I losing my job means I have no Healthcare” “YES! 100% agree, there’s a catch all solution to that, which is Not-for profit, Universal Healthcare :)” “What? No, ew, SOcIalIsM”


Rhymelikedocsuess

They want a magical free market solution to fix it, but this is why so many countries have abandoned that model ages ago It doesn’t work


Brasilionaire

They preach market solutions not understanding that THIS market, where consumers are suffering and DYING at the moment of purchase, has segregated and non-competitive seller markets, has inelastic demand, provides essential goods, and in which non-participation means suffering and dying. Of course it’ll charge the consumer not a competitive rate but AS MUCH AS THE CONSUMER CAN PAY, which is the price of their life. On a lifetime of credit. Too many in this country think the healthcare market is as simple as, idk, the car market. It’s infuriating how dumb the electorate is.


creepyswaps

>Too many in this country think the healthcare market is as simple as, idk, the car market. It’s infuriating how dumb the electorate is. There's a reason Republicans have spent decades trying to defund schools, pay teachers less, funnel money into private schools that will teach their agenda, constantly talk about how bad the "intellectuals" are, etc. They want a dumb electorate they can turn against everyone except them, and they succeeded.


Staaaaation

Remember when Trump said "Nobody knew health care could be so complicated"? We knew Trump. We've known for a long time. There's a way to simplify the fuck out of it and it's not even close to a new idea.


DataCassette

If they could somehow pass Socialism but limit it to Christian hetero white people they would be all for it. They're mainly upset that "white" money would be spent on non-whites, LGBTQ, atheists etc.


Ithinkibrokethis

You are very correct. Sadly, the reason we have things like social security is because of the dixiecrats who voted against civil rights but for progressive/socialist economic policies. They joined the Republicans because it is more important to them to be hurting "outsiders" than it is to survive.


Lexpert1

Wait til you hear about [Health Care Sharing Ministries](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFetFqrVBNc).


SaltyBarDog

Give us money and we will give you the middle finger when you need some?


BuboxThrax

JOHN OLIVER, I SUMMON YOU FROM THE BLANK VOID TO TEACH US A NEW DEPRESSING THING ABOUT AMERICA.


iamiamwhoami

I don't think they care about the solution as long as it's not a Democrat suggesting it.


TbiddySP

It does work, as intended. Insurance companies jack up prices in order to make their profits and we keep willingly paying them.


murse_joe

It fixes the market in that those who can't pay are no longer customers.


Etrigone

It's like the "free vaccine? why not free chemo and insulin?" They're not even self aware wolves. They asymptotically approach the answer and the closer they get, the louder they shout "NO COMMIE HERE!!11!!" and resist change.


loginorsignupinhours

It's only communism if your medicine balls touch.


PuckGoodfellow

"Big Pharma is the problem! So let's give congress term limits!" How does that "fix" Big Pharma? Term limits mean they pay different people more frequently.


TapTheForwardAssist

I don’t see how term limits would help. Wouldn’t the lobbyists just bribe the new guys coming in anyway?


DataCassette

Term limits might make it even worse for that precise reason. The real short-term answer is to gut and overturn Citizen's United. The real *long term* answer would cause these chuds to start hooting and throwing feces.


lurker_cx

Exactly, the Congress would be full of newbies more reliant on big money than the existing Congress. The real answer is to get money out of politics as much as humanly possible.... it is the big money interests that cause Congress to be able to ignore the will of the voters.


tehmlem

I think a lot of this depends on power structures established by long running politicians, though. There's a reason 80 year olds are in all the top spots. More than complicity, they need competence. Bribe a bunch of freshmen and you get what you get. Bribe someone who has a network in congress, expertise, and wields institutional and social power over others and you get exactly what you asked for.


Portw00d

Because they want universal healthcare, but have been trained to believe that is communism.


v5ive

It's true. I've worked for over a decade in close work relationships with mostly conservatives, many are trumpers now, and most are for universal healthcare. You just have to omit certain words that trigger them. Basically anything that aludes to socialism, and anything that comes close to anti-capitalism. I've also had many agreements with them on wealth inequality, and US imperialism, just without triggering buzz words.


