ADVERTISEMENT

Well, TigerGrowls was right about one thing.

I don’t agree with your stuff on here, but I agree with that. The guy is a true believer and very, very far left.

I would agree here. There's NOTHING wrong with congressmen objecting to the counting of the votes. Not sure why anyone would think so.

On the Trump speech before the riot, well that's a different story. I'm a pragmatic sort and although it's pretty rare in this day and age, I'm not a big fan of "intentions". I'm more about "results". If Trump, Rudy, and Company had said those things and the crowd marched down to the capitol and protested peacefully, I wouldn't give a shit how much the press bitched about their particular words. But that's not what happened. They said those things and the crowd took them literally. It's the RESULTS that matter. Trump and company own a piece of that.

If I'm drunk in my backyard playing with my rifle and it discharges by accident... If I shoot a hole in my neighbor's house, then I'm a drunk idiot that could have killed someone. I need to pay damages and get a slap on the wrist. If I shoot a hole in my neighbor's child's head, then I'm a drunk idiot that DID kill someone. HUGE difference between those two things. Intentions were exactly the same. Results matter.
 
I would agree here. There's NOTHING wrong with congressmen objecting to the counting of the votes. Not sure why anyone would think so.

On the Trump speech before the riot, well that's a different story. I'm a pragmatic sort and although it's pretty rare in this day and age, I'm not a big fan of "intentions". I'm more about "results". If Trump, Rudy, and Company had said those things and the crowd marched down to the capitol and protested peacefully, I wouldn't give a shit how much the press bitched about their particular words. But that's not what happened. They said those things and the crowd took them literally. It's the RESULTS that matter. Trump and company own a piece of that.

If I'm drunk in my backyard playing with my rifle and it discharges by accident... If I shoot a hole in my neighbor's house, then I'm a drunk idiot that could have killed someone. I need to pay damages and get a slap on the wrist. If I shoot a hole in my neighbor's child's head, then I'm a drunk idiot that DID kill someone. HUGE difference between those two things. Intentions were exactly the same. Results matter.


I agree with much of what you said here. I would argue that the congressman objecting to results that had been certified by states, THAT WERE NOT THEIR STATE was wrong. I continue to laugh at the hypocrisy of the "states rights party" trying to overthrow the states decisions at the federal level.

I also think it was wrong based on common sense and "reading the room". After Trump has continued to be incendiary on his comments post election, their objection was what brought the rowdies to the Capitol to begin with. They protesters were there to ask the congress to object to the counting and certifying of the votes.

We truly need elected officials to help restore some confidence in the accuracy and truth of our election.
 
I would agree here. There's NOTHING wrong with congressmen objecting to the counting of the votes. Not sure why anyone would think so.

On the Trump speech before the riot, well that's a different story. I'm a pragmatic sort and although it's pretty rare in this day and age, I'm not a big fan of "intentions". I'm more about "results". If Trump, Rudy, and Company had said those things and the crowd marched down to the capitol and protested peacefully, I wouldn't give a shit how much the press bitched about their particular words. But that's not what happened. They said those things and the crowd took them literally. It's the RESULTS that matter. Trump and company own a piece of that.

If I'm drunk in my backyard playing with my rifle and it discharges by accident... If I shoot a hole in my neighbor's house, then I'm a drunk idiot that could have killed someone. I need to pay damages and get a slap on the wrist. If I shoot a hole in my neighbor's child's head, then I'm a drunk idiot that DID kill someone. HUGE difference between those two things. Intentions were exactly the same. Results matter.

Even if they had marched down and protested peacefully, I think he's still in the wrong. No sitting president should encourage a protest for the very reason they always have the ability to turn unruly or violent. He should have thanked everyone for their support, vowed to step away but strengthen the base in advance of 2024 and told them to return to their homes and use their vote to create change. That's the message. This sums up the issue with his entire presidency, he never seemed to realize that in that position you have to carefully weigh your words. You can't always shoot from the hip given the interoperation issue.

The above however, is where the whataboutism comes in. He's going to argue interpretation and that not being what meant and his supporters are going to flag the various examples of where others were given the benefit of interpretation.......I mean hell, you had Cuomo and Lemon on TV last night suggesting that riots in 2020 were justified because of systemic racism but storming the capital is domestic terrorism. Any and all politically motivated violence is not ok and to not use that very public moment to denounce it is yet another wasted opportunity to bring order back. The challenge presented to the entire nation is that once you bend the rules for any violence, you're just arguing over the details when it happens on the other side.
 
I agree with much of what you said here. I would argue that the congressman objecting to results that had been certified by states, THAT WERE NOT THEIR STATE was wrong. I continue to laugh at the hypocrisy of the "states rights party" trying to overthrow the states decisions at the federal level.

I also think it was wrong based on common sense and "reading the room". After Trump has continued to be incendiary on his comments post election, their objection was what brought the rowdies to the Capitol to begin with. They protesters were there to ask the congress to object to the counting and certifying of the votes.

We truly need elected officials to help restore some confidence in the accuracy and truth of our election.

