..............................
As a progressive, I hate it, but I have to disagree.
Bluntly, Obama's record is that of a centrist with some leftward tilting ideas. As it happens, he's in tune enough with the public 'vibe' of the country that the leftist ideas he has happen to be one's the country is finally ready for, but it took eight years of paleo-conservatism to drive the country to this point.
The problem is the nature of Conservatism and Liberalism. Conservatism is, in most circumstances, a deeper base than liberalism - because it is after all, by definition, about being invested in the status quo (In extreme cases, in the *old* status quo), where liberalism is about looking for something better than the status quo. So it's not until the status quo becomes obviously unhealthy for a *lot* of people that start going "This isn't working for me, and it needs to be better" that liberalism gets really rolling.
The 'pendulum' effect of "Conservative to centrist to Liberal to centrist to Conservative ..." isn't really true - look at your history, and the great liberal reforms don't tend to follow a centrist era that followed a conservative era - they follow deeply conservative era's when those that were invested in 'the way things are' had enough power to ignore and push aside those that disagree . . . for awhile. But like a spring being held down while the clock is still running, tension tends to build up, and then you have a sudden release of energy all at once.
Then, after a time, the new arrangement becomes the new 'status quo', weight shifts slowly back to the right, until sufficient energy builds up enough to dismount the *new* conservatives that will be holding back progress. Yes, some day you and I will be old corrupt men that don't want to see these young punks that have no idea what the heck they're talking about ruin everything good and pure that we helped to build because they *think* they have some better idea. Heck - I hate those arrogant 'lil shitheads already . .
Gimme a minute - I gotta go beat up a third grader. Egotistical knowitall punk, probably thinks he's gonna go to harvard someday.
So yeah, I don't think we're suddenly a center left nation - I think we just had conservatives in charge of everything for twenty of the last twenty-eight years, with predictable results - {G}.
Which doesn't mean I don't hope to make hay while I can - {G}.
Jonnan
You do know it was those damned neanderthal republicans that ended slavery, segregation, and let everyone vote, right?
Not that I mind laughing my ass off at idiot democrats that are so proud of their racist, segregationist party, but you really should get a clue on which side of the spectrum has been backwards. The democratic party shit themselves big time when Wilson backed the suffrage amendment, not that they weren't shitting themselves before he backed it too. The bill was going to fail, with overwhelming republican support and few democrats, everyone wave to the democratic party! The joys of states leading the way. Revisionist history can be quite entertaining.
Wrong. Not that I blame you, the media is truly horrible. First, you missed the obvious, something the news actually did report. Niether were top issues, the economy dominated all others.
On education, the voters want vouchers, big time. This has been polled numerous times by agencies from all spectrums. The politicians want to protect the NEA from their inevitable destruction following a nationwide voucher system. Do explain how that free market, union crushing blow to the government monopoly on schools is at all liberal? It would end public school dominance, permanently.
On healthcare, the voters want the fictitious horror scenarios to be avoided. The politicians make up the fictitious horror stories. There are no poor people being thrown out on the street to die because they don't have health insurance. The hospital eats the bill and the government cuts them a check on a regular basis to make up the costs and keep them operating in the black. They go to jail for refusing treatment of a life threatening problem, and public hospitals aren't allowed to turn away anyone.
Habitual lying makes a population liberal not, just stupid and gullible. Like the farce about people eating canned pet food because they were poor. If you've half a wit, it's an obvious lie, dog food is too expensive to eat because you're poor. You'd eat cheaper buying steak than some of the canned cat food. Fortunately for Clinton, most people haven't. Naturally, the crazy old people that eat dog and cat food because they're fucking bonkers didn't get talked about once he took office.
How nice of you to bring them up. Did you know we pay the costs of their pharmaceuticals? The assholes in Australia and France that shaft the companies by forcing them to charge less than their market value only get to do it because not everyone does it.
Once everyone does, there wont be any pharmaceutical companies. Now they could use a patent overhaul, but good luck getting that through congress, they donate nearly as much as the copyright holders do. For the US and the rest of them to pay the same costs as Australia and France do, we'd put every last one of the research companies in the red. No more new drugs every couple years. I'm sure you can do the math, 35% profit margins and 80% lower prices.