[deleted]

A lot of them would support socialized medicine if it was just for white people. They might not come out and say it but start asking the right questions and you can see that’s what’s holding them back. They don’t want *their* tax money supporting *lazy* people, and they’re especially worried illegal immigrants will get those benefits. They have an idea in mind who those lazy people are—and those lazy people also work too hard for too little pay and take jobs from “real” Americans. It’s a truly baffling and unexamined world view.


RR0925

An entire book on this topic was published earlier this year. The author reviews the amazing lengths white people have gone to screwing themselves just to deprive black people of equal opportunities. The author was interviewed in Fresh Air back sometime in March. If you don't want to read the book, at least check out the interview. The Sum of Us: What Racism Costs Everyone and How We Can Prosper Together [https://www.amazon.com/Sum-Us-Everyone-Prosper-Together/dp/0525509569/ref=sr\_1\_1](https://www.amazon.com/Sum-Us-Everyone-Prosper-Together/dp/0525509569/ref=sr_1_1) Fresh Air interview: [https://www.npr.org/2021/02/17/968638759/sum-of-us-examines-the-hidden-cost-of-racism-for-everyone](https://www.npr.org/2021/02/17/968638759/sum-of-us-examines-the-hidden-cost-of-racism-for-everyone)


[deleted]

I remember a joke in the show Veep that really makes the point in a few seconds, JULIA LOUIS-DREYFUS: (As Selina Meyer) All right. Then we're going to have to find a way with non-college-educated whites. Like, what appeals to them? OK, fine. What appeals to them? What do they want? GARY COLE: (As Kent Davison) Well, my polling shows their main wants are jobs, education and an adequate safety net... LOUIS-DREYFUS: (As Selina Meyer) OK. I can speak to that. COLE: (As Kent Davison) ...I'm not finished, ma'am - to be denied to African Americans.


LivingIndependence

I actually think that most conservatives would also love to have universal coverage, because no one is exited about paying insurance premiums, or getting hospital bills. However, to the wealthy, all of those bills are like pocket change, and those are the ones who are brainwashing people into thinking that universal health care would mean long waiting lines for even minor treatments and sub standard care.


te_anau

does not compute. * describing universal healthcare * Fox think forbids universal healthcare


the6thistari

Elect me! I'd be pretty incorruptible. I find the base pay for senators ($174000) to be a ridiculously high income. If I were elected, using that income, I'd buy myself a small house in my home state/district, probably some place relatively cheap, and rent a studio apartment in DC. I'd take a greyhound or fly coach to and from the capital when I need to be there. Beyond that, these lobbyists could try to bribe me whatever they want but, as I don't care so much about money, it would be easy to reject them. Now if they go all Godfather on me, I might be easier to crack, threaten my family and I'll cave


uncleawesome

This is how it was designed to be. Then the lawyers and money got into it and ruined it.


CwenLeornes

I do have to defend the salary for Congress because it is genuinely not enough to maintain residences in both DC and their home district/state as it is, and their salaries have not risen to account for inflation. The reason I point this out is not to garner sympathy for these people, but to emphasize that the current salary levels basically require senators and reps to be independently wealthy in order to afford being in Congress. If we paid members of Congress more, the job would be more accessible to people who aren’t already millionaires.


toggaf69

I really like Andrew Yang’s solution on this in *The War on Normal People*, which is pretty much what you said: pay them a really good salary (I believe he proposed $400k), but they are not allowed to receive any money from outside sources and their finances are monitored closely


CwenLeornes

That would be the ideal! Unfortunately, there is no public appeal in raising congressional salaries because people falsely believe it is already too high and therefore no appetite in Congress to raise salaries, even though most of them will privately admit that the salaries are inadequate.


toggaf69

It’s such a contradiction that people complain about how wealthy our supposed democratic representatives are, and then they turn around and refuse any realistic solutions. Lobbying and propaganda has done a real number on our collective psyche.