I tend to agree with all of this. There's a TON of difference between what you CAN do, and what you SHOULD do. No question in my mind that these lawsuits on other state's election processes were the wrong thing. But they are not illegal. Trump's words have always been aggressive and could be interpreted as encouraging violence. But they really didn't cause any, and I don't think they were illegal. In this case, he said stuff that can definitely be interpreted as encouraging violence and that's exactly what happened. THAT is illegal and since the violence interrupted congress doing something that is mandated by the constitution, by definition, that's insurrection. Whether he MEANT to or not is immaterial, it's what HAPPENED that matters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: yoshi121374
Even if they had marched down and protested peacefully, I think he's still in the wrong. No sitting president should encourage a protest for the very reason they always have the ability to turn unruly or violent. He should have thanked everyone for their support, vowed to step away but strengthen the base in advance of 2024 and told them to return to their homes and use their vote to create change. That's the message. This sums up the issue with his entire presidency, he never seemed to realize that in that position you have to carefully weigh your words. You can't always shoot from the hip given the interoperation issue.

The above however, is where the whataboutism comes in. He's going to argue interpretation and that not being what meant and his supporters are going to flag the various examples of where others were given the benefit of interpretation.......I mean hell, you had Cuomo and Lemon on TV last night suggesting that riots in 2020 were justified because of systemic racism but storming the capital is domestic terrorism. Any and all politically motivated violence is not ok and to not use that very public moment to denounce it is yet another wasted opportunity to bring order back. The challenge presented to the entire nation is that once you bend the rules for any violence, you're just arguing over the details when it happens on the other side.
I saw the Don Lemon comments and what he was trying to articulate was not to compare people being outraged about getting shot with a murderous mob that were outraged over a lie being perpetuated by the leader of the free world. Don't bend his comments to fit into your quest for moral equivalency on every subject. ;)
 
I don’t agree with your stuff on here, but I agree with that. The guy is a true believer and very, very far left.

False.

Feel free to call me a total partisan. That I am.

But I'm not terribly left on the ideological spectrum. And even if I were further left, I'd still not be nearly as extreme as TigerGrowls and the other Q kooks.

Not surprising to me that you don't understand the difference.
 
I would agree here. There's NOTHING wrong with congressmen objecting to the counting of the votes. Not sure why anyone would think so.

On the Trump speech before the riot, well that's a different story. I'm a pragmatic sort and although it's pretty rare in this day and age, I'm not a big fan of "intentions". I'm more about "results". If Trump, Rudy, and Company had said those things and the crowd marched down to the capitol and protested peacefully, I wouldn't give a shit how much the press bitched about their particular words. But that's not what happened. They said those things and the crowd took them literally. It's the RESULTS that matter. Trump and company own a piece of that.

If I'm drunk in my backyard playing with my rifle and it discharges by accident... If I shoot a hole in my neighbor's house, then I'm a drunk idiot that could have killed someone. I need to pay damages and get a slap on the wrist. If I shoot a hole in my neighbor's child's head, then I'm a drunk idiot that DID kill someone. HUGE difference between those two things. Intentions were exactly the same. Results matter.

Not talking about the votes to overturn a legitimate election. Those votes were terrible and deserve to get the people who voted that way expelled from Congress, but not prosecuted.

I'm talking about conspiring with the insurrectionists in their attack of the Capitol. Lots of smoke here and my understanding from people who are not prone to overstatement is that there's fire there. Will be interesting to see what all comes out in the coming weeks and months. But I think it's a better than 50/50 chance that at least a few GOP Members will end up facing prosecution.
 
False.

Feel free to call me a total partisan. That I am.

But I'm not terribly left on the ideological spectrum. And even if I were further left, I'd still not be nearly as extreme as TigerGrowls and the other Q kooks.

Not surprising to me that you don't understand the difference.

You guys are probably similar from a policy standpoint, though not from a crazy standpoint. You are an advocate for single payer healthcare. That's a pretty extreme position. It's left of the majority of your party.

And yes, you are hyperpartisan. I at least find middle ground on a number of issues. @yoshi121374 and @nytigerfan have agreed with me on student loan forgiveness. I've criticized the Republican position on a number of things. You are 100% partisan and seem to embrace the extreme policy positions.
 
You guys are probably similar from a policy standpoint, though not from a crazy standpoint. You are an advocate for single payer healthcare. That's a pretty extreme position. It's left of the majority of your party.

And yes, you are hyperpartisan. I at least find middle ground on a number of issues. @yoshi121374 and @nytigerfan have agreed with me on student loan forgiveness. I've criticized the Republican position on a number of things. You are 100% partisan and seem to embrace the extreme policy positions.

M4A isn't an extreme policy - it's just left of center. Polling on it routinely shows between 40 and 60% approval (depending on framing), so it's no more extreme than our current president.
 
I saw the Don Lemon comments and what he was trying to articulate was not to compare people being outraged about getting shot with a murderous mob that were outraged over a lie being perpetuated by the leader of the free world. Don't bend his comments to fit into your quest for moral equivalency on every subject. ;)

Oh sorry, I thought we were all going to start condemning all violence not justifying the cause of it. What did I miss?

I'll send Cuomo and Lemmon a note apologizing for the misinterpretation for their message. (picking up that sarcasm I hope)

In the military they teach you how to respond to violence with more violence, if all of us don't start condemning it as a whole, then we all have to take some responsibility for encouraging it.
 
M4A isn't an extreme policy - it's just left of center. Polling on it routinely shows between 40 and 60% approval (depending on framing), so it's no more extreme than our current president.

My understanding is he advocates single payer only, which means the abolishment of private insurance and our entire healthcare economic system. That's extreme.