Australia and France don't have that great healthcare either. When the liberal idiots are talking about how great Australia is, they conveniently forget to mention that 400k+ natives have almost no health care at all, and that the rural areas have to be airvaced out for anything beyond a general practitioner. They're also in more of a bind for doctor and nurse shortages. When they're talking about France, they conveniently forget that France is on the verge of collapse despite having lousy care. In this country, 15,000 people don't die during a heat wave. When they get sick and go to the hospital, 20% of the doctors aren't out on vacation either.
Yeah, the news is worthless. Yeah, the waste needs cut out of the military, not that we're spending too much, it's just getting pissed away on crap when we have a grunt shortage and 30 year old jets in service. I'd love to stop playing world police, but then you hippy liberals want to go muck around every time some third world putz starts killing people, so what's the point? Never mind that we're feeding nearly a billion people that wont feed themselves and causing the mass poverty that leads to the genocide in the first place. If we're going to have our ass on the line every time a place goes to hell, I don't see why we should wait until things have gone to hell and your consciences start bothering you for entirely invalid reasons.
You might even be right about the bases, although I trust Russia farther than I can throw a polar bear by just a little. Putin isn't a Stalin, but he's not a Yeltsin either. His people wont have to support the end results to go along with the stated goals till they have no choice in the matter. This isn't a peaceful world we're in, it's one real capable of being in WW3 inside a decade without even trying hard. Europe flat can't defend themselves, even against the new and improved, sucks monkey nuts Russian military. If it happens, our bases will be the only immediate response. The dude really wants his empire back, and he can take it back without even trying if we get out of the way.
Idiots decide the last war they went through is the last one they'll ever be in on a regular basis. The only constant so far is that the next big one makes the last one look small, and doesn't take very long to happen.
What I find hilarious is that anyone thinks these issues decide an election. Simple statistical models of the economy, taking into account things like which party is in power and how long they've been there, can predict the outcome of an election with startling accuracy. I took a stats class in 2000 or so that addressed this very issue. I can't think of the name of the model we used, but I remember the model had missed a prediction only twice since 1900; those would be Roosevelt's thrid and fourth terms. Not only does it predict who will win, but the percentages are very close as well. This election could have been called as soon as the stock market tanked.
Don't believe me? Read some of the exit poll returns from this year, see how often the war shows up as the most important issue.
How is winning by 6.7% popular vote a landslide?
There's a good listing of presidential vote margins --> here (Warning, for reasons I don't quite get, the site shows Democrats as red, GOP Blue - I'm sure If I delved into it there's a reason but I haven't bothered - just be aware he flips the usual colors.)
As you can see, although you can argue about things like how to count third party candidates et al, in general Obama has the best margins in raw numbers since since 1988 - nothing like the 1984 Reagan election of course, but I believe that was the largest ever. Moreover Obama had longer coattails than even Reagan did - the 1984/1988 elections won quite handily at the presidential level, but not so much downticket - Congress stayed more-or-less static till 1994.
I wouldn't call it a 'huge' landslide, but it is the largest margin in a generation, and one of the broadest shifts in terms of affecting downticket races so it's not unreasonable to call it 'a' landslide.
As far as statistical modeling goes - You also should remember that 'only twice' since 1900 is not a good statistical base - I could be wrong, but I suspect your model was produced in the 1950's to 1970's era (When Game Theory, where most of these models came out of, was producing the most papers - I could be wrong, but I'll bet dollars to donuts it was first published 'in' 1972 plus or minus six years) - so what your saying in principle is that it successfully 'predicted' past events, and not with 100% accuracy then. I'd be interested in seeing the actual model of course, but more to see how much tweaking of it there has been behind the scenes.
Above and beyond that - although I'm skeptical of numbers at 92% prediction, yeah, People are pretty predictable in large numbers. But your assumption that a statistical probablility indicates a disconnect between the issues and the results seem like an odd presumption - as if the economy tanking was completely unrelated to the policies of the government, education policy, healthcare plans, et al. Those polcies are highly related to the very things that moved people to vote the GOP out of power.
