Medicare is more efficient than private health insurance. Full stop. Stop putting American businesses at a disadvantage. Maybe they’d stick around.
I’m all for cutting shit that’s irrelevant or antiquated. Dept of Ed? Defense dept? Talk to me goose.
Is the battle for the direction of the Republican Party a contest between conservatism and populism?
- Thread starter BradStevens
- Start date
I’m all for cutting shit that’s irrelevant or antiquated. Dept of Ed? Defense dept? Talk to me goose.
I know you wrote full stop but I’m going to reply. Any form of socialized health insurance contravenes how shit works. Doctors are nerds. Misfits. Weirdos. Guys who got picked on and have zero common sense and harbor grudges. In my miserable former life I ran over them like a trash truck to a squirrel. But guess what? In their own creepy, sinister way they’re smart. They parlayed their math and biology skills into a largesse that attracts the kind of pussy they could otherwise never dream of scoring.
So they ain’t livin with gov reimbursement rates. That’s not what they signed up for. Doctors in other countries make less than guys selling windows. Throw in the Godzilla that insurance has become and we’ll never have mfa no matter how much IGW thinks otherwise.
Last edited:
The moon seemed so far away too once. We don’t do moonshots anymore. Why?
The party that has the next great moonshot plan should win. Something 80% of Americans can get behind. It won’t happen overnight.
But Medicare is more efficient. It just is. I agree it’s tough in a capitalistic society to create a government funded healthcare scheme and fill it with the best and brightest. But we should figure out how to do it. Tie it to immigration. I don’t care if 50% of doctors are Indian. Shit, my current doctor is 2nd generation Indian.
We need a moonshot. Americans love to win. Let’s make it about being the best in the world. We all lack imagination.
It would require a lot. Doctors can refuse Medicaid. I presume they can Medicare. I don’t remember
UAW probably. Doctors no. I hate doctors. But I have doctor friends. That’s a harder gig than any I’ve ever been aware of
Thank you. It doesn't say he did anything. It said at the time that employment-based preferences were projected to increase by a certain amount, as they replaced family-based preferences.
Employment-based immigration is a good thing. Trump made many immigration policy changes. He always championed that.
Employment-based immigration is a good thing. My point is, the article doesn't say he actually accomplished anything. Instead, it says he tightened up on family-based immigration (which I do not grant is a good thing), and it was projected by this policy center that some of those numbers lost to family-based migration would naturally shift to an increase in employment-based. This was all before the fact. So we don't have anything showing that it was actually accomplished, and, perhaps more to the point, it wasn't even a plan, as much as an expected side effect of cracking down on "chain migration."
There is a middle ground that should absolutely be free to any and all, mainly yearly physicals, and as we age, relevant scans and tests.
Hopefully you have a doctor where you don't have to go in for a visit just to get meds. I do have a 'required' tele-visits, but my doctor was my grandparents' neighbor and formerly worked with IU sports, the Indiana all-star teams and any national basketball event that rolled through NIFS, so all my visits, in person or virtual, revolved around talking basketball.
Anything that eliminates consumers from using the ER or Med-check facilities as a PCP.
I think there are legitimate issues dividing us on immigration. One of my good friends is a bit of a xenophobe, but he works in the fruit industry. I can sometimes get the hint of his head starting to explode as he wonders higher labor costs will impact his bottom line.
It's the fringe on both sides that need us quarreling.
We agree on most things, politically. But if Trump is the nominee, he'll abandon all principles and vote Democrat, like he did in 2020.
He was a Democrat and then switched for Reagan. He's more personality-driven than I am.
It’s not personality over principles. Its principles, character, and fitness, and Trump fails in all three categories.
Dbm is not smart enough to even begin to understand what you are saying, he's a clown thats into idol worship, not policy. He's basically a Swifty.
I don't really disagree with what you are saying, but policy wins only occur with political capital. And Trump has zero, and will never get above the zero line. Even on a miracle that he won, he'd be a lame duck from the starting point, he can't run again, the country would go nowhere, other than more chaos. It's really a fkn disaster.
I've held the opinion for a long time that we are in the midst of a major political realignment. The Reagan era coalition is more or less dead on the right. What weak coalition that is still holding within the GOP is very fragile.
We've seen massive shifts in voter behavior when it comes to both blue collar and white collar workers. Neither party seems ready to accept their new voting blocs with very much ease. Dems now hold onto power based upon voting in wealthy suburbs of college educated upper-middle class voters at a larger share. Republicans are only able to win statewide races by running up huge rural vote and picking off voters from lower economic levels closer to cities.
Bad bedfellows compared with their parties policies
We've seen massive shifts in voter behavior when it comes to both blue collar and white collar workers. Neither party seems ready to accept their new voting blocs with very much ease. Dems now hold onto power based upon voting in wealthy suburbs of college educated upper-middle class voters at a larger share. Republicans are only able to win statewide races by running up huge rural vote and picking off voters from lower economic levels closer to cities.