Adding a public option - which is how I believe you frame M4A - is a more moderate position, though still left of center.
 
My understanding is he advocates single payer only, which means the abolishment of private insurance and our entire healthcare economic system. That's extreme.

Adding a public option - which is how I believe you frame M4A - is a more moderate position, though still left of center.

I think you use the word "extreme" very loosely. Things that are within a standard deviation of median, by my estimation, are fairly normal. The public option has majority support. It's left of the center of elected officials but is a very broadly popular. By your reckoning, Republican resistance to a public option is an extreme position :p

(Note, to be clear, the wording and time of day matters a lot with Single Payer polling. The particulars do matter, which is why I've been reluctant to say everyone likes it).

alert-chart_FINAL_1.29.30_Public-Option-MCR-ALL-w-edits.png
 
be careful what you wish for.

A ‘Stop the Steal’ organizer, now banned by Twitter, said three GOP lawmakers helped plan his D.C. rally

Alexander, who organized the “Stop the Steal” movement, said he hatched the plan — coinciding with Congress’s vote to certify the electoral college votes — alongside three GOP lawmakers: Reps. Andy Biggs (Ariz.), Mo Brooks (Ala.) and Paul A. Gosar (Ariz.), all hard-line Trump supporters.


 
I think you use the word "extreme" very loosely. Things that are within a standard deviation of median, by my estimation, are fairly normal. The public option has majority support. It's left of the center of elected officials but is a very broadly popular. By your reckoning, Republican resistance to a public option is an extreme position :p

(Note, to be clear, the wording and time of day matters a lot with Single Payer polling. The particulars do matter, which is why I've been reluctant to say everyone likes it).

alert-chart_FINAL_1.29.30_Public-Option-MCR-ALL-w-edits.png

I can't for the life of me understand why so many people want single-payer insurance (if that chart is accurate). Our current model has driven the world's best healthcare advances, the best devices, the best pharmaceuticals, the best surgeons, the best general healthcare talent, the best procedure evolutions, the best research, the best innovation, etc.

Single payer will undoubtedly erode those things.

I'd be open to the public option under these two premises:

  • I'm not paying for it. It needs to be self-sustaining without my tax dollars.
  • Private insurance rates can't go up to offset degraded margin on the public side (which is what happens with medicare/medicaid today).

If you want to put together a public option, okay I guess, but leave those of us not participating out of the cost structure.
 
Last edited:
Oh sorry, I thought we were all going to start condemning all violence not justifying the cause of it. What did I miss?

I'll send Cuomo and Lemmon a note apologizing for the misinterpretation for their message. (picking up that sarcasm I hope)

In the military they teach you how to respond to violence with more violence, if all of us don't start condemning it as a whole, then we all have to take some responsibility for encouraging it.

I'm on board with that, but if you start every conversation about the biggest insurrection on our government in it's history, by our own mentally ill President by saying "But BLM", you may be part of the problem. This is not a "But BLM" moment. This is much bigger than that and we should all be condemning it equally without trying to find a precedent for it. There isn't one.

I'm not trying to be a thorn in your side, but not every conversation has to point back to something someone on the other side said or did. And we have repeatedly condemned the rioting and looting. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: jakefest
I can't for the life of me understand why so many people want single-payer insurance (if that chart is accurate). Our current model has driven the world's best healthcare advances, the best devices, the best pharmaceuticals, the best surgeons, the best general healthcare talent, the best procedure evolutions, the best research, the best innovation, etc.

Single payer will undoubtedly erode those things.

I'd be open to the public option under these two premises:

  • I'm not paying for it. It needs to be self-sustaining without my tax dollars.
  • Private insurance rates can't go up to offset degraded margin on the public side (which is what happens with medicare/medicaid today).

If you want to put together a public option, okay I guess, but leave those of us not participating out of the cost structure.


I think the key thing to be aware of is that out Health Care system is amazing.....If you can pay for it. We have access to everything you mentioned......if you can afford it.

I would love to see a public option that really focused on prevention and preventative care. Want to keep costs down? How about.providong birth control?
 
  • Like
Reactions: fcctiger12
I can't for the life of me understand why so many people want single-payer insurance (if that chart is accurate). Our current model has driven the world's best healthcare advances, the best devices, the best pharmaceuticals, the best surgeons, the best general healthcare talent, the best procedure evolutions, the best research, the best innovation, etc.

Single payer will undoubtedly erode those things.

I'd be open to the public option under these two premises:

  • I'm not paying for it. It needs to be self-sustaining without my tax dollars.
  • Private insurance rates can't go up to offset degraded margin on the public side (which is what happens with medicare/medicaid today).

If you want to put together a public option, okay I guess, but leave those of us not participating out of the cost structure.

Every health system can look great if you pick and choose what criteria you care about. From an outcomes and medical bankruptcy standpoint our health system is quite bad.

Also, you've the most openly "screw you, I've got mine" person I've ever interacted with. More power to you for knowing where you stand, I guess. But it's exasperating.
 
Every health system can look great if you pick and choose what criteria you care about. From an outcomes and medical bankruptcy standpoint our health system is quite bad.

Also, you've the most openly "screw you, I've got mine" person I've ever interacted with. More power to you for knowing where you stand, I guess. But it's exasperating.


I agree,but I will say this for @scotchtiger , at least he's honest. He is level headed and at least reasonable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fcctiger12
Every health system can look great if you pick and choose what criteria you care about. From an outcomes and medical bankruptcy standpoint our health system is quite bad.

