All things political. Coronavirus Edition. (3 Viewers)

[Maxp]

I fear we are really going to be in a bad place due to the obvious cuts to the federal agencies that deal with infectious disease, but also the negative effect the Affordable Care act has had on non urban hospitals. Our front line defenses are ineffectual and our ability to treat the populous is probably at an all time low. Factor in the cost of healthcare and I can see our system crashing. What do you think about the politics of this virus?

 

[EmBeeFiveOhFour]

In case any of you folks who, like me, are average middle class Americans who happen to import people from overseas to live and my house and raise my children, you don't have anything to worry about from the immigration ban. Trump's not tone deaf.



I assume this also applies to middle class Americans who need seasonal workers to staff their country clubs.

 

[JimEverett]

So there now seems a push to limit liability for companies if their workers get covid-19. I am not necessarily opposed to that. My initial thought is that something like that would fall under workers comp.
However - I do wonder about liability for patrons/consumers of a business.
So, for example, suppose MLB opens backs up and puts 30,000 people together in the stadium. Would the team have any liability if the virus could be found to have spread to 100 people at the event? Further suppose they held the event within the first week of a governor lifting a shelter-at-home order.
This probably isn't an issue in the coming month for MLB - but take youth leagues and stuff - that may see several hundred people come together in relatively confined field or complex.
Same things with bars, restaurants, any business that was deemed "non-essential"
It is interesting to think about. You can also think about whether taking certain precautions would tend to mitigate potential liability, and how those precautions were enforced. Certainly most people know about the dangers of the virus and the common-sense steps to limit transmission, but there is likely some degree of responsibility for businesses as well.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

So there now seems a push to limit liability for companies if their workers get covid-19. I am not necessarily opposed to that. My initial thought is that something like that would fall under workers comp.
However - I do wonder about liability for patrons/consumers of a business.
So, for example, suppose MLB opens backs up and puts 30,000 people together in the stadium. Would the team have any liability if the virus could be found to have spread to 100 people at the event? Further suppose they held the event within the first week of a governor lifting a shelter-at-home order.
This probably isn't an issue in the coming month for MLB - but take youth leagues and stuff - that may see several hundred people come together in relatively confined field or complex.
Same things with bars, restaurants, any business that was deemed "non-essential"
It is interesting to think about. You can also think about whether taking certain precautions would tend to mitigate potential liability, and how those precautions were enforced. Certainly most people know about the dangers of the virus and the common-sense steps to limit transmission, but there is likely some degree of responsibility for businesses as well.

Something like this is where I think I prefer the government to assume the risk and set regulations to mitigate that risk. By that I mean in situations where it is very difficult to prove exactly where a harm occurred, and the severity of that harm (ie, getting cancer from pollution in the water supply, etc).

I think it would be very difficult to prove that someone contracted the virus at any particular point.

 

[JimEverett]

Something like this is where I think I prefer the government to assume the risk and set regulations to mitigate that risk. By that I mean in situations where it is very difficult to prove exactly where a harm occurred, and the severity of that harm (ie, getting cancer from pollution in the water supply, etc).

I think it would be very difficult to prove that someone contracted the virus at any particular point.

Can there be a high degree of certainty about particular outbreak location? I am thinking of the Connecticut party, or the SOuth Dakota pork plant.

Maybe along your line of thinking - would a Governor "opening up" be enough to shield a business from any liability (assuming you could pinpoint that business as being the place of outbreak?

 

[CoolBrees]

So first direct government payments are ok, so socialism in business is ok.

Now we aren’t supposed to snitch on our neighbors?!?! So you live and promote sanctuary cities now?!?

Man if only you guys were this reasonable all the time.

Oh and here’s a Reuter’s article about Trump’s surrogates are behind the rallies-

How Trump allies have organized and promoted anti-lockdown protests

Republican politicians and individuals affiliated with President Donald Trump’s re-election campaign are organizing or promoting anti-lockdown protests across key electoral battleground states, despite the White House's own cautious guidance on relaxing restrictions, interviews...

www.reuters.com

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Can there be a high degree of certainty about particular outbreak location? I am thinking of the Connecticut party, or the SOuth Dakota pork plant.

Maybe along your line of thinking - would a Governor "opening up" be enough to shield a business from any liability (assuming you could pinpoint that business as being the place of outbreak?

It's a good question and I don't know. My thought is, the government sets up rules and regulations on what businesses need to do to be open, and if the business follows those rules and an outbreak occurs, the risk should be assumed by the government. Obviously, if the business circumvented those rules, they'd have some liability.

 

[JimEverett]

This isn't a direct response to either of you, but I'm using it as a launch point.

I often find that our rhetoric doesn't fully match our beliefs, or rather, how we often speak in absolutes, but we really have all sorts of assumed exceptions. And by we, I mean people.