Quote
November 13th 2008, at 12:24 AM2psychoak
End quote
Some of the horror stories are true. I know from personal experience. I was working and had insurance when I went to a doctor for a problem I had. The doctor looked me over and told me I needed an oncologist (cancer specialist). After calling five doctors about an appointment and gettting turned down, I finally got a sympathetic nurse who clued me in.
The basic problem was my insurance. It didn't cover enough. I followed her advice and went to a public hospital. I checked in at 8 AM on a Friday morning. Someone finally checked on me at 11 PM that evening. Oops, someone else needed to see me. Finally, at 5 AM someone did. They checked me in to the hospital for a biopsy. No food since they might need to use an anesthetic. Then I ran into the problem that all of the surgery rooms kept getting filled with trauma victims. They finally performed the biopsy in my hospital room at 11 AM Wednesday.
Keep in mind that I had a small insurance policy. They charged for meals, meds, and the room the whole time. For the life of me, I couldn't figure out how they could charge for meals, since they would not let me eat anything. Needless to say, before they let me out I hit the cap on the insurance.
Yep, I had cancer. When they told me that they said they would call me back with an appointment. It took three months, and the cancer kept geting larger the whole time. When I finally wound up getting in for the appointment, the doctor started me on chemo and said I needed radiation treatment too. After another three months, I finally got referred to another hospital. There the doctor told me that if I had come in earlier, the treatment would not have been nearly as dangerous.
I'm still alive, so I guess you are right about public hospitals being required to treat people. But I do beg to differ with you anyway. There is treatment and then there is treatment. I had an almost worthless insurance policy, but I did have one. I still think that they could have done the biopsy in my room a LOT sooner than they did. I've always wondered if they waited as long as they did to make sure that they could get everything that the policy would pay.
So, there are problems for low income people.
Well, this kind of ranting was fair enough up into the mid-'80s or so, but the racist segregationists who are still living have pretty much all switched to the GOP (or gone to wacko militia-land) or sincerely recanted their past positions and done political work to back up their words (e.g. Robert Byrd). And while we're slinging sloppy historical talk, Lincoln was a bone-deep racist. His Emancipation Proclamation was not done out of any belief that black folks were "just people" like white folks. It was a wartime tactic that helped them win and fit with northern industrialist ideology--wage slaves are more efficient than chattel slaves. Lincoln himself hoped that free blacks would somehow all end up back in Africa.
The women's vote thing, though, I'll pretty much give you. But really, the big chunk of credit there goes to the folks out West, where women were understood as fully capable beings because life during our expansion out there didn't leave much time for building pedestals and wearing hoop skirts. IIRC, the first female in Congress was from out there (Wyoming?), and she took her seat before national women's suffrage.
I'm still alive, so I guess you are right about public hospitals being required to treat people. But I do beg to differ with you anyway. There is treatment and then there is treatment. I had an almost worthless insurance policy, but I did have one. I still think that they could have done the biopsy in my room a LOT sooner than they did. I've always wondered if they waited as long as they did to make sure that they could get everything that the policy would pay. So, there are problems for low income people.
How's it feel to be a legend in your own time!
Sorry, but I sympathize. I know, if it wasn't for the VA hospital system, I had a few episodes where basic healthcare costs would have killed me financially - I was working full time, at jobs that were considered (moderately) decent wages, but had no coverage at all.
Lord knows the VA is not the perfect system, but the doctors do care (They're harried, overworked, and looking for a better job because they have to pay off their school loans too, but they do care.), and having access meant medical expenses didn't take me under either.
I have very good insurance now, and I'm glad to have it, but I haven't the foggiest how people with no insurance make it. Well, yeaf I do - they let it go until they have to show up at a public hospital and the public has to pay $50,000 for something that could have been treated for $1,000 six months before.Or they die.
That's what I don't get about the screams of 'omg . . . IT'S *SOCIALISM*' - Hey, sometimes it's less expensive to just say "Hey, we're going to deal with this up front when we can do it cheaply, rather than hold off dealing with it till it's expensive." I mean, hey, if we accidently help 51 people for $1,000 each by fixing stuff before it becomes a problem, I can live with that, but most studies show you actually save money doing it up front.