Also, you've the most openly "screw you, I've got mine" person I've ever interacted with. More power to you for knowing where you stand, I guess. But it's exasperating.

I’ve said before - our outcomes are largely a factor of population health. I’ve cited obesity rates compared to our European counterparts. Plenty of lifestyle issues there outside of the healthcare system.

And I don’t think that’s a fair characterization. I’m not trying to screw anyone. I just feel like I already contribute more than enough to the collective. High marginal rates, high effective rates, tons of state and local tax... I pay my family’s share of the federal budget several times over. We take care of ourselves and aren’t a burden for anyone financially or from a health standpoint.

But your side wants to squeeze me for even more. Take money away from my family, my children. THAT’s exasperating.
 
I’ve said before - our outcomes are largely a factor of population health. I’ve cited obesity rates compared to our European counterparts. Plenty of lifestyle issues there outside of the healthcare system.

And I don’t think that’s a fair characterization. I’m not trying to screw anyone. I just feel like I already contribute more than enough to the collective. High marginal rates, high effective rates, tons of state and local tax... I pay my family’s share of the federal budget several times over. We take care of ourselves and aren’t a burden for anyone financially or from a health standpoint.

But your side wants to squeeze me for even more. Take money away from my family, my children. THAT’s exasperating.


I am very similar to you in this. Our family is in good shape, we are not a drain at all on the system,and pay quite a bit in taxes having dual income with no kids.

We have got to begin to address our obesity issue in America. I wish that we weren't so shortsighted about food supply and costs.

Michelle Obama tried to institute healthier school lunches and was obliterated due to cost, without anyone realizing that cheap food up front,is leading to Diabetes and HBP on the back end due to eating cheap garbage. The back end medical costs are vastly worse than the investment on better food would have been. We have a sugar/carb addiction in America that's killing us.
 
I would agree here. There's NOTHING wrong with congressmen objecting to the counting of the votes. Not sure why anyone would think so.

On the Trump speech before the riot, well that's a different story. I'm a pragmatic sort and although it's pretty rare in this day and age, I'm not a big fan of "intentions". I'm more about "results". If Trump, Rudy, and Company had said those things and the crowd marched down to the capitol and protested peacefully, I wouldn't give a shit how much the press bitched about their particular words. But that's not what happened. They said those things and the crowd took them literally. It's the RESULTS that matter. Trump and company own a piece of that.

If I'm drunk in my backyard playing with my rifle and it discharges by accident... If I shoot a hole in my neighbor's house, then I'm a drunk idiot that could have killed someone. I need to pay damages and get a slap on the wrist. If I shoot a hole in my neighbor's child's head, then I'm a drunk idiot that DID kill someone. HUGE difference between those two things. Intentions were exactly the same. Results matter.

I'm not 100% sure Trump meant for things to go the way they did at the Capital. I don't think he considered it as a possible consequence.

The issue is that he didn't seem to GAF once he found out what was happening. The President of the United States should have more decorum than that - something that I admit I underestimated the importance of.

But it appears he has pissed off Mitch McConnell. And that was a mistake. McConnell may not be speaker when Trump's impeachment trial hits the senate but I suspect he will vote for it. I think he wants the Republican party rid of Trump.
 
I'm not 100% sure Trump meant for things to go the way they did at the Capital. I don't think he considered it as a possible consequence.

The issue is that he didn't seem to GAF once he found out what was happening. The President of the United States should have more decorum than that - something that I admit I underestimated the importance of.

But it appears he has pissed off Mitch McConnell. And that was a mistake. McConnell may not be speaker when Trump's impeachment trial hits the senate but I suspect he will vote for it. I think he wants the Republican party rid of Trump.

Maybe, so. I hate Trump for sure. I'm sure that colors my assessment of him. I think that he didn't care one way or the other... and if a few people had to die to disrupt the process of counting the ballots, well that's a price Trump was willing for them to pay.
 
Every health system can look great if you pick and choose what criteria you care about. From an outcomes and medical bankruptcy standpoint our health system is quite bad.

Also, you've the most openly "screw you, I've got mine" person I've ever interacted with. More power to you for knowing where you stand, I guess. But it's exasperating.

To add to my other post, I see your quote exactly the opposite way. I see your side saying, “Screw you, I want mine.”

By and large, Democrat voters supported handouts for themselves, expansion of programs they like and many policies that would require significant government spending. They also elected a president who has said - though we will see - that he won’t raise taxes on those making below a certain amount.

Effectively, that vote is saying I want free stuff, or I want these programs that I like, but I’m not going to have to pay for it. Let’s stick it to someone else.

I find that disturbing.

I would be embarrassed in normal life if I wanted something, was unable or unwilling to pay for it, and essentially forced my neighbor to pay for it.

If you really want all of these handouts, and it’s that important to the party, why not “pass the hat” and raise money voluntarily? You are trying to take even more money - beyond the exorbitant amount we already pay - away from my family and my children for your stuff instead.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jakefest
Maybe, so. I hate Trump for sure. I'm sure that colors my assessment of him. I think that he didn't care one way or the other... and if a few people had to die to disrupt the process of counting the ballots, well that's a price Trump was willing for them to pay.