Bad bedfellows compared with their parties policies
Last edited:
There is all sorts of sorting going on. The Democrats are the party of single women. Men and married women both majority vote for Republicans.
Single women are the Democrat's base. Given that women are now the most likely to hold degrees on one hand and single women are more likely to be recipients of the welfare state than their married counterparts (and men), that is where you see the weird dichotomy in the Democrat Party.
Democrats and Republicans aren’t divided by gender, they’re divided by marriage - Washington Examiner
What would it look like if a major publication decided to produce a feature on masculinity but then assigned all the articles to women? Well, it would look a lot like Politico’s The Masculinity Issue, which did exactly that. BIDEN'S DEFICITS THREATEN ECONOMIC DOOM Politico’s aversion to asking...
www.washingtonexaminer.com
More than anything the sorting of the parties is related to views on social issues. The GOP is a coalition of social conservatives. I don't mean that in the context of religion like it is normally used. I mean that in the sense that people who vote for the GOP tend to value traditionalism (for lack of a better term). You have a greater variation of opinion on things like economic policy and foreign policy but where you have the common ground is on things like the role of family in life, the role of institutions in the country, value in previous norms, etc. That is how you have a @mcmurtry66 feeling more comfortable in the party with someone who holds economic views like you would. There are varying degrees to how strongly we express that traditionalist bent, but I think that is the common thread.
No. They just don’t care, or worse, those failings are the reason they worship him.
Crazy 2, good find.There is all sorts of sorting going on. The Democrats are the party of single women. Men and married women both majority vote for Republicans.
Single women are the Democrat's base. Given that women are now the most likely to hold degrees on one hand and single women are more likely to be recipients of the welfare state than their married counterparts (and men), that is where you see the weird dichotomy in the Democrat Party.
Democrats and Republicans aren’t divided by gender, they’re divided by marriage - Washington Examiner
What would it look like if a major publication decided to produce a feature on masculinity but then assigned all the articles to women? Well, it would look a lot like Politico’s The Masculinity Issue, which did exactly that. BIDEN'S DEFICITS THREATEN ECONOMIC DOOM Politico’s aversion to asking...
More than anything the sorting of the parties is related to views on social issues. The GOP is a coalition of social conservatives. I don't mean that in the context of religion like it is normally used. I mean that in the sense that people who vote for the GOP tend to value traditionalism (for lack of a better term). You have a greater variation of opinion on things like economic policy and foreign policy but where you have the common ground is on things like the role of family in life, the role of institutions in the country, value in previous norms, etc. That is how you have a @mcmurtry66 feeling more comfortable in the party with someone who holds economic views like you would. There are varying degrees to how strongly we express that traditionalist bent, but I think that is the common thread.
Here is another article on the subject of demographic trends and which party is likely to benefit.
The article in part states the following...
Unmarried women without children have been moving toward the Democratic Party for several years, but the 2022 midterms may have been their electoral coming-out party as they proved the chief break on the predicted Republican wave. While married men and women as well as unmarried men broke for the GOP, CNN exit polls found that 68% of unmarried women voted for Democrats.
The Supreme Court’s August decision overturning Roe v. Wade was certainly a special factor in the midterms, but longer-term trends show that single, childless women are joining African Americans as the Democrats’ most reliable supporters.
In the near future, American politics, both national and local, may turn on the degree to which people remain single, and also whether they decide to have children.
As to which party will benefit the article states..
Right now, the short run demography favors the Democrats. People are getting married at the lowest rate in American history and the birth rate remains depressed. The longer people stay single, and perhaps never marry, the better things will be for the Democrats.
Political capital is nothing but a media talking point used by rubes in the media. Public policy is made by negotiations and compromise.
For me it’s a very close call about which is worse for the country, Trump or Trump hate. I think the best way to rid ourselves of Trump is to ignore him, but noooo. I think the Democrat and media must keep Trump on center stage in order to be relevant. I can’t explain people like you who find some value in coming down on Trump in reply to my totally innocuous mention of him.
Will you advise Democrats and the media to continue to ignore him for 4 more years if this happens again, or will he just continue to go away?
And, why aren't you advising the GOP to "ignore" him?
And to build on that, I would say that having a bunch of single people without children is awful for the future of the country for a variety of reasons.
It also begs the question, do Democrat policies help to create their voters and is there an incentive there for them to enact policies that would probably be panned from a sociological POV to continue to attract that vote?
W
Why is a bunch of single people without kids awful? They probably go out more. Travel more spend more. Keep the economy cookin. Am I wrong?
Sure, but we all have capital in something. It's just another way of saying influence. Not sure how that's a media talking point.
It will fade away if he isn't elected President next year. It might take awhile at first given all his legal troubles.