For those that are actually interested in the facts and nitty gritty of different healthcare systems, there's a very good Frontline that goes over the healthcare systems of the U.K., Taiwan, Germany, Japan, and Switzerland, advantages and disadvantages of each, warts and all.
There's a lot to be learned from how other people handle the same problems.
It is actually kinda interesting because, when you look at history both parties have done almost a reversal in there party lines
i think that where he was going anyways
I think the election wuz kinda reminiscent of Kennedy/Nixon WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYY back when.
For Nixon, you had experience, and reliability.
For Kennedy, you had looks and promises...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Kennedy win?
Koda0
Mmmmm....and what happened to Kennedy?
personally I didnt think either president candidates was actually going to make through the full term
This is a dumb place to discuss politics, by the way. Games like this are supposed to be an escape from reality....or as close as you can get to reality when discussing politics, which isn't very close at all.
Come to think of it maybe this IS the perfect place to discuss politics, as games and politics both seem to be based on attention grabbing fictions.
Carry on.
Sounds like someone did watch Sicko?
Well, to clear up some myths this documentary put into place about Europe:
Now, about the situation. Some socialism has always been part of European political landscape since the second world war. It has served us well to get some services, like healthcare, up to high quality standards and it did not turn us into communist states. Basically every country in the civilized world is struggling to get healthcare costs under control, Europe is not different from the U.S. in that way. The main issue is that the U.S. system is a lot less cost efficient than the European systems, Americans pay way more for less care, and therefore the best healthcare is unaffordable for many. A state-run system is not necessarily more efficient. As I view it, the U.S. indeed needs a new system and may look at the most successfull healthcare systems in Europe (France, Germany), but moving to a more social system is not the main improvement to make, getting the costs of healthcare under control is.
I strongly disagree with your labeling the left as 'progressive' (one look at human history will reveal that ideas on the 'right' are far more progressive). 'Right' ideas (read: NOT Republican ideas) are ideas supporting more individual freedom and less government control. This is where America comes from. Over the last 225 years, the experiment that is America has proven without a doubt that these ideas, which were once labeled radical themselves, and still largely are, work, and that leftist, statist ideas do not. This is further proven by the pattern of the last century. The more statist, big government solutions are implemented, the further we are from the prosperous nation we once were.
Before this century in America, and in most of the world even now, 'conservative' and 'libertarian' small government ideas are called 'liberal' ideas. The fact is that the statists have, over the last century, branded themselves as 'liberal progressives' when that is exactly the opposite of what they are.
Additionally, and more importantly, I stronlgy disagree with your overall conjecture that Americans are left of center. I think they're still right of center, and that Americans did not vote pro democrat this election cycle, but anti-republican. Republicans have betrayed the American trust, doing the opposite of what they said they would when Bush ran the first time, and abandoning their old small government ideals. I certainly don't think that this election proved that Americans are pro government social programs, less individual liberty, et al. Americans continue to value their freedom to choose rather than government solutions.
Democrats did not deserve to win, Republicans deserved to lose.
I believe that narrow popular vote victory for Obama is proof of this. John McCain was a terribly weak candidate, and yet he still lost by a relatively small margin (popularly).
The Private Health Insurance companies are far less cost effective, and that's partly due to the billions of dollars in profit being made on the backs of people's health. The bulk of money being made is not even by the actual Healthcare workers..ie..the Doctors, Techs, Nurses, etc..etc...it's being made by the middle men. Billions of dollars in marketing and "spinning" on the news networks is spent to "keep our eyes off the ball", and distracted with side issues that aren't even relevant, anything but looking at the actual culprit, Bottom feeding Private Insaurance Companies. Talk to any Doctor in the US and they'll tell you that the entire way we handle Healthcare needs to be reformed. The argument is obviously the nitty gritty details that need to be hammered out. Personally, I think we need to nationalize the Insurance Companies, or flat out regulate the hell out of them, but keep the Healthcare workers private. The Insurance companies are running the show, and we just can't have that. Insurance has it's purpose, a great purpose, but not when lives are on the line. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness....Can't have "Life" without proper healthcare in 21st century imo. As life expectancy grows higher and higher, this issue is only going to get more and more important over the generations, and it's why we're talking about it now in this Country per say.