I just don't think he considered the possibility. I never figured a group would take it that far either. More disturbing to me is the inaction after the fact. Personally I would have called in the National Guard or the damn 101st Airborne if I could, once we saw what was happening.

I think that group was a very small percentage of the Trump VOTERS, though it may be slightly more representative of the group that seems to deify him (which I find disturbing BTW).
 
  • Like
Reactions: yoshi121374
To add to my other post, I see your quote exactly the opposite way. I see your side saying, “Screw you, I want mine.”

By and large, Democrat voters supported handouts for themselves, expansion of programs they like and many policies that would require significant government spending. They also elected a president who has said - though we will see - that he won’t raise taxes on those making below a certain amount.

Effectively, that vote is saying I want free stuff, or I want these programs that I like, but I’m not going to have to pay for it. Let’s stick it to someone else.

I find that disturbing.

I would be embarrassed in normal life if I wanted something, was unable or unwilling to pay for it, and essentially forced my neighbor to pay for it.

If you really want all of these handouts, and it’s that important to the party, why not “pass the hat” and raise money voluntarily? You are trying to take even more money - beyond the exorbitant amount we already pay - away from my family and my children for your stuff instead.

I had a much longer post written but I thought better of it.

Suffice it to say, I'm very fortunate in my station in life and would not be a personal winner for the policies I want. I've got no debt and wonderful Healthcare so no "free stuff" for me.

On average, Democrats are more educated than Republicans so "by and large", the "free stuff" is for Republicans.
 
I had a much longer post written but I thought better of it.

Suffice it to say, I'm very fortunate in my station in life and would not be a personal winner for the policies I want. I've got no debt and wonderful Healthcare so no "free stuff" for me.

On average, Democrats are more educated than Republicans so "by and large", the "free stuff" is for Republicans.

I don’t know the splits this time, but your assumption is incorrect based on 2016 and preceding elections. You also make the mistake of equating education with income. See image below - Hillary cleaned up below $50K and Trump won every other income category. 2020 could have been different because of Trump's polarization, but recent history prior to this election shows more successful people vote Republican.

Also, I'm not suggesting that you are necessarily the recipient of the handouts. I'm just saying you want those programs. It's a program you want - regardless of who benefit from it - and the vast majority of the democratic voters are essentially telling someone else to pay for their wants. Personally, I have never felt comfortable asking someone else to pay for something I want.

I hope you understand my perspective. I pay a ton. I contribute. I ask for little in return. I don't support expanded government entitlements. But your party wants to take even more money from my family for things I don't support.

How much is enough? When you add up federal, SS, Medicare, state, property, etc taxes, it's close to half of what we earn. That's simply absurd. I effectively work January through May for other people. And to pay even more? Come on man [in my best Joe Biden voice].


58250662691e882c4e8b55e2


Earn%20vs%20Vote.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: TigerGrowls
You guys are probably similar from a policy standpoint, though not from a crazy standpoint. You are an advocate for single payer healthcare. That's a pretty extreme position. It's left of the majority of your party.

And yes, you are hyperpartisan. I at least find middle ground on a number of issues. @yoshi121374 and @nytigerfan have agreed with me on student loan forgiveness. I've criticized the Republican position on a number of things. You are 100% partisan and seem to embrace the extreme policy positions.

single payer health care is so extreme that it’s the very effective policy implemented in most First World countries.
 
I can't for the life of me understand why so many people want single-payer insurance (if that chart is accurate). Our current model has driven the world's best healthcare advances, the best devices, the best pharmaceuticals, the best surgeons, the best general healthcare talent, the best procedure evolutions, the best research, the best innovation, etc.

Single payer will undoubtedly erode those things.

I'd be open to the public option under these two premises:

  • I'm not paying for it. It needs to be self-sustaining without my tax dollars.
  • Private insurance rates can't go up to offset degraded margin on the public side (which is what happens with medicare/medicaid today).

If you want to put together a public option, okay I guess, but leave those of us not participating out of the cost structure.

probably because the countries that have it have universal coverage with better health outcome at less than half the per capita cost.

but hey, I’m a Democrat so I believe I’m not wasting trillions on a hugely inefficient systems. I know conservatives disagree.
 
probably because the countries that have it have universal coverage with better health outcome at less than half the per capita cost.

but hey, I’m a Democrat so I believe I’m not wasting trillions on a hugely inefficient systems. I know conservatives disagree.

Universal can be single payer and multi-payer. If that was mentioned in the chain, apologies as I haven't fully caught up. A great example of this is Germany which deploys universal but with a multi-payer system to keep it private. Coverage is govt subsidized based on income levels.

Also, in places like the UK for example a good percentage of the country also take private health insurance in addition to government provided because the NHS isn't the most efficient org and talented specialist can take months to get appointments with. I know this because I employ 85 people in the UK and pay for private coverage for 90% of them as a benefit. The same in Canada for the 7 people I employ there.

I think anyone with half a heart agrees that everyone should receive some form of health care, the challenge will always come down to how it gets paid for. Much like Scotchtiger says, I am taxed to the gills already and if Biden makes good on his promises, that likely goes up. How much more can I really pay when it's already overly egregious?

My other challenge is we already operate something similar also known as the VA health system and it's a total disaster. It's under funded in comparison to other government orgs, it lacks good doctors/nurses, the facilities are laughable and the systems are antiquated and broken. In that last Govt stimulus bill, the one where we were shipping money to the Smithsonian and the Kennedy center, did anyone see the VA Hospital mentioned in that list?