For example, I distinctly remember Trump running as the "Law and Order" president. And how so many people who want the wall built and are concerned about illegal immigration cited as a major concern as the respect for the law (ie, it doesn't matter if illegal immigration is a net benefit or harm to the country, they were breaking the law!). And while I haven't done an actual statistical analysis on this, it feels like there is a big overlap of people who were vehemently in favor of the law, are now in favor of breaking "the law" when they disagree with it.

And obviously, I know that there are plenty of other people low key circumventing the social distancing ordinances and so on that aren't connected to this at all.

I think times like this are a good time to kind of peel away the rhetoric and figure out what it is that we believe and why, without the rhetoric that we wrap ourselves in. The "whatabout-ism" arguments are good for this. Ie, why does Ralph Northam survive a black face controversy, when Republicans get excoriated over racial faux pas? And so on.

And JimEverett's post, kind of made me think about the fragileness of our economy. We supposedly had the best economy ever (and I agree that it was very good). But we can't survive a month without massive bailouts? What does that say about us? How do we account for risk in our planning? Should we create stronger incentives for savings vs. consumerism? Or should the government not worry about modifying behavior but explicitly have a plan in place (and savings ready) for when we inevitably run into these problems?

Sorry, just meandering thoughts this morning.

I think contradictions are common in political beliefs. In fact, I think they are common in any belief system. At the same time, you can fairly easily rationalize away contradictions due to some difference of fact - which would be true in any comparison given that no two events, things, situations are exactly the same. Seems par for the course in American politics.
Part of my problem is that I can "believe" in any number of potentially contradictory beliefs - and I think many people are like me. For example - I will in no way unnecessarily go out in public and put my family at risk of this virus while simultaneously believing that the lockdown are unnecessary overreactions in ost places, including where I live.

As far as the economy - something has to give, imo. Arguably Trump and the rising influence of democratic socialism within the Democratic Party are a direct result of the economic changes that began 50 years ago. What you are saying is another instance of showing that the current model does not seem sustainable.
The idea that we could have an honest discussion about potential paths to go down seems like a fantasy at this point.

 

[Dragon]

Something like this is where I think I prefer the government to assume the risk and set regulations to mitigate that risk. By that I mean in situations where it is very difficult to prove exactly where a harm occurred, and the severity of that harm (ie, getting cancer from pollution in the water supply, etc).

I think it would be very difficult to prove that someone contracted the virus at any particular point.

Here the government kept it very simple. Anyone who contracts Covid-19 while working in an essential jobfunction, are automatically protected by the workers injury laws. That is anyone working at a hospital, Handicap aides, retirement homes, but also police, rescue, utility services, bus drivers and train conductors and similar jobfunctions. They do not need to prove they got it on the job, but it is automatically asumed that that is the case.

 

[dtc]

Wasn't great lengths, it was a minute or two, which is probably why that last example isn't great.

The point is simple. Following the rules, compliance is something many of you have argued for a long time. It's something I'd bet a lot of these protesters have said. Now, when it actually affects them, they finally see why sometimes people don't comply, or aren't given a chance to comply.

The irony is palpable.

You mean like how they call illegal immigrants out for not waiting in line and complying with the rules?

 

[The moose]

In case any of you folks who, like me, are average middle class Americans who happen to import people from overseas to live and my house and raise my children, you don't have anything to worry about from the immigration ban. Trump's not tone deaf.



I assume this also applies to middle class Americans who need seasonal workers to staff their country clubs.

The sad part it is not really seasonal. H2b is what they use for that.

H2b labor like used by trump golf courses is for nine months.

That is not seasonal. That is all but one season.

They can really do just about anything that is not crop work and have no way to become a legal us citizen from a h2b work visa.

If you ever look into the types of legal illegal visas it is absolutely scary what the corporate world does to not pay Americans a living wage.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I think contradictions are common in political beliefs. In fact, I think they are common in any belief system. At the same time, you can fairly easily rationalize away contradictions due to some difference of fact - which would be true in any comparison given that no two events, things, situations are exactly the same. Seems par for the course in American politics.

I agree, but I also think it's useful to examine it from time to time.

Part of my problem is that I can "believe" in any number of potentially contradictory beliefs - and I think many people are like me. For example - I will in no way unnecessarily go out in public and put my family at risk of this virus while simultaneously believing that the lockdown are unnecessary overreactions in ost places, including where I live.

I don't really see that as a contradiction actually, but I would probably argue on assumed responsibility and societal rights.

As far as the economy - something has to give, imo. Arguably Trump and the rising influence of democratic socialism within the Democratic Party are a direct result of the economic changes that began 50 years ago. What you are saying is another instance of showing that the current model does not seem sustainable.
The idea that we could have an honest discussion about potential paths to go down seems like a fantasy at this point.

I'm not sure why not though. Sure, people get spun up, but it's also possible to spin it back down.

 

[dtc]

It's why a social safety net is important. I think of it like this. If the Fed didn't jump in with the extra $600/week payments, florida unemployment is like $275/week, or $1100 on a regular month. Even by being put on a 60% salary, with just $1100 added, I'd be hurting. Not to the point where I have to decide what bill to pay, but close. If laid off.. with my wife's pay, we'd probably start by selling a car, and finding other things to remove. I'd struggle.