An important point dmantione made as well, many Universal Healthcare programs in many Country's are run privately, but it's the Government that steps in and pays the bill by using a national escrow fund that's tightly controlled and monitored, similiar to how an escrow account is held to pay taxes on a house through monthly payments. The one talking point you'll hear from most Conservatives is that "some Washington bureaucrat is going to make decisions about your healthcare", which is simply not true, at all. Also to point out, right now we have Insurance adjusters making decisions on our health, who's job it is to SAVE THE MOST MONEY POSSIBLE, which doesn't equate to = better health. As if an insurance company is the best option?!? You'd have to be ignorant to think that. And let's not even bring up the 50 million or so people that don't even have insurance adjusters in the first place because their employer won't pay for it or simply can't afford it, millions in poverty, or people that are in trasition between jobs in their career etc...etc.....
We have what's called "Cobra"(extends your benefits after you lose them for a monthly payment) in some states that's good for a few months, but it's very expensive (depending on your previous plan), and we can only use that program for 4 to 6 months iirc. While I could afford it no problem, I'm sure most Amercians can't. It's just a disaster. My Wife was on Cobra before we got married, right after I then put her on my own Company's policy. Sadly enough, shorty after, she got Cancer.
Sadly, it's not until "shit hits the fan" when someone's opinion changes drastically on certain issues. Look at Nancy Reagan, HUGE supporter of Steam Cell research afer her Husband Ronald became sick. She wasn't even entertained by the current President, who She tried desperately to promote Federally backed Stem Cell research, showing just how shallow the Neoconservatives are in this country. They have no problem using the Reagan name in public speech, but vote against a very possible solution to the very thing that led to his demise. It's downright ridiculous.
As a Business owner I can tell you, we're getting hammered with premiums and the quality of our plans have gone down over the years, so now we're paying more for less, much less. Not to mention, our co-pays are getting out of hand, and we don't have an HMO, we've got one of the best programs money can buy. Full Privitization is not the answer in all situations, and I think a lot of people are starting to realize this here in the States. I do like the Medicare + proposal, it's a start at least, but it sounds like it's going to fall short of what people really need. Keep your Privitized plan if you can, and if you can't, at least there's a safety net for your family. I don't even see this as a liberal or conservative issue, this is a human issue. All people will benefit from this, and being able to hire a healthier, less stressed middle class will net myself and other Businesses a much more effecient work force. It's a win win the way I see it.
Oh and one of the main reasons why GM and so many American Manufacturing companies have cost problems is not only the fact that they didn't want to change their mindset when it came to making better efficient cars, it's their Healthcare costs, which are MUCH higher then their global competitors. Combine that terrible upper management, and look where we are now, a mess in that industry, and across the board now.
I am disappointed in the results of our last election, not in that Obama and the Democratic party won but in the fact the American people didn't wake up and realize that our freedoms are being stolen from us. The choice in major party candidates offered no real chance for change. Also, Bush was no conservative (he increased government and spending).
Unfortunately I think that America is going to dabble in socialism (really we already are, our market is not very free - the government is bailing everyone out). I'm sure we will find out that it wasn't such a good idea.
I wish people would realize that 'free' health care or anything else for that matter is not free. It will come in the form of much, much higher taxes. The system needs changed, but looking to the government is looking the wrong way. They've proven time and time again that that can't spend money, effectively or efficiently. Personally, I'd prefer to spend my money, by myself and make decisions on my healthcare (or whatever else).
Obama isn't going to have it easy as president, hard times are coming. I wish him the best and hope he makes the right decisions to get us through the mess and keep this country free. We're all in this sinking boat together, hopefully we can come to our senses and make things right before it's too late.
[EDIT: ADDED THE FOLLOWING]
Dozerking - you do have some good points. The health insurance companies do run things now, and they are making money off both the patients and doctors (mal-practice). That system does need changed completely, but I don't think the goverment should be involved other than in 'getting the ball rolling'. The goverment has stepped in and meddled with our healthcare system, and got us to where we are now. A couple things to think about: It's insurance, right? Why use it for everything, minor to major problems? Most insurance (car, house, etc) is only used major incidents, but we use our health insurance as a maintenance plan. By that I mean everytime we visit the doctor (copay), and for many people any time we get a prescription. I've got pretty good insurance through my employer, but I see what it's like for those that don't (both parents are self employed) and it is hard and expensive for those people. It does need to change.
There is something kinda sad and wrong about a Republican party that was thoroughly in the pocket of the wealthy by the 1890's, but always hearks back to the fact that they *started* as the kind of idealistic party that helped people that they are completely against today.
"Sure we've been complete lackeys of the wealthy elite for over a century, but hey - in the 1860's, we *ROCKED*!"
In the 1960's, LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act knowing full well that he was losing the south for a generation. Someone should go to his tomb and tell him it took two generations, he did good, and it was *totally* worth it.
Indeed, Obama ran 20 points under the generic ballot. Coat tails you say? More like the democratic party dragged his black ass across the finish line in front of an old white guy too busy flogging his own backside to actually run.
Broosbee, a question. Why did you have stupid insurance?
I say stupid instead of small because it's stupid to pay for insurance that only covers minor costs. The whole point of insurance is to cover big costs. This may not be very nice, but why is it a failing of society, or even a problem at all if you suffer the consequences of your own actions. I don't see your situation as a horror story, you got stupid insurance, you paid for getting stupid insurance. You should have had catastrophic coverage, a high deductible, and then 100% coverage once you hit it. Pay for your own damn doctor visit, but when you get cancer, poof, two grand later or whatever they pick up the whole tab. Insurance is for big things, paying someone else to pay your yearly checkups and not much else is just plain stupid.
I see one scenario where I consider it not your fault. Your employer was forced to cover you and got a shitty plan instead of paying you more so you could go buy catastrophic coverage and have everything taken care of when you got cancer for half the premium. In which case you should be railing against universal healthcare and trying to get work related healthcare killed by requiring two simple things. One, that benefits paid by a company are income. Two, that a company cannot offer one policy to one person, and not another. Then it's your choice, and companies will have to give a shit about individuals because those will be their customers. As opposed to now, GMC and their cadillac coverage with free boob jobs that no one uses paying all the bills and a big fuck you too for everone else.
Jonnan, when did you go through the VA? Serious question. One of my grandparents had an irregular heartbeat that they wouldn't bother with. They told him it was just fine and didn't pose a threat. When he finally convinced them to treat it, they put him on a drug that had a known side effect of muscle atrophy in the legs. They then didn't bother to take him off the drug after he complained about it, nearly crippling him before a relative told him what was going on. On finally convincing him to see another doctor outside the VA, he was told that he needed an emergency quintuple bypass. His surgery was delayed while they treated the mild heart attack he had on the way. The VA kills people from my experience.
Robert KKK Byrd? Grand Wizard Robert KKK Byrd? The same piece of shit racist that filibustered the Civil Rights Act, tried to use the FBI to investigate Marshall for communist ties, the only Senator to vote against both black nominees to the Supreme Court?
You need to stop reading crazy shit written by black racists, they aren't any less blind than the white ones are. Lincoln used the word nigger, which wasn't even derogatory at the time, and ceded that there may be differences between blacks and whites while stating that such differences do not invalidate their rights to freedom. Byrd was high in the leadership of a group lynching people just for being black. One ended slavery, one advocated the return to it a century later, yet you call Lincoln a racist and Byrd someone that sincerely recanted.
Never mind that even if true, the facts would still be against you. The guys screaming racist about Lincoln claim that he was forced into the Emancipation Proclamation by his own abolitionist party. They'd still get the credit. The union split because of the fight against slavery too, so freeing the slaves to win the war kinda has reality in reverse. No abolitionist movement, no civil war to start with.
I had a much higher opinion of you than I do after this. That nonsense goes way beyond unintended ignorance and into wilfully ignorant and hateful. Open your eyes.
God I hate the "Bush was no conservative" meme. Bush followed the same policies Reagan tried to follow - without a democratic congress to act as a check. That's the main difference between the two.