I'll give you a very personal example, my Stepdad was Navy and we as a family lived in South Carolina (Greenville/Easley) while my Dad was stationed in Va Beach as he spent 8 months out of the year on a ship and mom wanted to be near where we grew up and her family. We were dirt poor, by definition of poor, we qualified for welfare but my Mom was too proud for that so we made it work. We were forced to use VA/military medical services which were limited near us. My mom started having headaches in 1988 and finally went to a doctor to get a diagnosis, which without any tests they said was a sinus infection. For a full year, her headaches got worse and their diagnosis was the same at each visit. She was never given access to an actual doctor, it was always a nurse because that's all that was available and they never ran any tests. We submitted no less than 30 requests for approval to see a specialist because we needed the government's permission which was denied each time. One day, she had a severe seizure and had to go to an emergency room where the doctors phoned the VA admin and asked if she could see a specialist, they said no. My uncle decided to pay out pocket for the specialist, MRI/Cat Scan, etc and as it turns out she had multiple brain tumors, lung cancer that had spread to her brain, her pancreas and her liver and even with a very aggressive chemo and radiation treatment she was given very low odds of surviving. She passed away less than 8 months later. I was 13.

Even post diagnosis, the military/VA didn't have the facilities to treat her nor would they pay for the specialist despite letter after letter to government officials, congress etc so we were stuck. My aunt and uncle decided to pay for everything out of their own pocket and considered a lawsuit only to find out that you can't sue the military/govt when the person named in the lawsuit is military or a military spouse/family. How would that work for medical malpractice? Not the bogus sh*t but the ones that actually have real merit, like my mom?

The gamble here is can the US government run an efficient health care system that mimics what we have today as far as medical professional talent and advances in technology. My personal opinion is that the track record works against big gov on that front. The other challenge is when you have to fit into a government pay scale system, top talent won't come there, much like Firegiver mentioned with his family member being so massively underpaid. If you have to skew the scale to benefit a doctor, many in tech, finance, legal etc are all going to expect the same so essentially you're landing back into private territory where you have to charge more to fund your bottom line which means more tax dollars year on year.

I'm personally not comfortable depending on the government for my health care needs nor that of my children and I'm not comfortable subsidizing it for the nation via my tax bracket. Maybe the answer is they take it out of the corporate tax hikes they are proposing vs individual tax payers?
 
Universal can be single payer and multi-payer. If that was mentioned in the chain, apologies as I haven't fully caught up. A great example of this is Germany which deploys universal but with a multi-payer system to keep it private. Coverage is govt subsidized based on income levels.

Also, in places like the UK for example a good percentage of the country also take private health insurance in addition to government provided because the NHS isn't the most efficient org and talented specialist can take months to get appointments with. I know this because I employ 85 people in the UK and pay for private coverage for 90% of them as a benefit. The same in Canada for the 7 people I employ there.

I think anyone with half a heart agrees that everyone should receive some form of health care, the challenge will always come down to how it gets paid for. Much like Scotchtiger says, I am taxed to the gills already and if Biden makes good on his promises, that likely goes up. How much more can I really pay when it's already overly egregious?

My other challenge is we already operate something similar also known as the VA health system and it's a total disaster. It's under funded in comparison to other government orgs, it lacks good doctors/nurses, the facilities are laughable and the systems are antiquated and broken. In that last Govt stimulus bill, the one where we were shipping money to the Smithsonian and the Kennedy center, did anyone see the VA Hospital mentioned in that list?

I'll give you a very personal example, my Stepdad was Navy and we as a family lived in South Carolina (Greenville/Easley) while my Dad was stationed in Va Beach as he spent 8 months out of the year on a ship and mom wanted to be near where we grew up and her family. We were dirt poor, by definition of poor, we qualified for welfare but my Mom was too proud for that so we made it work. We were forced to use VA/military medical services which were limited near us. My mom started having headaches in 1988 and finally went to a doctor to get a diagnosis, which without any tests they said was a sinus infection. For a full year, her headaches got worse and their diagnosis was the same at each visit. She was never given access to an actual doctor, it was always a nurse because that's all that was available and they never ran any tests. We submitted no less than 30 requests for approval to see a specialist because we needed the government's permission which was denied each time. One day, she had a severe seizure and had to go to an emergency room where the doctors phoned the VA admin and asked if she could see a specialist, they said no. My uncle decided to pay out pocket for the specialist, MRI/Cat Scan, etc and as it turns out she had multiple brain tumors, lung cancer that had spread to her brain, her pancreas and her liver and even with a very aggressive chemo and radiation treatment she was given very low odds of surviving. She passed away less than 8 months later. I was 13.

Even post diagnosis, the military/VA didn't have the facilities to treat her nor would they pay for the specialist despite letter after letter to government officials, congress etc so we were stuck. My aunt and uncle decided to pay for everything out of their own pocket and considered a lawsuit only to find out that you can't sue the military/govt when the person named in the lawsuit is military or a military spouse/family. How would that work for medical malpractice? Not the bogus sh*t but the ones that actually have real merit, like my mom?