He's the leading GOP candidate by a wide margin, who is facing 91 indictments. Hard to ignore that.
If what you have in your picture happens, my advice to Democrats and people viewed as "establishment" would probably be to buckle up, it is going to be a rough ride.Will you advise Democrats and the media to continue to ignore him for 4 more years if this happens again, or will he just continue to go away?
And, why aren't you advising the GOP to "ignore" him?
He will feel vindicated and he will be out for retribution.
Trump fall out that is worth a thought.
In summary: our elected and experts were firmly ensconced in their bubbles. Then along came Trump and exposed their weaknesses which many suspected but never exposed. In response we get the whole “ misinformation “ baloney. What we really have is old fadhioned abuse of power. Power that starts with government but has metastasized outward.
www.city-journal.org
In summary: our elected and experts were firmly ensconced in their bubbles. Then along came Trump and exposed their weaknesses which many suspected but never exposed. In response we get the whole “ misinformation “ baloney. What we really have is old fadhioned abuse of power. Power that starts with government but has metastasized outward.
Digital Censorship
Martin Gurri joins Brian C. Anderson to discuss the government's efforts to control online speech.
www.city-journal.org
They are all well and good when you don't have a welfare/entitlement state. Women, with and without children (grouped as a whole), are more likely to be takers from the entitlement state than men (61% to 49%) Women live longer and they generally are attracted to lower paying jobs. They have things in their life (like having kids) that tend to put them at places where they are likely to be reliant on or need assistance from someone to help. Married women theoretically have a husband and 2 family support networks
In the case of single, no kids, you need citizens having children to have a large enough population to pay taxes into things like Social Security to cover for the current group of recipients. If you don't have that, then you need mass immigration. That leads to an influx of low skilled workers paying into the system to support their more well off retirees. That creates the type of income and class disparity (probably mixed with the ever present racial conflict in the U.S.) that leads to social and political unrest.
You can't force people to do X, Y, and Z but for stability family units provide more stability. And that isn't meant to be a commentary on any life choices being made here, just a dispassionate look at what you need to keep the safety net in place.
I think it will be a continuation of the current cycle.
I don't necessarily dismiss single payer out of hand, but you and I both know not everyone will pay. There will be exceptions galore and, as usual, the onus will all be on the working schmuck to pay the bills.
Personally, since we're going to subsidize huge part of the population anyway, I could get behind a government-sponsored insurance plan where anyone who can't/won't pay all get put into one risk pool, subsidized by the government, i.e. medicaid. Personal payments to the insurance administrator would be on a sliding scale, according to their earning.
Everyone else can buy their own insurance as they do now. I think this would also simplify accounting, because basically the government would cut one check (not really, but conceptually) to the insurance companies.
I don't know the numbers to know if that's feasible, but it's something I'd like to see investigated.
Women are attracted to low paying jobs? Well that’s one way to put it…
Last edited:
How can you claim that? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'd just like to know your source for that claim.
I guess just personally having dealt with private insurance and Medicare for dad/mom, Medicare is just easier to deal with. The coverages are simpler. The sign up is simpler.
If I ever find the time I’d love to dig into the administrative costs of Medicare vs private. I think private is bloated and has helped to create the four star luxury hospitals we have today.
I appreciate your earlier response. Some days I think the Cooler should just replace congress we’d be better off.
They can, but there's a reason they don't. The real cost is much lower than what they charge YOUR insurance company. And, if you've noticed, your insurance company is not paying what they're charging, either.
Doctors started getting rich when the government started Medicare. My uncle was a doctor and made house calls. After the government started getting involved, he made a lot more money and house calls were a thing of the past.
I just had a bunch of health issues. Medicare paid virtually 100% of what the hospital charged. The percent they paid the doctor was ridiculous. I don't know why that is - maybe the hospital charges are more standard? - but there's a reason doctors are living in McMansions and I'm living in a 2 bedroom over-55 community (we do have former doctors living here).
It isn't one way to put it, it is the truth. The vast majority of the pay discrepancy occurs through selection. When you look at pay within the confines of a single job the pay difference reduce drastically and those differences can be attributed to more personal decisions.
Wage Gap Myth Exposed -- By Feminists
Bypass the verbal sleights of hand and take a hard look at the numbers. Women are close to achieving the goal of equal pay for equal work. They may be there already.
Well, from a patient standpoint, yeah, Medicare is easier to deal with. You pay a Medicare bill every month - set by the governement - with a fixed deductible, and a Supplement plan of your choosing. I pay virtually zero, other than deductible. I guarantee you the government is losing money on me, but that doesn't include the 50+ years I've been paying for future Medicare benefits.
Similar threads
Do we need a 3rd party to end the forever wars?
- anon_6hv78pr714xta
- The Water Cooler 2
Latest posts
-
-
-
I think our assistants are living up to their salary.- Latest: Tammany Hall