But there's this myth of a 'conservative' president, that, like the easter bunny, would shit chocalate covered balanced budgets out, unlike them dam' tax and spend librul's.
Of course, no one has ever seen this mythical, nay, mystical being - you would think such an entity would leave footprints in the Budget history - but as I look at the math, there's nary a trace of one, no matter how hard you look.
But once every four years, if you sit in the dark in the middle of the voting machine warehouse and listen, you can almost hear him, rustling between the voting machines, crying out for a balanced budget, lower taxes, a Jacksonian democracy, and a free copy of Ayn Rand for every child.
I honestly thought I had the bastard cornered this year, but after an exchange of fire it turned out to be Ron Paul. Dammit!
The US healthcare system is in trouble because you pay way too much to middle men and because your financial penalties for the most ridiculous of medical transgressions is unrealistic.
All medical malpractice settlements and decisions should have been kept private - or if public, kept to a reasonable minimum. Granting someone a million dollars, or jailing the MD for an understandable mistake (according to standard of care) means that YOU pay for it. MDs will seek the shelter of legal insurance (which will base their premiums on millions of dollars in settlements) and they are then forced to pass that cost on to you.
It's karma in the most literal sense.
Even fully privatized systems don't cost as much as the US system does, because apart from all the insurance bureaucracy you're supporting, you're also paying them all handsomely profitable premiums. Every time YOU (and that means anyone and everyone) sue an MD for a minor concern, you jack up all future medical costs. Every YOU sue a hospital for a minor transgression, you jack up their maintenance costs. Some kind of accountability is required to have reasonable care, but the kind of financial penalties being levied are clearly out of control.
Psychoak - look at the 'generic ballot' polls over the years.
EVERYONE tracks under the generic ballot. It turns out that, as a conservative, your 'generic ballot' republican happens to agree with you on everything.
Too be fair, as a liberal, *my* 'generic ballot' candidate agrees with *me* on everything.
Dammit - if only we could get a charming idiot that can project that he agrees with you on everything withput actually saying anything, speak solely on the basis of undisprovable but 'truthy' metaphors about welfare queens and morning in america, preferably with no actual complicated legislative history that would make a, y'know, *record* - why, that would be unbeatable! Somebody like THIS GUY!
Of course, they have to be *charming* idiots. Not say, one term governors from Alaska that actually *sound* stupid - {G}. That part seems to be important.
Actually, for all the hype, that's not true.
The single biggest factor in medical insurance premiums (Or any other for the mattter) is the rate of return on investments - The big settlements make the headlines, but as a percentage of profits even all together they are nothing compared to the premiums the insurance companies make.
How much they can make investing those funds however - *that* makes a big difference. The first investigation into that was in the 1970's under Gerald Ford, because the insurance companies were claiming (Loudly) that their high premiums were because of lawsuits getting out of hand. They keep making the same claims every few years (And why not - They keep finding suckers that will believe it and make it harder to sue them. The biggest concern I have with term limits is that there may be something to maintaining a level of institutional memory. ), and every few years people investgate whether it's true, and nope, turns out premiums are still in lockstep with where the insurance company invests it money.
Still suffering from Reaganomics huh? It's ok, you keep ignoring reality, I'll keep thinking the general populace is too stupid to breed. That way we can both be miserable, and I get vicious when I'm in a good mood.
Aside from generic ballots being good indicators that have held up well in previous election cycles, as well as this one, there is a bit of a flaw in your logic.
If McCain and Obama both tracked under the generic ballot, there would be a third party candidate with a sizable portion of the vote, like 30%.
Democrats in general won bigger than Obama did. The coat tails were the other way around. Substantial gains in the house, senate and governorships. Since you like him so much, Reagan beat the generic ballot, won bigger than a bread and butter republican, and far outstripped his republican congressmen.
He then got the top rate cut from 70% to 28% without decreasing revenue, and we had economic gains nearly on par with the postwar boom resulting from the US being the only country with industry left standing untouched. Of course, the democratic congress still pushed through massive budget increases in social spending to go along with his military budget, so you'll pretend he was just an idiot without a clue. Kinda like Clinton was some fucking genius because a republican congress forced a balanced budget on him back when they had balls and someone with a conscience leading them.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