If not for her health care benefits, if we had to go to the doctor, or worse, a hospital, we'd be ruined.

I think you're also seeing a bunch of people who've never had to file unemployment realize how crappy the system is. How slow. How odd some of the questions can be.

I love irony and hypocrisy and unfortunately for many in my area they're showing it off.

There are so many people I know who are whining about the government not giving them money and unemployment being broken that it's sad except the fact that many of them voted for the guys who did it knowing full well what they were doing.

I guess it's true, everyone's a socialist now.

 

[dtc]

Well, I am about to be.

I think your observation about perceived risk is a good one.

I am not sure there is a lot of daylight between how we would actually behave in most instances.

I have enjoyed readi8ng you guys talk about this.

I don't know that there's any real difference between reporting kids out playing basketball and reporting kids for throwing toilet paper or eggs or stealing hub caps. I would likely do neither, but when I engage the rational side of my brain, I think there's more danger in the social interaction and ignoring the potential harm to others from social engagement than petty mischief.

Real property crimes are not what I was considering.

 

[JimEverett]

I love irony and hypocrisy and unfortunately for many in my area they're showing it off.

There are so many people I know who are whining about the government not giving them money and unemployment being broken that it's sad except the fact that many of them voted for the guys who did it knowing full well what they were doing.

I guess it's true, everyone's a socialist now.

This is semantical - but I don't think it is "socialist" to expect the government to pay money to individuals when it was the government who ordered a shutdown that caused many to face economic distress and insecurity. Seems something more like the government trying to properly pay for a "takings."

 

[dtc]

This is semantical - but I don't think it is "socialist" to expect the government to pay money to individuals when it was the government who ordered a shutdown that caused many to face economic distress and insecurity. Seems something more like the government trying to properly pay for a "takings."

I get that argument, but I don't agree. It may be a legal rationalization to make it palatable, but the virus caused the shutdown. Our rational response was to take cover like in a bombing raid and our federal government is the only entity available with the means and ability to literally print money.

Government hasn't taken anything. It's created cash flow in order to stave off starvation and economic collapse due to a global pandemic..

Semantics perhaps, but I'm sure you agree.

 

[JimEverett]

I get that argument, but I don't agree. It may be a legal rationalization to make it palatable, but the virus caused the shutdown. Our rational response was to take cover like in a bombing raid and our federal government is the only entity available with the means and ability to literally print money.

Government hasn't taken anything. It's created cash flow in order to stave off starvation and economic collapse due to a global pandemic..

Semantics perhaps, but I'm sure you agree.

I think a governor ordering shutdown of businesses through threats of fines and/or imprisonment is very similar to a takings. In fact, it is basically the definition of a taking. There is always a causative reason for the government to take something - whether that be a lack of economic development, desire for better infrastructure, potential natural disasters, or now, a virus.

 

[Heathen]

Now we aren’t supposed to snitch on our neighbors?!?! So you live and promote sanctuary cities now?!?

How Trump allies have organized and promoted anti-lockdown protests

Republican politicians and individuals affiliated with President Donald Trump’s re-election campaign are organizing or promoting anti-lockdown protests across key electoral battleground states, despite the White House's own cautious guidance on relaxing restrictions, interviews...

www.reuters.com

No snitchin...unless you look like someone who 'aint from these parts'. I'm being facetious but I wonder why the discrepancy.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

This is semantical - but I don't think it is "socialist" to expect the government to pay money to individuals when it was the government who ordered a shutdown that caused many to face economic distress and insecurity. Seems something more like the government trying to properly pay for a "takings."

I get that argument, but I don't agree. It may be a legal rationalization to make it palatable, but the virus caused the shutdown. Our rational response was to take cover like in a bombing raid and our federal government is the only entity available with the means and ability to literally print money.

Government hasn't taken anything. It's created cash flow in order to stave off starvation and economic collapse due to a global pandemic..

Semantics perhaps, but I'm sure you agree.

This is where I think framing comes into play.

I get the argument JimEverett is making. People want compensation when they believe the government is taking something from them, which they view (with justification) has been done to them.

I also think you can frame this as dtc has done by saying this was a natural disaster, and that the government is providing a social safety net.

Where it gets more complex is when you considered some structural poverty problems which I think can be framed as a government taking. There's a lot of government actions over 2 centuries which has created what I think are structural poverty problems -- segregation, selective enforcement of the law, red lining, etc.

You can get even more abstract and consider uneven infrastructure investment - lack of good public schooling in some locations, substandard roads, electrical grids, etc which you find in parts of Appalachia. This is not a taking, but a lack of even giving or reinvestment.

Basically, we don't all start out with equal opportunities and tools at our disposal. Some of those are the government's direct fault, and some of it isn't.

I think this is showing that the support for a broad social safety net is pretty strong, but there is fear that it won't be applied "fairly", or it will be gamed or whatever. So I think discussing the most efficient way to have a safety net is valuable and then discussing implementation.