The gamble here is can the US government run an efficient health care system that mimics what we have today as far as medical professional talent and advances in technology. My personal opinion is that the track record works against big gov on that front. The other challenge is when you have to fit into a government pay scale system, top talent won't come there, much like Firegiver mentioned with his family member being so massively underpaid. If you have to skew the scale to benefit a doctor, many in tech, finance, legal etc are all going to expect the same so essentially you're landing back into private territory where you have to charge more to fund your bottom line which means more tax dollars year on year.

I'm personally not comfortable depending on the government for my health care needs nor that of my children and I'm not comfortable subsidizing it for the nation via my tax bracket. Maybe the answer is they take it out of the corporate tax hikes they are proposing vs individual tax payers?

Really sorry about your Mom. The VA apparatus is certainly a mess.
 
Really sorry about your Mom. The VA apparatus is certainly a mess.

Thanks man, appreciate that. It was a long time ago.

I had to spend some rehab time at Walter Reed after getting hurt on a deployment and I can say first hand, it was a horrible experience. When I lived in the DC area, I did some volunteer work there and the way we treat wounded (mentally and physically) is pretty shocking. It was good to see Obama allocate funds and Trump force some policy change but it still has a long way to go.
 
Universal can be single payer and multi-payer. If that was mentioned in the chain, apologies as I haven't fully caught up. A great example of this is Germany which deploys universal but with a multi-payer system to keep it private. Coverage is govt subsidized based on income levels.

Also, in places like the UK for example a good percentage of the country also take private health insurance in addition to government provided because the NHS isn't the most efficient org and talented specialist can take months to get appointments with. I know this because I employ 85 people in the UK and pay for private coverage for 90% of them as a benefit. The same in Canada for the 7 people I employ there.

I think anyone with half a heart agrees that everyone should receive some form of health care, the challenge will always come down to how it gets paid for. Much like Scotchtiger says, I am taxed to the gills already and if Biden makes good on his promises, that likely goes up. How much more can I really pay when it's already overly egregious?

My other challenge is we already operate something similar also known as the VA health system and it's a total disaster. It's under funded in comparison to other government orgs, it lacks good doctors/nurses, the facilities are laughable and the systems are antiquated and broken. In that last Govt stimulus bill, the one where we were shipping money to the Smithsonian and the Kennedy center, did anyone see the VA Hospital mentioned in that list?

I'll give you a very personal example, my Stepdad was Navy and we as a family lived in South Carolina (Greenville/Easley) while my Dad was stationed in Va Beach as he spent 8 months out of the year on a ship and mom wanted to be near where we grew up and her family. We were dirt poor, by definition of poor, we qualified for welfare but my Mom was too proud for that so we made it work. We were forced to use VA/military medical services which were limited near us. My mom started having headaches in 1988 and finally went to a doctor to get a diagnosis, which without any tests they said was a sinus infection. For a full year, her headaches got worse and their diagnosis was the same at each visit. She was never given access to an actual doctor, it was always a nurse because that's all that was available and they never ran any tests. We submitted no less than 30 requests for approval to see a specialist because we needed the government's permission which was denied each time. One day, she had a severe seizure and had to go to an emergency room where the doctors phoned the VA admin and asked if she could see a specialist, they said no. My uncle decided to pay out pocket for the specialist, MRI/Cat Scan, etc and as it turns out she had multiple brain tumors, lung cancer that had spread to her brain, her pancreas and her liver and even with a very aggressive chemo and radiation treatment she was given very low odds of surviving. She passed away less than 8 months later. I was 13.

Even post diagnosis, the military/VA didn't have the facilities to treat her nor would they pay for the specialist despite letter after letter to government officials, congress etc so we were stuck. My aunt and uncle decided to pay for everything out of their own pocket and considered a lawsuit only to find out that you can't sue the military/govt when the person named in the lawsuit is military or a military spouse/family. How would that work for medical malpractice? Not the bogus sh*t but the ones that actually have real merit, like my mom?

The gamble here is can the US government run an efficient health care system that mimics what we have today as far as medical professional talent and advances in technology. My personal opinion is that the track record works against big gov on that front. The other challenge is when you have to fit into a government pay scale system, top talent won't come there, much like Firegiver mentioned with his family member being so massively underpaid. If you have to skew the scale to benefit a doctor, many in tech, finance, legal etc are all going to expect the same so essentially you're landing back into private territory where you have to charge more to fund your bottom line which means more tax dollars year on year.

I'm personally not comfortable depending on the government for my health care needs nor that of my children and I'm not comfortable subsidizing it for the nation via my tax bracket. Maybe the answer is they take it out of the corporate tax hikes they are proposing vs individual tax payers?

Sorry to hear about your mom. My father was ex-military and about 20 years ago began acting strangely with severe memory loss the main symptom. He had no problem getting in to see specialists at the VA and after multiple tests they diagnosed him with dementia. After a year, it got progressively worse and they finally determined he had liver cancer that had spread to his brain. By that time it was too late and he died two weeks later. So I agree that the govt. shouldn't be involved in administering healthcare. But making sure everyone is covered by insurance is a separate conversation that we should still have though IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jakefest
Universal can be single payer and multi-payer. If that was mentioned in the chain, apologies as I haven't fully caught up. A great example of this is Germany which deploys universal but with a multi-payer system to keep it private. Coverage is govt subsidized based on income levels.

Also, in places like the UK for example a good percentage of the country also take private health insurance in addition to government provided because the NHS isn't the most efficient org and talented specialist can take months to get appointments with. I know this because I employ 85 people in the UK and pay for private coverage for 90% of them as a benefit. The same in Canada for the 7 people I employ there.

