To what extent has democracy in the US been subverted by money?

[crazy canuck]

The reason the US is not able to reform its medical system to one that is more rational and efficient is exactly because of the reasons Berkut has stated.

and that has changed in Canada... how exactly?  What reforms have we done since the 60s?

In this province alone there have been considerable reforms over the last ten years.

I am not sure what you have in mind.

[Jacob]

The reason the US is not able to reform its medical system to one that is more rational and efficient is exactly because of the reasons Berkut has stated.

and that has changed in Canada... how exactly?  What reforms have we done since the 60s?

In this province alone there have been considerable reforms over the last ten years.

I am not sure what you have in mind.

Viper37, the museum of civilization has a pretty good interactive timeline of the history of healthcare here: http://www.historymuseum.ca/cmc/exhibitions/hist/medicare/medic-5h01e.shtml

French version here: http://www.historymuseum.ca/cmc/exhibitions/hist/medicare/medic-5h01f.shtml

... it seems to me, just browsing the pull down menus for each time period, that lots of things have changed and been reformed since the 60s.

It seems there has been continual adjustment to priorities, to funding models and implementation, to where the decision making lies, to addressing coverage in different communities, to integrating new technologies.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

That has been my straw to grasp.  That a few who are still motivated by ideology will band together. 

But ultimately what we need is an amendment to the Constitution that will take the money out of the elections.  How people are supposed to run for office I guess needs to be addressed but we have the internet now so perhaps we can find a low rate way to campaign that will allow it to be more about the ideas, and how those ideas appeal to the voters, and less about fund raising.

The thing is, politicians still need to convince people to actually vote for them.  Money, at least campaign money, only goes so far in that.  Campaign finance is one head of the hydra, but just one.  Whacking it off won't do much; in fact, you may get shit like the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act that simply reinforces the other heads under the fig leaf of slaying this one.

[Valmy]

The thing is, politicians still need to convince people to actually vote for them.

Sure.  That is a factor.  But the gate keepers to getting on the ballots are corrupted by money so while they will be looking for electable people it does not have much to do with the underlying problem.

Money, at least campaign money, only goes so far in that.

Sure the other guy, also controlled by the money, might also win.

Campaign finance is one head of the hydra, but just one.

What are the other heads?

Whacking it off won't do much; in fact, you may get shit like the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act that simply reinforces the other heads under the fig leaf of slaying this one.

While I appreciate the use of metaphors and poetic language here I am not sure what you are going on about. 

Nonsense.  Well ok sure but they are running against some other person who is also bought so sure the individual politician needs to look good on TV and hit all the talking points and so forth to win.  But they have lots of people trained to help them with that. 

[OttoVonBismarck]

Immensely, when one party exists solely to promise the 99%er more money, that party will win elections more and more (you're seeing this now), and eventually the country will collapse as the productive members of society are plundered by the minorities and po folk that are given fat by the "people's" party. The Founder's recognized this and in their time all States had a limited franchise, which is what leads to the correct members of society making important societal decisions.

It amazes me people who think women who can't figure out how to avoid having 8 unwanted kids by 3 different fathers, men who can't figure out how to stay employed or refrain from punching their baby momma's heads in, people who can't earn more than minimum wage and etc should have a vote in our polity and effectively a say in public policy. People who cannot even manage their own lives have way too big a seat at the table.

[Admiral Yi]

It's not clear to me whether the rich are playing the politicians or vice versa.

Don't really see what the rich are getting for their money.  The US has the highest corporate tax rate in the civilized world.  The US is unique in that it taxes income earned overseas (which presumably skews rich).  Congress a couple years ago passed a repeal of the Bush tax cuts on the highest bracket only.  Before that they passed Obamacare, which was half funded by a lifting of the Medicare payroll tax.

[Jacob]

Oh Otto, you're such a card.

[garbon]

The US is unique in that it taxes income earned overseas (which presumably skews rich).

I believe you have to be making something like 100k overseas in order to be required to pay taxes on said income.

[Admiral Yi]

When I was working in Korea back in the 80s the rule was you got a deduction for foreign taxes paid.  So if you were in a country with higher taxes than the US you owed nothing to Tio Samuel.

[garbon]

So here's what I found.

https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tools/tax-tips/General-Tax-Tips/Filing-Taxes-While-Overseas/INF19130.html

Foreign earned income exclusion
One tax break for expatriates is the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion. If an American moves abroad, he or she can exclude foreign-earned income up to $97,600 as of 2013 from U.S. taxation. To qualify, that person must have lived outside the United States for 330 days in 12 consecutive months, said Wilson, a partner in the Denver law firm of Holland & Hart.

That means an expatriate making $75,000 overseas would pay no taxes, although he or she still must file IRS Form 1040 and claim the exclusion. If the expatriate makes $100,000, tax must be paid on the difference between his or her salary and $97,600, or $2,400. But if the expatriate visits the United States for more than 35 days in that period, the benefit is lost.

If there's no government where the expatriate is living, the exclusion can't be claimed. Wilson recalled a case in which Americans tried without success to claim the exclusion because they were living in Antarctica. The exclusion also can't be claimed on the high seas, he said.

Foreign tax credit
Once you've been overseas for an extended time -- usually at least half a year, Wilson said -- you become subject to taxes in your country of residence.

If you're also paying taxes in the United States, that would be double taxation. So the U.S. tax code allows you to take a foreign tax credit. Under this section of the tax code, you subtract the lower of the tax rates from the higher. In effect, you pay only the higher of the two tax rates, split between the two countries.

Wilson gave this example:

Say you lived and worked in London in 2013 and made $180,000 a year. You can use the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion to exclude $97,600 of that income from taxes. The remainder -- $82,400 -- is subject to U.S. and U.K. tax. Your income tax rate in the United Kingdom could be 20 percent and your American rate 30 percent. You pay the British tax, and subtract that rate from the American tax, so you pay just 10 percent of the $82,400 in American taxes.

[Razgovory]

Oh Otto, you're such a card.

It's funny, Dguller and I were having just this discussion last week when I brought out Hans old quote saying essentially the same thing.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I didn't always agree with Hans, but he was right about a lot more than this pack of mongrels gave him credit for; most specifically anytime he agreed with me.

[Valmy]

It's not clear to me whether the rich are playing the politicians or vice versa.

We are not talking about the rich.  Unless individuals are buying lobbyists and dumping huge amounts of money on politicians.  I suppose the rich may be contributing to those super Pacs for some reason.

[OttoVonBismarck]

And while I live in the real world where liberal democracy is here to say,  I think smart people have known since the time of the ancients that an enlightened elite are far better at running things than the masses. It stands to reason that so too should the process of selecting members of the elite class to govern should be restricted in some way. There's really no evidence a universal electorate is desirable or beneficial, the only thing it is, ideally, is equitable. But there's a difference between "equitable" and "best for all", albeit a subtle one most will miss. And of course rule by elites frequently became familial, which often enough leads to rule by imbeciles who are not part of the elite class due to any intrinsic worth or ability, and not an easy problem to fix.

[Valmy]

Immensely, when one party exists solely to promise the 99%er more money, that party will win elections more and more (you're seeing this now).

True but that party is completely corrupt.  And this is really just a matter of campaign tactics anyway.