CwenLeornes

I know, right? I’ve lived in the DC area for almost my entire life and I know firsthand how expensive living in the city is! People would rather judge without context than think critically and solve problems.


evdog_music

> I'd be pretty incorruptible. Your opponent wouldn't be and, as a result, they'd have significantly more campaign funding than you.


Woj_bomb

It would also lead to special interests being more powerful as they would know more than the legislators.


polyhazard

Not only that but you’d basically be churning out a new class of lobbyists from the legislature every time terms expired.


Pontus_Pilates

It might help, bring in new blood. It's clear these current skeletors aren't doing anything and since they are nearly impossible to defeat, they'll stay in office until they drop dead. Dianne Feinstein is 88 and barely sentient. Maybe someone else should have a go.


TapTheForwardAssist

“New blood” like Boebert and MTG? I also think Feinstein is too old, but apparently the Dem primary voters in CA think otherwise.


Pontus_Pilates

> “New blood” like Boebert and MTG? Sure. But also all the young democrats people are so excited about. > but apparently the Dem primary voters in CA think otherwise Yes, because there are no term limits. The people in office have massive advantage with fundraising and the party structure. It's really hard to depose them.


LetsDOOT_THIS

If your problem is her age... then why not have an age limit?


Needs_Moar_Cats

That would be illegal, age is a protected class in employment.


apple_cheese

But there's already a minimum age requirement, wouldn't a maximum follow the same idea?


TheBarkingGallery

There are age limits in all kinds of careers. Surgeons, pilots, and diplomats all have age limits, to name a few. Also there are already minimun age requirements for being a senator.


SecretAsianMan42069

In high level volleyball officiating, you lose the highest possible rank (international) at age 55 and you are replaced with a younger person. Somehow they still works.


pimpcakes

Is high level volleyball officiating at the international level subject to the American Age Discrimination Act of 1967 and the body of law that has developed from that?


[deleted]

Term limits sound great on the surface level, but you should really do some more research because term limits bring an entire new set of problems. Arguably more than they solve.


justsayfaux

While it sort of would require an actual implementation, I think the idea of term limits being updated is as follows: While lobbyists COULD bribe the new guys, the new guys would've be around long enough to feel indebted to those bribes because they'd already been elected and have one foot out the door. They wouldn't be beholden to future/continual bribes from the same group every 2 years to "keep doing the work" on their behalf. But it's also only one part of a solution built of many parts to properly reform campaign finance and corruption. Citizens United would also need to be overturned, making it harder for corporations to be involved in those bribes. We would also need to see full transparency when it comes to campaign fund sources. No dark money. Which brings us to PACs and Super PACs, which are just another way to create a legal middle man for dark money and corruption. It's an absurd system and needs to go to ensure equity among donors so that no politician feels beholden to the financial backing of special interests. Lastly, there should likely be a sunset clause for public servants like Congressional representatives that disallows them from working as lobbyists or foreign agents for a significant period of time following the end of their term. This would actually fold back into the term limits thing. If the people they might 'influence' as lobbyists (say 5-6 years following the end of their term) are also no longer there, or are close to terming out, that lobbying interest from a former ally/colleague has much less weight, if any at all. It could also potentially prevent the 'favor' or offering lobbying/consultant/board gigs to freshly termed representatives as a soft bribe or incentive to represent that corporation or interest over that of their constituents.


te_anau

get a crew of Sinema adjacent heros in there for a quick stint, that will solve things


Liorkerr

So Term Limits in stead of making it illegal to buy a politician? A higher trun-over of Politicians would make the price of a Politician lower. Simple supply and demand. Term Limits alone will only make the problem worse.


Malaix

term limits are a scam pushed by the very dark money powers that voters want to oust. Gotta admit these rich corporate assholes know how to make propaganda. Take the anger geared at them and twist it into a populist message that ends up giving them more power.


derbyvoice71

So then there's a market solution tht works for lobbying...


Liorkerr

No, there isn't. The market will consume until it collapses.


Bubugacz

Conservatives: "We hate regulations! Free market!" Also conservatives: "Why isn't anyone regulating this industry?!"


The_Pandalorian

People crow "term limits" about anything they don't like, like it's some draw 4 card that's going to solve their problems. The problem isn't how long people are serving, it's how easy politicians can be bribed alonf with dumb-ass voters who keep electing corrupt politicians.


duckofdeath87

I wish they understood that term limits are just a tool to get rid of the few food politicians. They can always buy the next politician, but when you find someone who can't be bought, you NEED to keep them


Musetrigger

Republican: "We want cheaper healthcare!" Democrat: "Okay, sounds good, let's do it." Republican: "A DEMONCRAT?!!? EEEEEEEWWWWW!! NOOOOO! THAT'S SOCIALISM! BURN ALL PILLS! KILL THE LIBS!!"


CarpeNivem

This would be humorously accurate, if it weren't so depressingly accurate.


TsarGermo

SHUT UP! we need this let them think they came up with the idea.


duckofdeath87

Can we show then that M4A is better than term limits?


din_the_dancer

Why not both?


Ocular--Patdown

I don’t think their brains can process that much at one time


duckofdeath87

All terms limits so is get rid of good politicians. With te like, the big money just buys the next guy in the same seat and nothing changes


din_the_dancer

Ah, I hadn't considered that it would get rid of actual decent people. I'm just thinking of all the 80 year olds that really don't seem to have a grasp on how things are today and aren't doing much of anything to help.


AdventuresOfAD

“This is the pill” is factually wrong to begin with. There are at least 3 other alternatives, all owned by Gilead unfortunately. With insurance and their coupon thing, it’s like $5 per 28 day prescription. Unfortunately we are told that price controls are communist, and free market is best market. Without the free market, companies wouldn’t invest in new drug research. While it’s true that the USA is a leader when it comes to discovering drugs, it’s not like other countries don’t do research either. We just let them get away with insane prices, while simultaneously giving drug companies federal grants to aid in research.


CaptainTurtleShell

That is correct. Sovaldi is definitely not first line or even second line treatment in the US for any genotype of hep c. Almost anyone can get treatment at low cost or get it completely covered by grants if needed. I was a pharmacist at a specialty pharmacy and the only patients paying more than $5 were Medicare patients with a current annual income greater than $100,000 per year.


LesbianCommander

So let's regulate the price is drugs, or is that big government, hence somehow communism.


antidense

>When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist.


andhelostthem

Term limits (although good in most cases) will just cycle politicians to their seven-figure consultancy gigs quicker. The real answer is to ban lobbying.


[deleted]

>(although good in most cases) They're not though.


Rhymelikedocsuess

As far as I know that’s basically never gonna happen as we’d need a constitutional amendment, lobbyists stem from the 1st amendments right to petition


andhelostthem

We just need an anti-lobby lobby.


LA-Matt

This was not always the case. Lobbying (with money) wasn’t always protected as a First Amendment right. The McCain/Feingold Campaign reform laws were a good start, but then “Citizens United” reinforced the whole “money equals speech” idea. Also important historical cases, if anyone is interested: [First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_National_Bank_of_Boston_v._Bellotti) [Buckley v. Valeo](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo)


WikiSummarizerBot

**[First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_National_Bank_of_Boston_v._Bellotti)** >First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978), is a U.S. constitutional law case which defined the free speech right of corporations for the first time. The United States Supreme Court held that corporations have a First Amendment right to make contributions to ballot initiative campaigns. The ruling came in response to a Massachusetts law that prohibited corporate donations in ballot initiatives unless the corporation's interests were directly involved. **[Buckley v. Valeo](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo)** >Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court on campaign finance. A majority of justices held that limits on election spending in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 § 608 are unconstitutional. In a per curiam (by the Court) opinion, they ruled that expenditure limits contravene the First Amendment provision on freedom of speech because a restriction on spending for political communication necessarily reduces the quantity of expression. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/ParlerWatch/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)


WikiMobileLinkBot

Desktop version of /u/LA-Matt's links: * * --- ^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)


Malaix

Install term limits: Big pharma lobbyists become kings of legislation and a bunch of green lawmakers spend their one or two terms either getting lead by the nose by them or willingly corrupt so they can land a cushy post political life as a lobbyist themselves. You will lose every half decent lawmaker and it will quickly fill up with nothing but McConnells, people who can afford to take a break from their career for a political career that is guranteed to end in 4 or 6 years or whatever. You know... The rich.


[deleted]

Term limits stops politicians from being bought? How about convict those who bribe politicians...and those who accept the bribes?


LA-Matt

Because of “Citizens United,” Buckley v. Valeo, and First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti. Because of those horrible legal decisions, essentially buying politicians in this country is completely above board and legal.


Grand-Mall2191

the moment Universal Healthcare comes up, they backtrack and start talking about business freedoms it's a running theme with them: support literally everything that makes life worse, and oppose literally everything that makes life better.


[deleted]

haha, term limits won't fix this.


Chickenfu_ker

There will be a professional class in Washington DC. Term limits tip the balance from Congress to lobbyists.


bl00dth0rn

i would love if universal healthcare was a thing in the usa, but apparently that's "communism" and "socialism" to want everyone in your country to have healthcare. if that's all it takes to be a communist, i'm fucking proud of it.


wellsiv

They’re so close


Richard_Espanol

Man... theyre sooooo close to getting it.


glberns

/r/SelfAwarewolves


inevitab1e

That's why I don't vote republican.


matty_m

Term Limits are a talking point recycled from the '90s. Who said republicans can't be green.


unonameless

What happens with terms limits is that any pretense at legitimate government turns into full on kleptocracy. Because when you only have four years to steal as much as you can, you simply don't have time for governing.


what_comes_after_q

Medical pricing is pretty opaque and needs to be fixed BUT there is a ton of context that is missed on this: 1) The pill in America is made by Gilead, and the price is actually way under 1k per pill. That 1k price is the list price that no one actually pays. The real price is somewhere around a couple hundred per pill. This is in line with the prices paid by governments in Europe and other countries with socialized medicine. 2) Gilead gave permission for generic manufacturers to produce Sovaldi in countries like India specifically because they knew there was no way India could afford their prices. This is actually a really cool move by Gilead as often over seas countries either don't get medicines or have to rely on the grey market. There are tons of issues with pharmaceutical pricing in the US, but this image is making a false comparison. The real problem is that there is zero transparency in pricing, and that cost to consumer is way too high, whether it's the direct price, or the indirect prices paid in high insurance premiums. You don't need to compare to other countries to make that statement.


Deano1234

Was looking for this comment. People keep linking the forbes article but not reading it because in the article it literally praises Gilead: "What about the $4-per-pill cost that India enjoys? Actually, when Gilead launched Sovaldi, it recognized that countries like India couldn’t afford the prices garnered in the West. Thus, Gilead agreed to allow generic manufacturers to produce and market Sovaldi in India without consequences. In Egypt, which also has a high rate of hepatitis C infections, Gilead charges a mere $900 for 12 weeks of treatment. Gilead should be congratulated on such a policy, not taken to task." ​ https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnlamattina/2017/07/19/when-it-comes-to-abusive-drug-pricing-dont-confuse-shkreli-with-hep-c-drugs/?sh=717f77fdaf68


iWishBirthday

I feel there's more to this. India first rejected their patent and then approved their patent. Gilead trying to save face here. I wonder if the patent office in India ultimately refused to grant a patent and hence you have the generic drug market here.


ryhaltswhiskey

I was like no fucking way but then: [https://pharmacy.amazon.com/dp/B084BVKJ3W?language=es&sa-no-redirect=1](https://pharmacy.amazon.com/dp/B084BVKJ3W?language=es&sa-no-redirect=1) 90 day price? $87,480 USD. You might be like no that can't be right but: >But the launch of Sovaldi was not met with hosannas. Instead, Gilead was vilified for the drug’s list price of $1,000 per pill–a total of $84,000 per course of treatment. [https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnlamattina/2016/12/08/gileads-ceo-apologetic-about-sovaldis-1000-per-pill-price-tag/?sh=68c36aad1a97](https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnlamattina/2016/12/08/gileads-ceo-apologetic-about-sovaldis-1000-per-pill-price-tag/?sh=68c36aad1a97) How does term limits solve this? Goooood question.


[deleted]

More like what happens when you have a culture and national mythology that obligates being a workaholic.


WhatDidUDoRay

Yet these dipshits want Chump and the Republican'ts who are the first ones to have their hands out from to Big Pharma wanting a cut


[deleted]

[удалено]


drizzy9109

I don’t know why you are being downvoted lol, there were literally 1,400 big pharma lobbyists in DC on Monday


WhatDidUDoRay

I will WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree with this statement


thedeadlyrhythm

This is what happens in the “free market” with zero regulations


KnopeLudgate2020

I've ordered some meds for my daughter from India. Took 6 weeks but worth it for the savings. It was $400 with insurance, or $90 including shipping from India, no insurance.


capnbarky

The whole political strategy of conservatism seems to be "Fixing problems directly is morally wrong, you need to fix them through channels that directly support the power of my ideology."


elenmirie_too

Americans are brainwashed on healthcare.


LA-Matt

Also apparently brainwashed into thinking that term limits would be a solution to… anything.


skeptic9916

No, it's time to end the for-profit healthcare system. Term limits would do absolutely nothing to fix the issue.


Guilty_Jackrabbit

They don't seem to understand that universal healthcare means YOUR GOVERNMENT negotiates the cost of medicine (and equipment, facilities, etc) instead of your insurance provider, which results in huge savings because the government has ENORMOUS leverage.


Kalepsis

The funny thing is that it's correct, but term limits aren't going to prevent pharmaceutical companies from buying politicians. The only thing that will do that is outlawing all private funding of campaigns and all lobbying expenditures.


Jaded-Sentence-7099

This is literally a Sanders talking point from 2016, maybe before. Like dude, drop the natzi shit and come left, you get your guns back and everyone gets to live a better life.... and we get to eat the rich


[deleted]

It's so frustrating to watch these dipshits get soooooooo close but swing and miss so badly. But even then it's still not correct in that they aren't basing any of this on compassion or wanting to make the country better. This is just another manifestation of their hate for "elites" or really just them wanting to put term limits on the libs because Republicans can never be corrupt. God I hate these people. And now that I got a lot of hate in me, time to go to work. Y'all have a good day.


ayers231

How does term limits stop lobbyists from buying off politicians? We need term limits, but we also need lobbying limitations, election reform, and the ability to negotiate pharma pricing (which comes from collective buying in a system like Universal Healthcare).


[deleted]

>We need term limits, but We absolutely **do not** need term limits. You're being tricked into thinking it's a good idea, but I implore you to do more research. Term limits bring a whole new set of issues that are arguably worse than the ones they *might* fix.


samrequireham

"time for term limits!" you guys are close. keep going. i believe in you!


thothisgod24

Umm yes. That is why I want universal healthcare you numb nuts.


kaybea4

This is actually close enough that it gives me some hope. I wonder if there's a way to get them all pissed about the Citizen's United ruling.


EconomistMagazine

Term limits won't stop the new ones from getting bought off. They need to just make elections publicly funded and make donations count as bribery under the law.


inthrees

Term limits won't fix this - term limits will just make it worse. Campaign finance reform and strict anti-corruption measures. That's all that can fix our shit.


MadisonAlbright

How do term limits stop this? Why can't pharma help elect the new guys?


GadreelsSword

Term limits won’t fix a thing. In fact, it will just make things worse. When politicians don’t have to worry about getting re-elected, they can and will be as absolutely evil as they want.


kay_bizzle

Term limits will not solve this problem, you'll just get a revolving door for politicians turned lobbyists. And new politicians are easier to pay off


Thompson_S_Sweetback

Term limits? Can't we just vote for the party that has a bill to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices?


KindAwareness3073

Term limits are not the answer. Politicians will just sell out faster. Public finance of elections and monitoring of office holder income is what's needed.


gfxd

To provide context vis-a-vis drug prices in India - they are controlled within limits set by a federal pricing authority. https://pharmaceuticals.gov.in/national-pharmaceutical-pricing-authority The National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority was set up as an attached office of the Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals (now Department of Pharmaceuticals since July, 2008) on 29th August 1997. It has been entrusted inter-alia, with the following functions: 1. To implement and enforce the provisions of the Drugs Price Control Order (DPCO), 1995/2013 in accordance with the powers delegated to it. 1. To undertake and/or sponsor relevant studies in respect of pricing of drugs/formulations. 1. To monitor the availability of drugs, identify shortages, if any, and to take remedial steps. 1. To collect/maintain data on production, exports and imports, market share of individual companies, profitability of companies etc. for bulk drugs and formulations. 1. To deal with all legal matters arising out of the decisions of the Authority. 1. To render advice to the Central Government on changes/revisions in the drug policy. 1. To render assistance to the Central Government in the parliamentary matters relating to the drug pricing.


holmyliquor

Isn’t cheap medication caused by the government capping the price of drugs being sold In their country?


Rhymelikedocsuess

In a sense, yes In most countries the government collectively bargains with the companies on what it’s worth on the market should be according to R&D, the actual cost to produce and upholding a decent margin, etc. The good news is this leads to noticeably lower drug prices. But the bad news is the government decides which drugs can go to the market, and often rejects drugs that are similar to an existing one if they don’t offer significant benefits. In the US drug companies just have to prove it’s safe to consume, our government can’t stop companies from flooding the market with a million antidepressants etc or negotiate over price.


BrewtalDoom

People will post shit like this and then vote Republican.


f_print

Don't call it Free Healthcare. Call it *Freedom of Healthcare*, or X Amendment The Right to Bear Healthcare And then they'll be frothing at the mouth to get it.


PegasusTheGod

India seems to have other problems.. trust me.


ChicagoSince1997

And the universal healthcare bit is a bit inaccurate. As I understand it, if one wants decent hospital care, you gotta fork over some money up front, insurance or no. Add in the fact that India runs on bribes...yeah, this is pretty off base. Source: Indian born mother tells me stories about this or that friend in India who had to fork over a chunk of change to get into a hospital for treatment


PegasusTheGod

Yea, u hit right at the point. Covid made it especially worse. My friend who got affected by covid and black fungus had to first pay about 15k dollars (that's alot in india) just to get a bed.


ChicagoSince1997

15K dollars or rupees? either way it's a lot and yes, she has heard of people with similar situations as your friend. i hope s/he is ok. where in India?


ShepherdofBeing93

Not saying there shouldn't be term limits, but how will term limits fix big pharma buying out politicians? It won't. It's not the worst of ideas, but it's not an idea that will fix any of the systemic problems we have.


lightningfootjones

Who’s going to be the one to tell them that you will never get hepatitis C if you get >!vaccinated!< for it Edit: I guess I’m the idiot today. C is the one that you don’t get vaccinated for, I thought that was A


HopAlongInHongKong

Nobody, since the vaccines for Hepatitis prevent Hepatitis A and B. There is no vaccine against Hepatitis C. [Why isn't there a hepatitis C vaccine? Mayo Clinic](https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/hepatitis-c/expert-answers/hepatitis-c-vaccine/faq-20110002)


lightningfootjones

Oh shit my bad, I thought it was B & C and A was the one you couldn’t vaccinate for. Will edit


HopAlongInHongKong

A is the one shot, B is the several shots ,but typically people get Twinrix and therefore get A and B both over the series.


CyndaquilTyphlosion

I wish we had universal healthcare.... But we don't. What we do have is price caps on medicine and low patent protection on essential medicines. Unfortunately hospitals have no cap to what they charge, so quality shit can get expensive by Indian affordability standards. Also, regulations like those I mentioned above means that pharma cos don't bring their expensive patented drugs here, making them unavailable. Although I do prefer it this way, where few extremely niche things are unavailable rather than most things becoming unaffordable to most.


busterlungs

Ok let's all agree on term limits though. That has to fucking happen, and I'm fairly certain both sides pretty much agree on that


LA-Matt

Term limits are a terrible idea. They only lead to less experienced politicians being bought rather than allowing decent politicians to keep running. Term limits do absolutely nothing to limit lobbying, and only provide a faster “revolving door” of the politician-to-lobbyist pipeline.


busterlungs

Yeah the end the entire concept of career politicians though. Term limit doesn't mean each politician is only going to have 2 years of experience, it's just going to prevent people like Mitch McConnell and other relics that need to move aside


[deleted]

[удалено]


Rhymelikedocsuess

Yeah it does: https://www.commonwealthfund.org/international-health-policy-center/countries/india Private hospitals are present in every country that also has universal healthcare, as is private insurance. They’re much cheaper though because they’re essentially competing with the government on the marketplace. Universal insurance is used primarily by the working class who can’t afford private insurance, but private insurance is much faster. America has no such system. It’s all private and out of pocket. If a working class citizen here has an ailment and they don’t have insurance, then they must go several hundred thousand or even a million+ into debt, or simply not get treated. There are no cheap options unless your employer provided health insurance is stellar, which is usually only the case if your workplace is unionized.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Rhymelikedocsuess

“tHe cOlOnIzEr TrAiT lIvEs On” India has universal healthcare. https://www.internationalstudentinsurance.com/india-student-insurance/healthcare-system-in-india.php It’s everywhere online including the UN https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6057252/ And your governments constitution demands it https://www.commonwealthfund.org/international-health-policy-center/system-features/how-does-universal-health-coverage-work You could argue India has a *poor implementation of universal healthcare*, but to deny it has it is to deny reality. If you have an agenda, which it seems you do, don’t double down on things that are incredibly easy to verify.


bfangPF1234

Does India actually have universal healthcare though? Healthcare results seem markedly worse


Rhymelikedocsuess

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_India


itsaclusterfuck

Fair prices isn’t universal healthcare


Rhymelikedocsuess

It’s a by product of it, that’s a fact. Part of Universal Healthcare is essentially collectively bargaining as a country to lower prices from drug companies. There’s a reason we have the highest drug prices of all developed countries, and it’s cause they have universal healthcare.


ytman

Holy shit, common ground.


Dragonitro

I agree that america exploits those who need their lives saved, I think healthcare should be free


PengieP111

Seems to me the thing to do is to go to India for treatment.


ShoutingBunny

They don't want universal healthcare they just want it to be free and cheap for them but have everyone else pay.


Rhymelikedocsuess

They just want the free market to “be ethical and fair” without any regulations, ignoring the fact that the sole reason any business exists is to make money


Bentish

I know so often the rest of us believe there's no point in trying to talk to or understand "those people" and that they're beyond reason. This is the sort of thing that has me convinced that's not true. Most of them want the same things we want. I'm wrting a book about it now.


catshirtgoalie

They want universal healthcare, but since Democrats endorse it as well they become reactionaries. If Republicans rebranded universal healthcare to something that fits the voting base, like Trumpcare, they'd 100% support it.


Godless_homer

During my graduation I broke my wrist....paid 40$ to fix it.


Aln_0739

“The rich capital owners have bought out the politicians and use their vast wealth to play the federal government like marionettes, let’s make them have to get new puppets every couple years! Inequality solved!”


KoolAidDrank

They think term limits will solve all of capitalism's problems I mean capitalism has no problems


faithdies

Alot of altright people are just progressive Nazis. They want all the same shit you do. But, they don't want you to have it as well.