I think anyone with half a heart agrees that everyone should receive some form of health care, the challenge will always come down to how it gets paid for. Much like Scotchtiger says, I am taxed to the gills already and if Biden makes good on his promises, that likely goes up. How much more can I really pay when it's already overly egregious?

My other challenge is we already operate something similar also known as the VA health system and it's a total disaster. It's under funded in comparison to other government orgs, it lacks good doctors/nurses, the facilities are laughable and the systems are antiquated and broken. In that last Govt stimulus bill, the one where we were shipping money to the Smithsonian and the Kennedy center, did anyone see the VA Hospital mentioned in that list?

I'll give you a very personal example, my Stepdad was Navy and we as a family lived in South Carolina (Greenville/Easley) while my Dad was stationed in Va Beach as he spent 8 months out of the year on a ship and mom wanted to be near where we grew up and her family. We were dirt poor, by definition of poor, we qualified for welfare but my Mom was too proud for that so we made it work. We were forced to use VA/military medical services which were limited near us. My mom started having headaches in 1988 and finally went to a doctor to get a diagnosis, which without any tests they said was a sinus infection. For a full year, her headaches got worse and their diagnosis was the same at each visit. She was never given access to an actual doctor, it was always a nurse because that's all that was available and they never ran any tests. We submitted no less than 30 requests for approval to see a specialist because we needed the government's permission which was denied each time. One day, she had a severe seizure and had to go to an emergency room where the doctors phoned the VA admin and asked if she could see a specialist, they said no. My uncle decided to pay out pocket for the specialist, MRI/Cat Scan, etc and as it turns out she had multiple brain tumors, lung cancer that had spread to her brain, her pancreas and her liver and even with a very aggressive chemo and radiation treatment she was given very low odds of surviving. She passed away less than 8 months later. I was 13.

Even post diagnosis, the military/VA didn't have the facilities to treat her nor would they pay for the specialist despite letter after letter to government officials, congress etc so we were stuck. My aunt and uncle decided to pay for everything out of their own pocket and considered a lawsuit only to find out that you can't sue the military/govt when the person named in the lawsuit is military or a military spouse/family. How would that work for medical malpractice? Not the bogus sh*t but the ones that actually have real merit, like my mom?

The gamble here is can the US government run an efficient health care system that mimics what we have today as far as medical professional talent and advances in technology. My personal opinion is that the track record works against big gov on that front. The other challenge is when you have to fit into a government pay scale system, top talent won't come there, much like Firegiver mentioned with his family member being so massively underpaid. If you have to skew the scale to benefit a doctor, many in tech, finance, legal etc are all going to expect the same so essentially you're landing back into private territory where you have to charge more to fund your bottom line which means more tax dollars year on year.

I'm personally not comfortable depending on the government for my health care needs nor that of my children and I'm not comfortable subsidizing it for the nation via my tax bracket. Maybe the answer is they take it out of the corporate tax hikes they are proposing vs individual tax payers?

Great post and very sorry about your mom.

Good insight on the gaps that exist in other "universal" healthcare markets.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jakefest and dpic73
probably because the countries that have it have universal coverage with better health outcome at less than half the per capita cost.

but hey, I’m a Democrat so I believe I’m not wasting trillions on a hugely inefficient systems. I know conservatives disagree.

We've debated that point and you seem to refuse to acknowledge the differences. The US is totally different than most European countries.

  • We're fatter, like a lot fatter. Embarrassingly fat.
  • We lead less healthy lifestyles, leading to fatness and other issues
  • We're much more geographically diverse
  • We're more racially and culturally diverse

All of those things affect outcomes.

Additionally, European healthcare wouldn't be as good if not for the innovation produced in the US as a result of our system.

Bottom line - you or your parent or your child needs the best care and you can go anywhere in the world, where are you going? Government-run hospital in Europe? Or maybe Mayo Clinic, Johns Hopkins, Cleveland Clinic...

I go back to this. You are a true believer in big government. For every problem, there's a bloated government program that can fix it. I prefer to look for the root cause of problems/issues and address from there. In this case, let's start with ways to address population health.
 
Sorry to hear about your mom. My father was ex-military and about 20 years ago began acting strangely with severe memory loss the main symptom. He had no problem getting in to see specialists at the VA and after multiple tests they diagnosed him with dementia. After a year, it got progressively worse and they finally determined he had liver cancer that had spread to his brain. By that time it was too late and he died two weeks later. So I agree that the govt. shouldn't be involved in administering healthcare. But making sure everyone is covered by insurance is a separate conversation that we should still have though IMO.

Sorry to hear about your Dad. My Grandmother had a pretty challenging bout with dementia, it's a really tough ailment for both family and of course the patient. What branch was he?

My Stepdad had to have shoulder surgery back in 2019. Him and his wife are in Birmingham and I think he went to Maxwell AFB in Montgomery. Had nothing but good things to say about the surgery itself, which isn't surprising as Montgomery is a very nice and modern base but said the challenge was with rehab and there not being an approved facility he could use within a reasonable driving distance. Also said they wouldn't approve private treatment despite that which is likely a flawed process more than anything disingenuous. He also just went through treatment for prostate cancer and said the treatments were at Maxwell multiple times a week.

Agreed, everyone needs the ability to see a doctor when necessary just need to figure out the best way to do it
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT