Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Olivaw

Dems, Please Don’t Drive Me Away

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, Olivaw said:

Hatred and anger lead to political activism which can lead to progress. 

 

Some use hatred and anger for motivation.  I have observed that it is also common for activism to be fueled by disapproval and dissatisfaction without hatred.  Anger can be a positive motivator as long as it doesn't last long enough to influence better judgement.  But hatred and anger can lead to rash and  extreme decisions and actions, which one might regret in a calmer aftermath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Renegade said:

Don't forget about all the regulatory agencies.  So much of what our government does involves federal agencies interpreting vaguely written laws.  Think about Trump's EPA, for example.

 

Yes, you've got me on that one. I stand corrected.

I was thinking mainly of the lack of legislative abilities to (re-)write laws, and lack of budgetary authority. The President has powers, but many ascribe too much power to this position.

Remember when Republicans tried to Repeal, and (ahem) Replace? They controlled all three branches of government, and still could not pass unpopular legislation.

 

2 hours ago, Renegade said:

It will be an uphill battle to convince these people to support a President who wants to take this away.  What do you think about John Delaney's ideas on this subject?

 

To tell you the truth, I had to look up his 'BetterCare' proposal. At first glance, it looks like catastrophic health insurance (supplied by the government), augmented by basic coverage (supplied by the private Insurance coverage).

This sort of turns the Medicare model on it's head, where basic coverage is supplied by the government, and extra coverage is supplied by private insurance.

I would have to ponder Delaney's proposal further, but it concerns me that many will choose not to purchase basic coverage due to economic hardship.

I would like to live in a healthy country, where everyone is vaccinated against viruses, and contagious diseases.

 

2 hours ago, Renegade said:

I don't feel like an immoral person, but I'm exactly the kind of person who the insurance companies have to look out for.  I'd sign up, get my wife's implants, and then cancel.  Objectively, that's bad and wrong.  If I'm willing to do that, I bet most others would as well. 

 

So, that's a good argument for having the government handle these things.  If everyone is insured all the time, this issue goes away.  Now the issues become things like cost, capacity management, and doctor/hospital compensation.  I'd just like to see some details on how it would all work so I could feel comfortable with it.  There are so many ways they could get this wrong, it scares me.  I have a lot of experience with the government and I'm not willing to just trust them to get it right.

Yes, the goal is everyone being insured all the time, at the lowest cost. This will also prevent the uninsured from using the ER for their healthcare needs, which drives up the cost for everyone.

 

Medicare insures one in every five citizens (60 million people) in America right now. It actually is a good system most members are very happy with.

I am  to young to qualify, but I can tell you that Medicare does wonderful things for disabled civilians, and older citizens needing hospice care.

 

It gives government a greater role in everything from setting health prices to deciding what benefits get included in an insurance plan.

Experts say all these bills would almost certainly create an insurance system that does better to serve Americans with high health care costs.

 

Current M4A options envision Medicare covering more benefits than it currently does. The Sanders bill, for example, would change Medicare to cover vision, dental, and prescription drugs, as well as long-term care services as nursing homes.

 

Medicare-for-all bills eliminate cost sharing completely. This means no monthly premiums, no copayments for going to the doctor, and no deductible to meet before coverage kicks in.

 

It is very similar to how the Canadian health care system works, but quite different from European countries. Most countries across the Atlantic actually do require patients to pay something for going to the doctor.

 

There are many good alternatives to the current system proposed by Democrats.....

venn.jpg

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bludog said:

 

Some use hatred and anger for motivation.  I have observed that it is also common for activism to be fueled by disapproval and dissatisfaction without hatred.  Anger can be a positive motivator as long as it doesn't last long enough to influence better judgement.  But hatred and anger can lead to rash and  extreme decisions and actions, which one might regret in a calmer aftermath.

 

I was thinking of anger as a normal emotional response. A lot of people felt a variety of emotions after Trump won the election, with anger being prevalent. They could have taken to the streets with guns and rocks. Instead they took to the streets with signs and pink hats. They found a constructive way to release the anger. In a healthy society, that is how we behave. 

 

Rage that leads to destructive behaviors is, of course, not unhealthy. 

 

Hatred is a word that is used in a variety of ways. It is perfectly normal to say that we hate ideas and actions. We hate  Nazism and the holocaust, for example. It is less normal to declare hatred towards individuals. Even people who say they hate Trump probably do not really hate him.  Most of us would be perfectly content to have him fade into the woodwork, never to be thought of again. 

 

One of the few things I remember from university is "hate the idea, not the man". 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Olivaw said:

One of the few things I remember from university is "hate the idea, not the man".

 

Excellent guideline.  I agree with what you've said here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David Brooks never goes too deep into the discussion of economics, nor into some of the issues poor folks face. Automatically single payer healthcare for all is promoted solely by Socialist 

politico's. 

We can't do this or we can't do that. These are true political issues that just do not transpire into any argument without understanding the tribal nature behind the message, Brooks is fond of candidly saying. 

 

But what is his argument? He's a columnist for the NY Times, and has been for quite a while. It would be hard for him to support what Trump has done. Really hard.

One could say it is hard for him to support what Mitch McConnell has done, and he himself has said so. He can't.

 

What about the middle, is his offering. He will say that the middle is dwindling. He will say why the middle is dwindling, and for a whole host of reasons, because people in their antipathy 

depending on their tribe, are only are willing to think about things in a certain way. 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ExPDXer said:

 

Yes, you've got me on that one. I stand corrected.

I was thinking mainly of the lack of legislative abilities to (re-)write laws, and lack of budgetary authority. The President has powers, but many ascribe too much power to this position.

Remember when Republicans tried to Repeal, and (ahem) Replace? They controlled all three branches of government, and still could not pass unpopular legislation.

 

 

To tell you the truth, I had to look up his 'BetterCare' proposal. At first glance, it looks like catastrophic health insurance (supplied by the government), augmented by basic coverage (supplied by the private Insurance coverage).

This sort of turns the Medicare model on it's head, where basic coverage is supplied by the government, and extra coverage is supplied by private insurance.

I would have to ponder Delaney's proposal further, but it concerns me that many will choose not to purchase basic coverage due to economic hardship.

I would like to live in a healthy country, where everyone is vaccinated against viruses, and contagious diseases.

 

Yes, the goal is everyone being insured all the time, at the lowest cost. This will also prevent the uninsured from using the ER for their healthcare needs, which drives up the cost for everyone.

 

Medicare insures one in every five citizens (60 million people) in America right now. It actually is a good system most members are very happy with.

I am  to young to qualify, but I can tell you that Medicare does wonderful things for disabled civilians, and older citizens needing hospice care.

 

It gives government a greater role in everything from setting health prices to deciding what benefits get included in an insurance plan.

Experts say all these bills would almost certainly create an insurance system that does better to serve Americans with high health care costs.

 

Current M4A options envision Medicare covering more benefits than it currently does. The Sanders bill, for example, would change Medicare to cover vision, dental, and prescription drugs, as well as long-term care services as nursing homes.

 

Medicare-for-all bills eliminate cost sharing completely. This means no monthly premiums, no copayments for going to the doctor, and no deductible to meet before coverage kicks in.

 

It is very similar to how the Canadian health care system works, but quite different from European countries. Most countries across the Atlantic actually do require patients to pay something for going to the doctor.

 

There are many good alternatives to the current system proposed by Democrats.....

venn.jpg

 

 

 

excellent guide.

Great way to start the debate!

The goal is to lower cost and cover all. The goal is also to create more quality healthcare. 

It should not just be to create a profitable industry. That's what it already is, that should not be the goal...if it is, then we should all celebrate, Yeah!!! (for those who have capitalized on healthcare profiteering / because they have won big time)

Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/28/2019 at 12:37 AM, Olivaw said:

 

Four in 10 Americans Embrace Some Form of Socialism

https://news.gallup.com/poll/257639/four-americans-embrace-form-socialism.aspx

 

Previous Gallup research shows that Americans' definition of socialism has changed over the years, with nearly one in four now associating the concept with social equality and 17% associating it with the more classical definition of having some degree of government control over the means of production. A majority of Democrats have said they view socialism positively in Gallup polling since 2010, including 57% in the most recent measure in 2018.

 

About four in 10 Americans are accepting of some form of socialism or socialist policies, and Democrats currently have a more positive view of socialism than capitalism. In addition, the April survey found that 47% of Americans say they would vote for a socialist candidate for president. While that figure represents nearly half of the U.S. adult population, even higher percentages say they would vote for an atheist (58%) or Muslim (60%) presidential candidate.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A large percentage of millennials are embracing socialism

https://www.businessinsider.com/millennials-are-embracing-socialism-poll-indicates-2018-10

 

Roughly one out of three millennials (31%) say they are a democratic socialist, a socialist, or would identify as either, the poll showed.

 

Meanwhile, the poll found nearly half of all millennial Democrats (48%) identify as democratic socialists or socialists.

 

The new poll, which ran from September 21 to 24 and questioned people between the ages of 22 to 37, also found millennial men are more likely to identify as democratic socialists or socialists. Overall, 39% of men identified in this way compared to 22% of women.

 

Additionally, the poll indicated 28% of millennials would actually be more likely to vote for a candidate running for political office if they were referred to as a "socialist," while 27% said they would be less likely. And 22% of millennials said it would make no difference to them if a candidate was a socialist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/04/09/capitalism-needs-improvements-win-millennials-socialism-column/3400053002/

 

Over the past decade, there has been a steep decline in the percentage of Americans who see a free-market economy as the optimal way to organize economic life, from 80% to 60%. A 2016 poll found that only  42% of millennials support capitalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, LoreD said:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/04/09/capitalism-needs-improvements-win-millennials-socialism-column/3400053002/

 

Over the past decade, there has been a steep decline in the percentage of Americans who see a free-market economy as the optimal way to organize economic life, from 80% to 60%. A 2016 poll found that only  42% of millennials support capitalism.

I have to believe that the recent run amuck untethered exploitation conservatives like to call capitalism has hurt so many young people and people they probably know that they got a hard lesson on human nature when greed is involved. Labor needs to reorganize like it was in the 50's along with tax rates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/30/2019 at 4:07 AM, fourputt said:

I have to believe that the recent run amuck untethered exploitation conservatives like to call capitalism has hurt so many young people and people they probably know that they got a hard lesson on human nature when greed is involved. Labor needs to reorganize like it was in the 50's along with tax rates.

I concur!

Well surely liberals or progressive types, myself included, do have a mind for social policies that can make a huge difference in peoples lives. That doesn't mean we are against market economies, not even close. I'm the tail end of the boomers. When I was born in 1960, an affordable college degree could take you out of poverty and possibly into the middle class. Healthcare was inexpensive, and a lot of people could bypass college and go into manufacturing, or trades, with the help of strong unions, and still make it into the middle class. 

Public schools were better, but not everywhere. The good old days still had their problems, lot of big problems. Stuff that should have been tackled back in the good old days never were.

We have homeless everywhere. We see all the gun violence, but it only gets National attention when a crazy fool shoots up a populated area - and it should. But what about the shootings that go on all the time in some of our cities? What about poverty? Today, we do have a lot more sophisticated technology, but the same problems persist. In someways they are even worse.

I wish I could flick a switch and make more people progressive, but if I could, we would still have a strong need to understand how to fix all the problems we have. Not because we were fighting back all the lies from the far-right, but because, these truly are difficult problems to deal with. But man, it would be fantastic if we could get more people talking together trying 

to find the truth. There are no stupid questions, what is stupid is doing the same thing over and over again, without any progress.

 

Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheOldBarn said:

 

We have homeless everywhere. We see all the gun violence, but it only gets National attention when a crazy fool shoots up a

 

We have hired two homeless people at work this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, WillFranklin said:

 

We have hired two homeless people at work this year.

well I hope they do well and become assets to your group. and that's a good thing that you did hire them.

Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, TheOldBarn said:

well I hope they do well and become assets to your group. and that's a good thing that you did hire them.

Peace!

 

They both are now in homes.

 

We had one in 2016 to get hired and find a home but she did not have the get-up-and-go that these have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, WillFranklin said:

 

They both are now in homes.

 

We had one in 2016 to get hired and find a home but she did not have the get-up-and-go that these have.

I can only imagine how difficult it would be for some to re-enter this part of society from homelessness. So many difficult things attached to it that make it almost impossible, alcoholism, drug addiction, all types of abuse, mental sickness to name a few. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David Brooks is better than George Will. He's the entourage without the bevy of cool dudes who could show him how to dress, the right sneakers to wear, how to act in front of a movie star,

be normal, average, likable, and not like someone who thinks they glow in the dark. Ah, that old Utopian Dream, glowing in the dark, how they tried and eventually figured that the night filled with the Stars above did not create shadow. For that you needed fire. 

 

Ah the fire light cast from the Earth created shadow from the trees, a completely different sort of shadow. So that we could see things that moved from the tree, or anything within our proximity. 

 

A vast conspiracy, no way. It just doesn't work out if you do the math, David Brooks would say.

Thanks for saying that, David.

 

Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...