In watching some other parts of the video that were clearly edited out of the original clip, Feinstein comes across far better, and I suppose there IS an argument to be made that kids shouldn't just yell things at adults as if they are equals (because there is merit to that line of thinking, and it's also kind of true). Frankly, it seems to me that the original video may have been put out by a far left-wing group. In fact, I anticipate some on the right are going to applaud Feinstein for bringing them "back to reality" (which is also kind of true). My point about age still stands, and Feinstein had a couple really bad moments in the video (the worst being that she said she just won an election by a million votes and telling one of the kids that she didn't vote for her because she couldn't have, not being old enough, and those are the responses I chalk up to being stubborn), but there is also plenty of truth to what she is talking about. Feinstein is telling the kids and their teacher what is POSSIBLE given the current political climate, which is also something that they (understandably) don't comprehend. Feinstein is trying to convey to them that she is working within the realities of how things actually are, not how they wish it to be. She just doesn't do it very well.
That being said, the original video making the rounds on social media was not only edited, but chopped off the vast bulk of the discussion entirely. She still isn't a great messenger, but the original video is completely dishonest about the entirety of the exchange, and my guess is it was put out by the same group who tried to primary her last year.
I agree with you again (no I'm not on pain medication!). I actually like Feinstein more after reading that article. Realpolitik rather than emotion and wishful thinking is right up my alley...
Not for nothing, but it's the exact same kind of thing Hillary did when she met with Black Lives Matter activists on video. She listened attentively to what they had to say, and then basically said, "that's great, and I agree with you, now show me a plan I can get through Congress as President". And this is what alot on the left don't seem to get about Bernie. Him becoming President is not going to make Medicare for All happen. Where the hell is he going to get 60 votes in the Senate to basically render private insurance obsolete?? It absolutely SHOULD be driven into the ash heap of history, but that doesn't mean it can actually be done. For one thing, the FIRST thing we'd need to figure out is what to do with all the thousands upon thousands people (mostly women) working clerical and admin positions who would be out of a job. Any Medicare for All discussion that doesn't address this is wholly irresponsible and not to be taken seriously.
In watching some other parts of the video that were clearly edited out of the original clip, Feinstein comes across far better, and I suppose there IS an argument to be made that kids shouldn't just yell things at adults as if they are equals (because there is merit to that line of thinking, and it's also kind of true). Frankly, it seems to me that the original video may have been put out by a far left-wing group. In fact, I anticipate some on the right are going to applaud Feinstein for bringing them "back to reality" (which is also kind of true). My point about age still stands, and Feinstein had a couple really bad moments in the video (the worst being that she said she just won an election by a million votes and telling one of the kids that she didn't vote for her because she couldn't have, not being old enough, and those are the responses I chalk up to being stubborn), but there is also plenty of truth to what she is talking about. Feinstein is telling the kids and their teacher what is POSSIBLE given the current political climate, which is also something that they (understandably) don't comprehend. Feinstein is trying to convey to them that she is working within the realities of how things actually are, not how they wish it to be. She just doesn't do it very well.
That being said, the original video making the rounds on social media was not only edited, but chopped off the vast bulk of the discussion entirely. She still isn't a great messenger, but the original video is completely dishonest about the entirety of the exchange, and my guess is it was put out by the same group who tried to primary her last year.
I agree with you again (no I'm not on pain medication!). I actually like Feinstein more after reading that article. Realpolitik rather than emotion and wishful thinking is right up my alley...
Not for nothing, but it's the exact same kind of thing Hillary did when she met with Black Lives Matter activists on video. She listened attentively to what they had to say, and then basically said, "that's great, and I agree with you, now show me a plan I can get through Congress as President". And this is what alot on the left don't seem to get about Bernie. Him becoming President is not going to make Medicare for All happen. Where the hell is he going to get 60 votes in the Senate to basically render private insurance obsolete?? It absolutely SHOULD be driven into the ash heap of history, but that doesn't mean it can actually be done. For one thing, the FIRST thing we'd need to figure out is what to do with all the thousands upon thousands people (mostly women) working clerical and admin positions who would be out of a job. Any Medicare for All discussion that doesn't address this is wholly irresponsible and not to be taken seriously.
Wow, I feel like I'm in an alternate universe now. I agree with you again!
The same can be said about the carbon-tax and other climate-change initiatives. It can't be addressed without hurting somebody, and those somebodies will be the less better-off folks disproportionately more than the rich people. This is exactly why both sides need to work together to find a solution. Nobody is going to get everything they want, but both sides should be able to come up with a compromise that leaves everybody unhappy (but a better reality than it is currently). Unfortunately it's so much easier to blame the other side for everything bad and hope that your side gets complete control so you can shove your ideas down the other side's throat after the next election (which admittedly, Trump and the Republicans are doing right now). The problem is, no one side can keep power for long enough to really accomplish anything, exacerbated by the fact that policies aren't even implemented long enough to gauge their effectiveness. It's like a teeter-totter that just crashes up and down every election rather than mostly balancing but moving just a little bit between cycles. It's maddening and not getting any better...
Here's another thing I've thought about lately. Who the Hell is answering these poll questions? If you're like me, the barrage of jackasses who call me all the time trying to either sell me something, trick me into sending $1000 to Nigeria to save my 3rd cousin once-removed from being thrown in jail there, or take a 'free' cruise so they can sell me a time-share have pretty much trained me to never answer my phone unless it's somebody already on my contacts list. Therefore, it's impossible for pollsters to ever get my opinion on a poll. I know I'm not the only one who does this either. I don't even know anybody who's ever been asked to take a poll, which is pretty suspicious to me. I find it hard to believe any poll in this day and age...
Respectfully, you're wrong. I vote for a philosophy on the Federal level. I haven't voted FOR any president since GHW Bush and then only because I was young and stupid. Do you believe I liked 'W', Dole, McCain, Romney or Trump? I did not. I voted for Ross Perot in 1992 because I thought Bush Sr. ran a terrible campaign. Dole was a sourpuss who only got the nomination because it was his 'turn', which infuriated me. W got the nod because of his daddy. McCain and Romney were more old, white guys with suits that I really was getting sick of and Trump is a douchebag. Call me whatever you want, but there wasn't a better alternative philosophically to me than any of them. I don't vote party lines at the State or Local levels (which I've stated many times on this forum) but for the Senate and President I've voted nearly every time for the Republican (Perot the only exception). I did vote for John Dingell every time except his last campaign so even for US congress I don't tow the party line. I also voted for Granholm both times she ran for governor of Michigan. I think I'm the kind of voter that actually CAN be swayed. Believe it or not...
Edit: AND I've voted in every single election since I was able to vote in 1986.
Out of curiosity, has that "philosophy" been someone who was alive in each instance of you voting for it? I suspect so. Twist the idea around all you want, when you make a choice, you're making a choice. Voting is non compulsory in the USA. No one compels you to vote a particular way. Each time you vote for a person (and I dont care what your reason is) - you've made a conscious choice to vote for that person. A person bears the responsibility of their choices.
It's not 'entirely' on me. I have one vote and even on the local level my one vote hasn't changed one thing.
The choice to vote for trump is entirely on you. His election, is not.
I don't regret my vote even now. I didn't vote for Donald Trump the person. I think we're coming from entirely different perspectives and that's fine. The odd thing is that I kind of think we're both right. You're right about me on the micro level, but I believe I'm right on the macro level. I don't believe I 'bear the responsiblity' of my vote because my view isn't centered on the here and now and yours is. A Clinton presidentship was not something I was willing to vote for. Period...
What seems slightly odd is that you've made the point many times you would not be willing to vote for Clinton - because she was Clinton. In that case your vote is being influenced by the person, not the political philosophy. That's perfectly fine - I doubt if I would vote for Trump under any circumstances, whatever his professed policies and whoever the opponent was - but does suggest that your federal votes are not only determined by philosophy ...
Respectfully, you're wrong. I vote for a philosophy on the Federal level. I haven't voted FOR any president since GHW Bush and then only because I was young and stupid. Do you believe I liked 'W', Dole, McCain, Romney or Trump? I did not. I voted for Ross Perot in 1992 because I thought Bush Sr. ran a terrible campaign. Dole was a sourpuss who only got the nomination because it was his 'turn', which infuriated me. W got the nod because of his daddy. McCain and Romney were more old, white guys with suits that I really was getting sick of and Trump is a douchebag. Call me whatever you want, but there wasn't a better alternative philosophically to me than any of them. I don't vote party lines at the State or Local levels (which I've stated many times on this forum) but for the Senate and President I've voted nearly every time for the Republican (Perot the only exception). I did vote for John Dingell every time except his last campaign so even for US congress I don't tow the party line. I also voted for Granholm both times she ran for governor of Michigan. I think I'm the kind of voter that actually CAN be swayed. Believe it or not...
Edit: AND I've voted in every single election since I was able to vote in 1986.
Out of curiosity, has that "philosophy" been someone who was alive in each instance of you voting for it? I suspect so. Twist the idea around all you want, when you make a choice, you're making a choice. Voting is non compulsory in the USA. No one compels you to vote a particular way. Each time you vote for a person (and I dont care what your reason is) - you've made a conscious choice to vote for that person. A person bears the responsibility of their choices.
It's not 'entirely' on me. I have one vote and even on the local level my one vote hasn't changed one thing.
The choice to vote for trump is entirely on you. His election, is not.
I don't regret my vote even now. I didn't vote for Donald Trump the person. I think we're coming from entirely different perspectives and that's fine. The odd thing is that I kind of think we're both right. You're right about me on the micro level, but I believe I'm right on the macro level. I don't believe I 'bear the responsiblity' of my vote because my view isn't centered on the here and now and yours is. A Clinton presidentship was not something I was willing to vote for. Period...
What seems slightly odd is that you've made the point many times you would not be willing to vote for Clinton - because she was Clinton. In that case your vote is being influenced by the person, not the political philosophy. That's perfectly fine - I doubt if I would vote for Trump under any circumstances, whatever his professed policies and whoever the opponent was - but does suggest that your federal votes are not only determined by philosophy ...
I didn't like how she handled the issue with her personal server, or her fake 'l was dodging sniper fire in Bosnia' bullshit but mostly I took issue with her being basically 'gifted' a Senate seat to groom her for the presidency because she had a popular presidential husband. Kiss my ass! That's the same reason I won't vote for John Dingell's wife. She didn't earn her seat, it was given to her.
The video circulating tonight of Dianne Feinstein's pretty tone-deaf response to a group of young people talking to her about the Green New Deal highlights an exact point I've been making for some time, and I don't care if it sounds ageist. People who are over the age of 80 have no business staying in political positions. For one thing, when people age, your abilities and mental acuity declines. It's just what happens to humans. Some do it far more graciously than others, but the simple fact is, no one gets out of here alive. You get set in your ways. You get testy with anyone telling you to try something new, and you have these type of "get off my lawn" moments. But, more to the point, I don't want people who aren't going to be around for (in all likelihood) even 10 more years making decisions that are going to affect others for 40 or 50. Because they have no incentive to do so. No matter how many grandchildren they have, they aren't personally going to be around to reap the cost or benefit of what happens.
But more to the point, there is absolutely NO shame in someone stepping down and not holding onto a position until literally their last breath. What point was served by Ted Kennedy, John McCain, Robert Byrd, and Strom Thurmond staying in office when they were clearly dying?? Wouldn't there even be some nobility in stepping down and letting someone who can do the job take your place?? This is also a BIG reason so many small businesses eventually go under. Not because the business is failing, but because they have absolutely no succession plan. If Tommy doesn't want to inherit the woodworking business, his father Gregory is going to be too invested in his own importance and ego to actually find someone who will. In this society, even if you of course genuinely love your kids and grandkids, there is no macro-level thinking about a future you aren't going to be a part of. And it's short-sighted and the height of selfishness.
You're right of course, but it's only human to believe you're irreplaceable. Humility is not something that lends itself to politics unfortunately.
Edit: This is also a good reason to set some kind of term limit or even, gasp, age limit to Supreme Court justices. 30 years and/or 80 years old sounds pretty reasonable to me as a hard limit that isn't super-harsh. Thoughts?
I also think an age limit for judges (at all levels) would make sense. I understand the benefits of an appointment for life, but I think that should mean an appointment for working life. When the Constitution was drawn up there wasn't the same distinction as today between life and working life (understandably, given that the average life expectancy in the US in 1800 was under 40) and I think things should be adjusted to reflect today's realities.
I can see the arguments for Ginsburg remaining a Justice just at the moment, and she still seems to be doing a good job. However, I think that the system that encourages her to remain in post until she actually drops dead is unhealthy.
I don't respond to phone polls, but I'll participate in online polls. I hear it's common for Millenials like me to dislike talking on the phone, though I don't particularly know why. There's just something odd about talking to someone you can't see in person.
For some reason, though, it doesn't feel odd to write to people I can't see (or even hear!) in person, like I do on this forum. You guys don't even have real names.
Neither do I. I'm actually called "semiticgod" on this forum. How ridiculous is that?
The video circulating tonight of Dianne Feinstein's pretty tone-deaf response to a group of young people talking to her about the Green New Deal highlights an exact point I've been making for some time, and I don't care if it sounds ageist. People who are over the age of 80 have no business staying in political positions. For one thing, when people age, your abilities and mental acuity declines. It's just what happens to humans. Some do it far more graciously than others, but the simple fact is, no one gets out of here alive. You get set in your ways. You get testy with anyone telling you to try something new, and you have these type of "get off my lawn" moments. But, more to the point, I don't want people who aren't going to be around for (in all likelihood) even 10 more years making decisions that are going to affect others for 40 or 50. Because they have no incentive to do so. No matter how many grandchildren they have, they aren't personally going to be around to reap the cost or benefit of what happens.
But more to the point, there is absolutely NO shame in someone stepping down and not holding onto a position until literally their last breath. What point was served by Ted Kennedy, John McCain, Robert Byrd, and Strom Thurmond staying in office when they were clearly dying?? Wouldn't there even be some nobility in stepping down and letting someone who can do the job take your place?? This is also a BIG reason so many small businesses eventually go under. Not because the business is failing, but because they have absolutely no succession plan. If Tommy doesn't want to inherit the woodworking business, his father Gregory is going to be too invested in his own importance and ego to actually find someone who will. In this society, even if you of course genuinely love your kids and grandkids, there is no macro-level thinking about a future you aren't going to be a part of. And it's short-sighted and the height of selfishness.
You're right of course, but it's only human to believe you're irreplaceable. Humility is not something that lends itself to politics unfortunately.
Edit: This is also a good reason to set some kind of term limit or even, gasp, age limit to Supreme Court justices. 30 years and/or 80 years old sounds pretty reasonable to me as a hard limit that isn't super-harsh. Thoughts?
I also think an age limit for judges (at all levels) would make sense. I understand the benefits of an appointment for life, but I think that should mean an appointment for working life. When the Constitution was drawn up there wasn't the same distinction as today between life and working life (understandably, given that the average life expectancy in the US in 1800 was under 40) and I think things should be adjusted to reflect today's realities.
I can see the arguments for Ginsburg remaining a Justice just at the moment, and she still seems to be doing a good job. However, I think that the system that encourages her to remain in post until she actually drops dead is unhealthy.
Well, the current justices would 'grandfather' in anyway so the balance of power wouldn't be immediately affected. Keep in mind that the average life expectancy statistic is skewed by infant mortality and women who die in childbirth. Most of the rich men involved in government back then still lived to a ripe old age...
I'm not sure we should implement an age limit, since people's mental capacity deteriorates at different rates (and also starts out at different values). But I do think Supreme Court seats should have specific, albeit long, terms; they shouldn't be lifelong appointments. Lifelong appointments just encourage people to nominate judges who are younger, and encourage judges to cling to their seats long after they should have retired.
There's no reason political power should be so incredibly dependent on the physical health of nine people. That's just so random.
Re: what about the women, clerical jobs (and CEOs and executives I might add).
Why do you think healthcare is so expensive in the US, right. We pay more and get less care. We're #10 in top 10 developed countries and we're paying about twice as much.
So what about the jobs? Bernie's plan includes job training and it is expensive but it will actually save money over the system we have right away and even more in the future once it's fully implemented.
Imagine one day having an accident or being sick, going to the hospital and not having to deal with the insurance middle man. You won't have to deal with that person who always comes in half way through your emergency room visit and has to get all your information and present you 50 pieces of paper. That's actually how the system works in other countries like Canada.
I'm not sure we should implement an age limit, since people's mental capacity deteriorates at different rates (and also starts out at different values). But I do think Supreme Court seats should have specific, albeit long, terms; they shouldn't be lifelong appointments. Lifelong appointments just encourage people to nominate judges who are younger, and encourage judges to cling to their seats long after they should have retired.
There's no reason political power should be so incredibly dependent on the physical health of nine people. That's just so random.
An age limit is not subjective. A 'mental capacity to perform your duties' is. I'm sorry, if you're still sharp as a tack at 80 and want to make a difference, work as a public defendant to help people who need it. You don't 'need' to be a member of SCotUS.
I didn't like how she handled the issue with her personal server, or her fake 'l was dodging sniper fire in Bosnia' bullshit but mostly I took issue with her being basically 'gifted' a Senate seat to groom her for the presidency because she had a popular presidential husband. Kiss my ass! That's the same reason I won't vote for John Dingell's wife. She didn't earn her seat, it was given to her.
Interestingly (or more likely not interestingly ) I thought about doing a post yesterday about the Bosnia fairy tales in response to someone's comment. It seemed to me to be a good example of how trying to be good can get you into trouble.
Going into the election Clinton had been active in public life and politics for many years. With the level of involvement she had had it was totally inevitable that there were statements and decisions made that could be attacked, whether she was at fault or not. As none of us are perfect it also made it extremely likely that there would have been occasions where she was legitimately at fault - and the Bosnian statements are a good example of that.
The reason it's a good example though is that it stands out from the crowd. My perception at least is that Clinton generally attempted to tell the truth and it was therefore a bit shocking when she clearly didn't do that - and she got a lot of negative publicity as a result of her statements about being under fire in Bosnia. I think that's totally correct - we should expect politicians to tell the truth and criticize them when they don't. However, Trump is not treated in the same way at all. People have been desensitized by his continual lies and many no longer consider it important at all whether anything he says is true or not (because even false statements reflect a 'deeper' truth).
Am I really the odd one out in thinking that it's not only policies that matter - that it should be important in its own right whether Presidents and Supreme Court Justices tell the truth?
Re: what about the women, clerical jobs (and CEOs and executives I might add).
Why do you think healthcare is so expensive in the US, right. We pay more and get less care. We're #10 in top 10 developed countries and we're paying about twice as much.
So what about the jobs? Bernie's plan includes job training and it is expensive but it will actually save money over the system we have right away and even more in the future once it's fully implemented.
Imagine one day having an accident or being sick, going to the hospital and not having to deal with the insurance middle man. You won't have to deal with that person who always comes in half way through your emergency room visit and has to get all your information and present you 50 pieces of paper. That's actually how the system works in other countries like Canada.
I agree what you are describing is what it SHOULD be like. We should have never been in this situation, and only the ENTIRE rest of the civilized world agrees this is the case. The problem is, we aren't. We have an entire political party that will never get on board (the Republicans) and at least half of another one (the Democrats). We are stuck in the same loop on healthcare as we are on guns. It's now a self-fulfilling prophecy and cycle we can't get out of. Everyone knows our positions on both are borderline mass psychosis, but we have no ability to actually do anything about either one of them for a myriad of reasons. The BEST we could hope for is a public option. In hindsight, I am more impressed than ever that Obama, Pelosi and Reid were actually able to pull off what they did in regards to the ACA. It actually made a tangible difference in regards to the most important issue facing the country.
But as anyone can see, it has taken JUST as much of a monumental effort to stave off the attacks to destroy it completely for the last two years. The only thing that stopped it from being repealed was the fact that Donald Trump disparaged John McCain's war record during the campaign, and McCain decided to stick a middle finger in his face to pay him back. That is literally the only reason it wasn't dismantled entirely. If Trump had not made that comment about McCain being captured, we'd be looking at an entirely different situation.
Re: what about the women, clerical jobs (and CEOs and executives I might add).
Why do you think healthcare is so expensive in the US, right. We pay more and get less care. We're #10 in top 10 developed countries and we're paying about twice as much.
So what about the jobs? Bernie's plan includes job training and it is expensive but it will actually save money over the system we have right away and even more in the future once it's fully implemented.
Imagine one day having an accident or being sick, going to the hospital and not having to deal with the insurance middle man. You won't have to deal with that person who always comes in half way through your emergency room visit and has to get all your information and present you 50 pieces of paper. That's actually how the system works in other countries like Canada.
The problem I had with the Obamacare thing was the whole, 'I don't have to read it to know that I want it' crap. We need open and honest debate and I want to know exactly how much it's going to cost me, personally, up-front. No 'hidden' bullshit.
This is worth pointing out, because this is another thing that was taken almost entirely out of context and blown up into something that was nothing resembling what Pelosi was actually trying to say:
The entire framing in the media was that Nancy Pelosi, who probably knows where her caucus members stand right down to the color of their office carpet, didn't actually know what was in the bill. That was preposterous nonsense. She was saying the public could not possibly get a fair understanding of what it actually did in that political climate leading up to it's passage. And she was 100% correct. Over the years, it has steadily gained in popularity, and it's individual provisions, when divorced from the name "Obamacare" were popular from the start.
Re: what about the women, clerical jobs (and CEOs and executives I might add).
Why do you think healthcare is so expensive in the US, right. We pay more and get less care. We're #10 in top 10 developed countries and we're paying about twice as much.
So what about the jobs? Bernie's plan includes job training and it is expensive but it will actually save money over the system we have right away and even more in the future once it's fully implemented.
Imagine one day having an accident or being sick, going to the hospital and not having to deal with the insurance middle man. You won't have to deal with that person who always comes in half way through your emergency room visit and has to get all your information and present you 50 pieces of paper. That's actually how the system works in other countries like Canada.
I agree what you are describing is what it SHOULD be like. We should have never been in this situation, and only the ENTIRE rest of the civilized world agrees this is the case. The problem is, we aren't. We have an entire political party that will never get on board (the Republicans) and at leastbullshit.ThatsTr one (the Democrats). We are stuck in the same loop on healthcare as we are on guns. It's now a self-fulfilling prophecy and cycle we can't get out of. Everyone knows our positions on both are borderline mass psychosis, but we have no ability to actually do anything about either one of them for a myriad of reasons. The BEST we could hope for is a public option. In hindsight, I am more impressed than ever that Obama, Pelosi and Reid were actually able to pull off what they did in regards to the ACA. It actually made a tangible difference in regards to the most important issue facing the country.
But as anyone can see, it has taken JUST as much of a monumental effort to stave off the attacks to destroy it completely for the last two years. The only thing that stopped it from being repealed was the fact that Donald Trump disparaged John McCain's war record during the campaign, and McCain decided to stick a middle finger in his face to pay him back. That is literally the only reason it wasn't dismantled entirely. If Trump had not made that comment about McCain being captured, we'd be looking at an entirely different situation.
That's not entirely true. I'm willing to rethink my views on healthcare and if I am, that means there are more people like me that are able to be persuaded. Show me the numbers and let me decide for myself if I'm willing to pay the cost. If it makes financial sense, it should sell itself. As a scientist, I believe that no experiment is worthless. If it doesn't work as promised, however, liberals should have to be open to revising it. Fair enough?
The video circulating tonight of Dianne Feinstein's pretty tone-deaf response to a group of young people talking to her about the Green New Deal highlights an exact point I've been making for some time, and I don't care if it sounds ageist. People who are over the age of 80 have no business staying in political positions. For one thing, when people age, your abilities and mental acuity declines. It's just what happens to humans. Some do it far more graciously than others, but the simple fact is, no one gets out of here alive. You get set in your ways. You get testy with anyone telling you to try something new, and you have these type of "get off my lawn" moments. But, more to the point, I don't want people who aren't going to be around for (in all likelihood) even 10 more years making decisions that are going to affect others for 40 or 50. Because they have no incentive to do so. No matter how many grandchildren they have, they aren't personally going to be around to reap the cost or benefit of what happens.
But more to the point, there is absolutely NO shame in someone stepping down and not holding onto a position until literally their last breath. What point was served by Ted Kennedy, John McCain, Robert Byrd, and Strom Thurmond staying in office when they were clearly dying?? Wouldn't there even be some nobility in stepping down and letting someone who can do the job take your place?? This is also a BIG reason so many small businesses eventually go under. Not because the business is failing, but because they have absolutely no succession plan. If Tommy doesn't want to inherit the woodworking business, his father Gregory is going to be too invested in his own importance and ego to actually find someone who will. In this society, even if you of course genuinely love your kids and grandkids, there is no macro-level thinking about a future you aren't going to be a part of. And it's short-sighted and the height of selfishness.
You're right of course, but it's only human to believe you're irreplaceable. Humility is not something that lends itself to politics unfortunately.
Edit: This is also a good reason to set some kind of term limit or even, gasp, age limit to Supreme Court justices. 30 years and/or 80 years old sounds pretty reasonable to me as a hard limit that isn't super-harsh. Thoughts?
I also think an age limit for judges (at all levels) would make sense. I understand the benefits of an appointment for life, but I think that should mean an appointment for working life. When the Constitution was drawn up there wasn't the same distinction as today between life and working life (understandably, given that the average life expectancy in the US in 1800 was under 40) and I think things should be adjusted to reflect today's realities.
I can see the arguments for Ginsburg remaining a Justice just at the moment, and she still seems to be doing a good job. However, I think that the system that encourages her to remain in post until she actually drops dead is unhealthy.
Well, the current justices would 'grandfather' in anyway so the balance of power wouldn't be immediately affected. Keep in mind that the average life expectancy statistic is skewed by infant mortality and women who die in childbirth. Most of the rich men involved in government back then still lived to a ripe old age...
Sure. I agree the life expectancy is skewed, but didn't want to complicate the argument. I think my point still stands though. The total life expectancy of a white male surviving to adulthood in 1800 would be perhaps 60-65 depending on location and status. While some individuals obviously survived well beyond that, there was no general acceptance of the idea of a separate phase of retirement at the end of a working life when the Constitution was written - here's a brief article about the genesis of the notion of retirement.
This is worth pointing out, because this is another thing that was taken almost entirely out of context and blown up into something that was nothing resembling what Pelosi was actually trying to say:
The entire framing in the media was that Nancy Pelosi, who probably knows where her caucus members stand right down to the color of their office carpet, didn't actually know what was in the bill. That was preposterous nonsense. She was saying the public could not possibly get a fair understanding of what it actually did in that political climate leading up to it's passage. And she was 100% correct. Over the years, it has steadily gained in popularity, and it's individual provisions, when divorced from the name "Obamacare" were popular from the start.
The cost of it to me, personally, was never explained. That made it another, 'the government knows what's best for you because you're a total moron and can't possibly gauge the ramifications of such a great and sublime law', that I find insulting. I work for a living and don't have time to read the thousands of pages of tax law legaleze required for me to understand how it will affect me. That's why complete transparency is a personal requirement for me to latch on to any liberal policy. I'm sceptical of big government because it's much easier than trying to decipher a bunch of hidden bullshit that usually costs me money with little say in how it's spent.
I didn't like how she handled the issue with her personal server, or her fake 'l was dodging sniper fire in Bosnia' bullshit but mostly I took issue with her being basically 'gifted' a Senate seat to groom her for the presidency because she had a popular presidential husband. Kiss my ass! That's the same reason I won't vote for John Dingell's wife. She didn't earn her seat, it was given to her.
Interestingly (or more likely not interestingly ) I thought about doing a post yesterday about the Bosnia fairy tales in response to someone's comment. It seemed to me to be a good example of how trying to be good can get you into trouble.
Going into the election Clinton had been active in public life and politics for many years. With the level of involvement she had had it was totally inevitable that there were statements and decisions made that could be attacked, whether she was at fault or not. As none of us are perfect it also made it extremely likely that there would have been occasions where she was legitimately at fault - and the Bosnian statements are a good example of that.
The reason it's a good example though is that it stands out from the crowd. My perception at least is that Clinton generally attempted to tell the truth and it was therefore a bit shocking when she clearly didn't do that - and she got a lot of negative publicity as a result of her statements about being under fire in Bosnia. I think that's totally correct - we should expect politicians to tell the truth and criticize them when they don't. However, Trump is not treated in the same way at all. People have been desensitized by his continual lies and many no longer consider it important at all whether anything he says is true or not (because even false statements reflect a 'deeper' truth).
Am I really the odd one out in thinking that it's not only policies that matter - that it should be important in its own right whether Presidents and Supreme Court Justices tell the truth?
This is why a two-party system doesn't work. A candidate who appeals to a hard majority of one party can railroad their way to a nomination despite their odds in a national election. Trump should not have won by using that tactic but he found himself in the ideal situation where that clearly played to his advantage. It may never happen again, but I myself would rather not be in that situation ever again. The solution, in my view, is having more than two parties. There is nothing in the US Constitution about having two political parties so there is no need for the States to have a convention. All that is needed is for enough people to say, "You know what, the Republican/Democratic party doesn't give a shit about me, why should I give a shit about them.".
This is worth pointing out, because this is another thing that was taken almost entirely out of context and blown up into something that was nothing resembling what Pelosi was actually trying to say:
The entire framing in the media was that Nancy Pelosi, who probably knows where her caucus members stand right down to the color of their office carpet, didn't actually know what was in the bill. That was preposterous nonsense. She was saying the public could not possibly get a fair understanding of what it actually did in that political climate leading up to it's passage. And she was 100% correct. Over the years, it has steadily gained in popularity, and it's individual provisions, when divorced from the name "Obamacare" were popular from the start.
The cost of it to me, personally, was never explained. That made it another, 'the government knows what's best for you because you're a total moron and can't possibly gauge the ramifications of such a great and sublime law', that I find insulting. I work for a living and don't have time to read the thousands of pages of tax law legaleze required for me to understand how it will affect me. That's why complete transparency is a personal requirement for me to latch on to any liberal policy. I'm sceptical of big government because it's much easier than trying to decipher a bunch of hidden bullshit that usually costs me money with little say in how it's spent.
Why are you picking on government - costs to you come from many sources? You say you want to consider whether changes to the system will cost you personally more, but there are so many permutations at the individual level it becomes pretty impossible to calculate. What, however, is easy to calculate is the overall cost of the current system. In terms of GDP the US currently spends about 17.6% on health. The country with the next highest percentage in the world is the Netherlands with 12.0%, while the OECD average is 9.5% - and the US gets no benefits from the extra cost in terms of better quality health outcomes.
I've said it before, but I'll stick the broken record on once again. When the evidence that people in the US are currently paying far more than they need to for health is so clear, why are more people not up in arms about it demanding that they should get a share of the available benefits?
This is worth pointing out, because this is another thing that was taken almost entirely out of context and blown up into something that was nothing resembling what Pelosi was actually trying to say:
The entire framing in the media was that Nancy Pelosi, who probably knows where her caucus members stand right down to the color of their office carpet, didn't actually know what was in the bill. That was preposterous nonsense. She was saying the public could not possibly get a fair understanding of what it actually did in that political climate leading up to it's passage. And she was 100% correct. Over the years, it has steadily gained in popularity, and it's individual provisions, when divorced from the name "Obamacare" were popular from the start.
The cost of it to me, personally, was never explained. That made it another, 'the government knows what's best for you because you're a total moron and can't possibly gauge the ramifications of such a great and sublime law', that I find insulting. I work for a living and don't have time to read the thousands of pages of tax law legaleze required for me to understand how it will affect me. That's why complete transparency is a personal requirement for me to latch on to any liberal policy. I'm sceptical of big government because it's much easier than trying to decipher a bunch of hidden bullshit that usually costs me money with little say in how it's spent.
Why are you picking on government - costs to you come from many sources? You say you want to consider whether changes to the system will cost you personally more, but there are so many permutations at the individual level it becomes pretty impossible to calculate. What, however, is easy to calculate is the overall cost of the current system. In terms of GDP the US currently spends about 17.6% on health. The country with the next highest percentage in the world is the Netherlands with 12.0%, while the OECD average is 9.5% - and the US gets no benefits from the extra cost in terms of better quality health outcomes.
I've said it before, but I'll stick the broken record on once again. When the evidence that people in the US are currently paying far more than they need to for health is so clear, why are more people not up in arms about it demanding that they should get a share of the available benefits?
Give me the numbers about how much money I'll save. The government never has (nor do I believe they ever will). Just because it works great in Finland, Norway or even Germany doesnt necessarily mean it'll be just as great in the US. Show me the numbers...
Edit: Oh, and don't tell me the government doesn't know how much it'll cost me because, guess what, they'll magically know how much to withhold from my paycheck!
Re: what about the women, clerical jobs (and CEOs and executives I might add).
Why do you think healthcare is so expensive in the US, right. We pay more and get less care. We're #10 in top 10 developed countries and we're paying about twice as much.
So what about the jobs? Bernie's plan includes job training and it is expensive but it will actually save money over the system we have right away and even more in the future once it's fully implemented.
Imagine one day having an accident or being sick, going to the hospital and not having to deal with the insurance middle man. You won't have to deal with that person who always comes in half way through your emergency room visit and has to get all your information and present you 50 pieces of paper. That's actually how the system works in other countries like Canada.
I agree what you are describing is what it SHOULD be like. We should have never been in this situation, and only the ENTIRE rest of the civilized world agrees this is the case. The problem is, we aren't. We have an entire political party that will never get on board (the Republicans) and at least half of another one (the Democrats). We are stuck in the same loop on healthcare as we are on guns. It's now a self-fulfilling prophecy and cycle we can't get out of. Everyone knows our positions on both are borderline mass psychosis, but we have no ability to actually do anything about either one of them for a myriad of reasons. The BEST we could hope for is a public option. In hindsight, I am more impressed than ever that Obama, Pelosi and Reid were actually able to pull off what they did in regards to the ACA. It actually made a tangible difference in regards to the most important issue facing the country.
But as anyone can see, it has taken JUST as much of a monumental effort to stave off the attacks to destroy it completely for the last two years. The only thing that stopped it from being repealed was the fact that Donald Trump disparaged John McCain's war record during the campaign, and McCain decided to stick a middle finger in his face to pay him back. That is literally the only reason it wasn't dismantled entirely. If Trump had not made that comment about McCain being captured, we'd be looking at an entirely different situation.
There are conservatives (re:profiteers) in Canada too who want to privatize their medicare system. But they are rare. It is an incredibly unpopular position, like dismantling social security would be over here. Once people get healthcare it won't be easy to roll back but the price of freedom is vigilance right.
Trump has been a shining example of things that shouldn't be possible yet they are happening right.
We shouldn't accept a President who hides his tax returns, says he grabs women by the genitalia, lies about everything, and imprisons kids BUT here we are right. So if Trump can't totally destroy everything in an attempt to get he and his buddies richer, then maybe the good guys can do the same thing and make things better while they are at it too. I mean there's obviously NO qualifications required to hold office in the age of Trump. So screw it, save the planet; make things better.
Piss off conservatives, they are going to complain and cry regardless - it's what they do, it's their thing.
Re: what about the women, clerical jobs (and CEOs and executives I might add).
Why do you think healthcare is so expensive in the US, right. We pay more and get less care. We're #10 in top 10 developed countries and we're paying about twice as much.
So what about the jobs? Bernie's plan includes job training and it is expensive but it will actually save money over the system we have right away and even more in the future once it's fully implemented.
Imagine one day having an accident or being sick, going to the hospital and not having to deal with the insurance middle man. You won't have to deal with that person who always comes in half way through your emergency room visit and has to get all your information and present you 50 pieces of paper. That's actually how the system works in other countries like Canada.
I agree what you are describing is what it SHOULD be like. We should have never been in this situation, and only the ENTIRE rest of the civilized world agrees this is the case. The problem is, we aren't. We have an entire political party that will never get on board (the Republicans) and at least half of another one (the Democrats). We are stuck in the same loop on healthcare as we are on guns. It's now a self-fulfilling prophecy and cycle we can't get out of. Everyone knows our positions on both are borderline mass psychosis, but we have no ability to actually do anything about either one of them for a myriad of reasons. The BEST we could hope for is a public option. In hindsight, I am more impressed than ever that Obama, Pelosi and Reid were actually able to pull off what they did in regards to the ACA. It actually made a tangible difference in regards to the most important issue facing the country.
But as anyone can see, it has taken JUST as much of a monumental effort to stave off the attacks to destroy it completely for the last two years. The only thing that stopped it from being repealed was the fact that Donald Trump disparaged John McCain's war record during the campaign, and McCain decided to stick a middle finger in his face to pay him back. That is literally the only reason it wasn't dismantled entirely. If Trump had not made that comment about McCain being captured, we'd be looking at an entirely different situation.
There are conservatives (re:profiteers) in Canada too who want to privatize their medicare system. But they are rare. It is an incredibly unpopular position, like dismantling social security would be over here. Once people get healthcare it won't be easy to roll back but the price of freedom is vigilance right.
Trump has been a shining example of things that shouldn't be possible yet they are happening right.
We shouldn't accept a President who hides his tax returns, says he grabs women by the genitalia, lies about everything, and imprisons kids BUT here we are right. So if Trump can't totally destroy everything in an attempt to get he and his buddies richer, then maybe the good guys can do the same thing and make things better while they are at it too. I mean there's obviously NO qualifications required to hold office in the age of Trump. So screw it, save the planet; make things better.
Piss off conservatives, they are going to complain and cry regardless - it's what they do, it's their thing.
Or, work with the more centrist ones and make changes that will last more than 2-8 years. Perish the thought!
Give me the numbers about how much money I'll save. The government never has (nor do I believe they ever will). Just because it works great in Finland, Norway or even Germany doesnt necessarily mean it'll be just as great in the US. Show me the numbers...
Two thoughts - I dont think any policy is ever going to be popular if it bogs itself down in too much math. It's easy to say "If we raise taxes, we can have better roads and less children will die of measles!". It's harder to say "We're going to take another 3% of your yearly earnings so that Idaho can have a 900 million dollar rail system and double the size of Boise's pediatric ward".
It's probably just not smart politics
Second - If we subscribe to the "laboratory of democracy" concept, where we can try out certain programs in certain states to understand how they work, it doesnt take a lot of effort to see what a very, very similar country might be doing. I'd posit that Canada can be viewed as a reasonable analog for a starting point for social and economic programs in the USA. I suspect Washington state has more in common with Canada than it does with Texas.
Or, work with the more centrist ones and make changes that will last more than 2-8 years. Perish the thought!
Like how Obamacare started a conservative answer to the idea of universal healthcare? It was Obama's attempt at a more centrist answer to one of our countries biggest problems. In today's climate, tacking to the center just gives the other side more ground to retreat and claim your proposal in unreasonable.
This is worth pointing out, because this is another thing that was taken almost entirely out of context and blown up into something that was nothing resembling what Pelosi was actually trying to say:
The entire framing in the media was that Nancy Pelosi, who probably knows where her caucus members stand right down to the color of their office carpet, didn't actually know what was in the bill. That was preposterous nonsense. She was saying the public could not possibly get a fair understanding of what it actually did in that political climate leading up to it's passage. And she was 100% correct. Over the years, it has steadily gained in popularity, and it's individual provisions, when divorced from the name "Obamacare" were popular from the start.
The cost of it to me, personally, was never explained. That made it another, 'the government knows what's best for you because you're a total moron and can't possibly gauge the ramifications of such a great and sublime law', that I find insulting. I work for a living and don't have time to read the thousands of pages of tax law legaleze required for me to understand how it will affect me. That's why complete transparency is a personal requirement for me to latch on to any liberal policy. I'm sceptical of big government because it's much easier than trying to decipher a bunch of hidden bullshit that usually costs me money with little say in how it's spent.
Why are you picking on government - costs to you come from many sources? You say you want to consider whether changes to the system will cost you personally more, but there are so many permutations at the individual level it becomes pretty impossible to calculate. What, however, is easy to calculate is the overall cost of the current system. In terms of GDP the US currently spends about 17.6% on health. The country with the next highest percentage in the world is the Netherlands with 12.0%, while the OECD average is 9.5% - and the US gets no benefits from the extra cost in terms of better quality health outcomes.
I've said it before, but I'll stick the broken record on once again. When the evidence that people in the US are currently paying far more than they need to for health is so clear, why are more people not up in arms about it demanding that they should get a share of the available benefits?
Give me the numbers about how much money I'll save. The government never has (nor do I believe they ever will). Just because it works great in Finland, Norway or even Germany doesnt necessarily mean it'll be just as great in the US. Show me the numbers...
Edit: Oh, and don't tell me the government doesn't know how much it'll cost me because, guess what, they'll magically know how much to withhold from my paycheck!
I imagine you're saying that tongue in cheek. It's just not possible for the government to give detailed predictions of the financial effect on every individual person. If they really wanted to do that they would need to know everything about you - your insurance arrangements, your job, salary, travel arrangements, health history, genetic markers etc etc (and I doubt whether opponents of health care reform would generally welcome the government knowing and using such detailed data about them). The government can (and does) give an overall impact analysis of proposed legislation, with some indication of the effect by groups (for instance classed by income). However, the more detail that is provided the more opportunity there is for some individual to say that a particular assumption doesn't apply to them and therefore the entire proposal is flawed.
I again come back to the point of just how obvious it is that the US system is unnecessarily expensive. If you think that's not the case then please explain why, either:
- some particular characteristic of the US system justifies a cost nearly half again as expensive than the next most expensive system anywhere in the world; or
- what is so unique about US society that means that a cheaper system could not be used. There are plenty of systems elsewhere that are not government-run, so there's no particular requirement for the government to be withholding anything from your paycheck (though personally I think a government run system makes sense, it's possible I'm being unduly influenced by having that system currently in the UK ).
@ThacoBell: I agree with one sentence in that post, but the rest I simply cannot.
Voting is not an issue of "fault," and voting for a given candidate does not mean you endorse all of that candidate's policies or actions. To date, @Balrog99 has never defended the child separation policy, and has actually criticized Trump on a number of issues--not that he would be a valid target of criticism if he had not.
In the past, I've complained about voting for Trump simply to avoid another President Clinton, and I myself have said, in effect, "It's not the Democrats who put Trump in power by supporting Clinton; it's the people who actually voted for Trump." And I still stand by that--I disagree with the notion that the nomination of Clinton forced anyone to vote for Trump.
But there's a difference between saying "Your vote is your own decision" and "Your vote makes you to blame for your candidate's actions." Votes like @Balrog99's put Trump in power, but that doesn't amount to endorsement of any given policy.
If you want to blame someone for the family separation policy, I think the administration shoulders the blame for that; not the voters.
I have to admit, bad as I knew Trump was going to be, I didn't see concentration camps and unconstitutional declarations of national emergencies just so he could push his agenda.
Really can't say it's the fault of people who voted for Trump that he carried that out, much as people who elected Hitler didn't know where that was going.
Now, RE-ELECTING Trump, it's on their heads, knowing what has happened.
In watching some other parts of the video that were clearly edited out of the original clip, Feinstein comes across far better, and I suppose there IS an argument to be made that kids shouldn't just yell things at adults as if they are equals (because there is merit to that line of thinking, and it's also kind of true). Frankly, it seems to me that the original video may have been put out by a far left-wing group. In fact, I anticipate some on the right are going to applaud Feinstein for bringing them "back to reality" (which is also kind of true). My point about age still stands, and Feinstein had a couple really bad moments in the video (the worst being that she said she just won an election by a million votes and telling one of the kids that she didn't vote for her because she couldn't have, not being old enough, and those are the responses I chalk up to being stubborn), but there is also plenty of truth to what she is talking about. Feinstein is telling the kids and their teacher what is POSSIBLE given the current political climate, which is also something that they (understandably) don't comprehend. Feinstein is trying to convey to them that she is working within the realities of how things actually are, not how they wish it to be. She just doesn't do it very well.
That being said, the original video making the rounds on social media was not only edited, but chopped off the vast bulk of the discussion entirely. She still isn't a great messenger, but the original video is completely dishonest about the entirety of the exchange, and my guess is it was put out by the same group who tried to primary her last year.
I agree with you again (no I'm not on pain medication!). I actually like Feinstein more after reading that article. Realpolitik rather than emotion and wishful thinking is right up my alley...
Not for nothing, but it's the exact same kind of thing Hillary did when she met with Black Lives Matter activists on video. She listened attentively to what they had to say, and then basically said, "that's great, and I agree with you, now show me a plan I can get through Congress as President". And this is what alot on the left don't seem to get about Bernie. Him becoming President is not going to make Medicare for All happen. Where the hell is he going to get 60 votes in the Senate to basically render private insurance obsolete?? It absolutely SHOULD be driven into the ash heap of history, but that doesn't mean it can actually be done. For one thing, the FIRST thing we'd need to figure out is what to do with all the thousands upon thousands people (mostly women) working clerical and admin positions who would be out of a job. Any Medicare for All discussion that doesn't address this is wholly irresponsible and not to be taken seriously.
Those clerical jobs aren't going to suddenly be obsoleted because we have Medicare-for-all. People are still going to have their health records. Doctors and hospitals are still going to need to be filing their records and billing and coding and crap to send to the government who is going to need to process them and send out payments. Sure, a number of them are going to be cut (that's part of the idea behind Medicare-for-all, afterall), but not ALL of them.
Plus, it took what, 6 years for the ACA to be fully phased in? It's going to take at LEAST that long for medicare-for-all. Time enough for new job training or re-training.
This is worth pointing out, because this is another thing that was taken almost entirely out of context and blown up into something that was nothing resembling what Pelosi was actually trying to say:
The entire framing in the media was that Nancy Pelosi, who probably knows where her caucus members stand right down to the color of their office carpet, didn't actually know what was in the bill. That was preposterous nonsense. She was saying the public could not possibly get a fair understanding of what it actually did in that political climate leading up to it's passage. And she was 100% correct. Over the years, it has steadily gained in popularity, and it's individual provisions, when divorced from the name "Obamacare" were popular from the start.
The cost of it to me, personally, was never explained. That made it another, 'the government knows what's best for you because you're a total moron and can't possibly gauge the ramifications of such a great and sublime law', that I find insulting. I work for a living and don't have time to read the thousands of pages of tax law legaleze required for me to understand how it will affect me. That's why complete transparency is a personal requirement for me to latch on to any liberal policy. I'm sceptical of big government because it's much easier than trying to decipher a bunch of hidden bullshit that usually costs me money with little say in how it's spent.
Would it really matter if they did explain it?
As Grond0 said, you're asking for detail that would be impossible to know without the government knowing a LOT more info about you than even most liberals would be comfortable with them knowing.
Would you trust what the government said about what the government says even if they did?
This is worth pointing out, because this is another thing that was taken almost entirely out of context and blown up into something that was nothing resembling what Pelosi was actually trying to say:
The entire framing in the media was that Nancy Pelosi, who probably knows where her caucus members stand right down to the color of their office carpet, didn't actually know what was in the bill. That was preposterous nonsense. She was saying the public could not possibly get a fair understanding of what it actually did in that political climate leading up to it's passage. And she was 100% correct. Over the years, it has steadily gained in popularity, and it's individual provisions, when divorced from the name "Obamacare" were popular from the start.
The cost of it to me, personally, was never explained. That made it another, 'the government knows what's best for you because you're a total moron and can't possibly gauge the ramifications of such a great and sublime law', that I find insulting. I work for a living and don't have time to read the thousands of pages of tax law legaleze required for me to understand how it will affect me. That's why complete transparency is a personal requirement for me to latch on to any liberal policy. I'm sceptical of big government because it's much easier than trying to decipher a bunch of hidden bullshit that usually costs me money with little say in how it's spent.
Would it really matter if they did explain it?
As Grond0 said, you're asking for detail that would be impossible to know without the government knowing a LOT more info about you than even most liberals would be comfortable with them knowing.
Would you trust what the government said about what the government says even if they did?
Yes it would make a difference to me. A detailed explanation of where the money is coming from wouldn't be that hard to explain. I don't mean I want some explanation letter telling me exactly what it would cost me personally; though wouldn't that be nice?
Also, if we did go to a single-payer government run system, I'd like to know what happens to the money my employer is paying for my insurance right now. Does that money go to me in the form of a raise in salary? It should and that would offset much of the financial burden on me. I suspect that it won't and that this is the reason most companies are in favor of health-care reform...
This is worth pointing out, because this is another thing that was taken almost entirely out of context and blown up into something that was nothing resembling what Pelosi was actually trying to say:
The entire framing in the media was that Nancy Pelosi, who probably knows where her caucus members stand right down to the color of their office carpet, didn't actually know what was in the bill. That was preposterous nonsense. She was saying the public could not possibly get a fair understanding of what it actually did in that political climate leading up to it's passage. And she was 100% correct. Over the years, it has steadily gained in popularity, and it's individual provisions, when divorced from the name "Obamacare" were popular from the start.
The cost of it to me, personally, was never explained. That made it another, 'the government knows what's best for you because you're a total moron and can't possibly gauge the ramifications of such a great and sublime law', that I find insulting. I work for a living and don't have time to read the thousands of pages of tax law legaleze required for me to understand how it will affect me. That's why complete transparency is a personal requirement for me to latch on to any liberal policy. I'm sceptical of big government because it's much easier than trying to decipher a bunch of hidden bullshit that usually costs me money with little say in how it's spent.
Would it really matter if they did explain it?
As Grond0 said, you're asking for detail that would be impossible to know without the government knowing a LOT more info about you than even most liberals would be comfortable with them knowing.
Would you trust what the government said about what the government says even if they did?
Yes it would make a difference to me. A detailed explanation of where the money is coming from wouldn't be that hard to explain. I don't mean I want some explanation letter telling me exactly what it would cost me personally; though wouldn't that be nice?
Also, if we did go to a single-payer government run system, I'd like to know what happens to the money my employer is paying for my insurance right now. Does that money go to me in the form of a raise in salary? It should and that would offset much of the financial burden on me. I suspect that it won't and that this is the reason most companies are in favor of health-care reform...
Would depend on how it was written. The reality is it's going to take a LOT of money to implement. FICA-Medicare would probably go up 12% (from about 3% to 15%). That would be about the ballpark funding, so total FICA would be about 27.3% when you throw in SS funding.
Obviously people would scream about the federal tax rates effectively jumping 12%.
Most likely employer paid insurance would be converted into some sort of tax-deductible voluntary contribution for FICA tax deduction. Since that's literally what it is, paying the tax voluntarily.
Or it would go away, be a raise in salary, and then increased taxes.
I think the crux of the point here is, even if you DISTRUST government, what in the world makes you think the system we have now (the combination of insurance companies and providers) is somehow working well for you?? First off, unless you have a gold-plated plan, there is almost NO way anyone even with excellent healthcare from their employer will have anything less than a $1000 deductible (and that is being VERY generous). Which means that you are getting exactly jack shit until you have already spent that much out of pocket. Health insurance is effectively useless up to the point of meeting your deductible, and it's reset every year.
Moreover, this is also a country where you can be charged $30 for an Advil in an emergency room. I looked up the cost at Wal-Mart of a 24 count package of the same. It is $4, or about 16 cents per pill. Which means that the hospital or healthcare provider is charging you nearly 200x more than it's base retail value. Not 5x more, not even 50x more, but TWO HUNDRED times more. That is just a single example. That isn't healthcare, it's robbery.
It's nearly impossible to actually get public records of what a hospital is charging, so a reporter for Vox asked readers to send in their bills. She studied over a 1000 of them, and this is what she found:
None of our international friends here have to deal with any of this, ever. In fact, they, to a person, likely think it is absolute lunacy of the highest order.
Comments
Not for nothing, but it's the exact same kind of thing Hillary did when she met with Black Lives Matter activists on video. She listened attentively to what they had to say, and then basically said, "that's great, and I agree with you, now show me a plan I can get through Congress as President". And this is what alot on the left don't seem to get about Bernie. Him becoming President is not going to make Medicare for All happen. Where the hell is he going to get 60 votes in the Senate to basically render private insurance obsolete?? It absolutely SHOULD be driven into the ash heap of history, but that doesn't mean it can actually be done. For one thing, the FIRST thing we'd need to figure out is what to do with all the thousands upon thousands people (mostly women) working clerical and admin positions who would be out of a job. Any Medicare for All discussion that doesn't address this is wholly irresponsible and not to be taken seriously.
Wow, I feel like I'm in an alternate universe now. I agree with you again!
The same can be said about the carbon-tax and other climate-change initiatives. It can't be addressed without hurting somebody, and those somebodies will be the less better-off folks disproportionately more than the rich people. This is exactly why both sides need to work together to find a solution. Nobody is going to get everything they want, but both sides should be able to come up with a compromise that leaves everybody unhappy (but a better reality than it is currently). Unfortunately it's so much easier to blame the other side for everything bad and hope that your side gets complete control so you can shove your ideas down the other side's throat after the next election (which admittedly, Trump and the Republicans are doing right now). The problem is, no one side can keep power for long enough to really accomplish anything, exacerbated by the fact that policies aren't even implemented long enough to gauge their effectiveness. It's like a teeter-totter that just crashes up and down every election rather than mostly balancing but moving just a little bit between cycles. It's maddening and not getting any better...
What seems slightly odd is that you've made the point many times you would not be willing to vote for Clinton - because she was Clinton. In that case your vote is being influenced by the person, not the political philosophy. That's perfectly fine - I doubt if I would vote for Trump under any circumstances, whatever his professed policies and whoever the opponent was - but does suggest that your federal votes are not only determined by philosophy ...
I didn't like how she handled the issue with her personal server, or her fake 'l was dodging sniper fire in Bosnia' bullshit but mostly I took issue with her being basically 'gifted' a Senate seat to groom her for the presidency because she had a popular presidential husband. Kiss my ass! That's the same reason I won't vote for John Dingell's wife. She didn't earn her seat, it was given to her.
I also think an age limit for judges (at all levels) would make sense. I understand the benefits of an appointment for life, but I think that should mean an appointment for working life. When the Constitution was drawn up there wasn't the same distinction as today between life and working life (understandably, given that the average life expectancy in the US in 1800 was under 40) and I think things should be adjusted to reflect today's realities.
I can see the arguments for Ginsburg remaining a Justice just at the moment, and she still seems to be doing a good job. However, I think that the system that encourages her to remain in post until she actually drops dead is unhealthy.
For some reason, though, it doesn't feel odd to write to people I can't see (or even hear!) in person, like I do on this forum. You guys don't even have real names.
Neither do I. I'm actually called "semiticgod" on this forum. How ridiculous is that?
Well, the current justices would 'grandfather' in anyway so the balance of power wouldn't be immediately affected. Keep in mind that the average life expectancy statistic is skewed by infant mortality and women who die in childbirth. Most of the rich men involved in government back then still lived to a ripe old age...
There's no reason political power should be so incredibly dependent on the physical health of nine people. That's just so random.
Why do you think healthcare is so expensive in the US, right. We pay more and get less care. We're #10 in top 10 developed countries and we're paying about twice as much.
So what about the jobs? Bernie's plan includes job training and it is expensive but it will actually save money over the system we have right away and even more in the future once it's fully implemented.
Imagine one day having an accident or being sick, going to the hospital and not having to deal with the insurance middle man. You won't have to deal with that person who always comes in half way through your emergency room visit and has to get all your information and present you 50 pieces of paper. That's actually how the system works in other countries like Canada.
check the interview with a Canadian at
7:47
An age limit is not subjective. A 'mental capacity to perform your duties' is. I'm sorry, if you're still sharp as a tack at 80 and want to make a difference, work as a public defendant to help people who need it. You don't 'need' to be a member of SCotUS.
Interestingly (or more likely not interestingly
Going into the election Clinton had been active in public life and politics for many years. With the level of involvement she had had it was totally inevitable that there were statements and decisions made that could be attacked, whether she was at fault or not. As none of us are perfect it also made it extremely likely that there would have been occasions where she was legitimately at fault - and the Bosnian statements are a good example of that.
The reason it's a good example though is that it stands out from the crowd. My perception at least is that Clinton generally attempted to tell the truth and it was therefore a bit shocking when she clearly didn't do that - and she got a lot of negative publicity as a result of her statements about being under fire in Bosnia. I think that's totally correct - we should expect politicians to tell the truth and criticize them when they don't. However, Trump is not treated in the same way at all. People have been desensitized by his continual lies and many no longer consider it important at all whether anything he says is true or not (because even false statements reflect a 'deeper' truth).
Am I really the odd one out in thinking that it's not only policies that matter - that it should be important in its own right whether Presidents and Supreme Court Justices tell the truth?
I agree what you are describing is what it SHOULD be like. We should have never been in this situation, and only the ENTIRE rest of the civilized world agrees this is the case. The problem is, we aren't. We have an entire political party that will never get on board (the Republicans) and at least half of another one (the Democrats). We are stuck in the same loop on healthcare as we are on guns. It's now a self-fulfilling prophecy and cycle we can't get out of. Everyone knows our positions on both are borderline mass psychosis, but we have no ability to actually do anything about either one of them for a myriad of reasons. The BEST we could hope for is a public option. In hindsight, I am more impressed than ever that Obama, Pelosi and Reid were actually able to pull off what they did in regards to the ACA. It actually made a tangible difference in regards to the most important issue facing the country.
But as anyone can see, it has taken JUST as much of a monumental effort to stave off the attacks to destroy it completely for the last two years. The only thing that stopped it from being repealed was the fact that Donald Trump disparaged John McCain's war record during the campaign, and McCain decided to stick a middle finger in his face to pay him back. That is literally the only reason it wasn't dismantled entirely. If Trump had not made that comment about McCain being captured, we'd be looking at an entirely different situation.
The problem I had with the Obamacare thing was the whole, 'I don't have to read it to know that I want it' crap. We need open and honest debate and I want to know exactly how much it's going to cost me, personally, up-front. No 'hidden' bullshit.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pelosi-healthcare-pass-the-bill-to-see-what-is-in-it/
The entire framing in the media was that Nancy Pelosi, who probably knows where her caucus members stand right down to the color of their office carpet, didn't actually know what was in the bill. That was preposterous nonsense. She was saying the public could not possibly get a fair understanding of what it actually did in that political climate leading up to it's passage. And she was 100% correct. Over the years, it has steadily gained in popularity, and it's individual provisions, when divorced from the name "Obamacare" were popular from the start.
That's not entirely true. I'm willing to rethink my views on healthcare and if I am, that means there are more people like me that are able to be persuaded. Show me the numbers and let me decide for myself if I'm willing to pay the cost. If it makes financial sense, it should sell itself. As a scientist, I believe that no experiment is worthless. If it doesn't work as promised, however, liberals should have to be open to revising it. Fair enough?
Sure. I agree the life expectancy is skewed, but didn't want to complicate the argument. I think my point still stands though. The total life expectancy of a white male surviving to adulthood in 1800 would be perhaps 60-65 depending on location and status. While some individuals obviously survived well beyond that, there was no general acceptance of the idea of a separate phase of retirement at the end of a working life when the Constitution was written - here's a brief article about the genesis of the notion of retirement.
The cost of it to me, personally, was never explained. That made it another, 'the government knows what's best for you because you're a total moron and can't possibly gauge the ramifications of such a great and sublime law', that I find insulting. I work for a living and don't have time to read the thousands of pages of tax law legaleze required for me to understand how it will affect me. That's why complete transparency is a personal requirement for me to latch on to any liberal policy. I'm sceptical of big government because it's much easier than trying to decipher a bunch of hidden bullshit that usually costs me money with little say in how it's spent.
This is why a two-party system doesn't work. A candidate who appeals to a hard majority of one party can railroad their way to a nomination despite their odds in a national election. Trump should not have won by using that tactic but he found himself in the ideal situation where that clearly played to his advantage. It may never happen again, but I myself would rather not be in that situation ever again. The solution, in my view, is having more than two parties. There is nothing in the US Constitution about having two political parties so there is no need for the States to have a convention. All that is needed is for enough people to say, "You know what, the Republican/Democratic party doesn't give a shit about me, why should I give a shit about them.".
Why are you picking on government - costs to you come from many sources? You say you want to consider whether changes to the system will cost you personally more, but there are so many permutations at the individual level it becomes pretty impossible to calculate. What, however, is easy to calculate is the overall cost of the current system. In terms of GDP the US currently spends about 17.6% on health. The country with the next highest percentage in the world is the Netherlands with 12.0%, while the OECD average is 9.5% - and the US gets no benefits from the extra cost in terms of better quality health outcomes.
I've said it before, but I'll stick the broken record on once again. When the evidence that people in the US are currently paying far more than they need to for health is so clear, why are more people not up in arms about it demanding that they should get a share of the available benefits?
Give me the numbers about how much money I'll save. The government never has (nor do I believe they ever will). Just because it works great in Finland, Norway or even Germany doesnt necessarily mean it'll be just as great in the US. Show me the numbers...
Edit: Oh, and don't tell me the government doesn't know how much it'll cost me because, guess what, they'll magically know how much to withhold from my paycheck!
There are conservatives (re:profiteers) in Canada too who want to privatize their medicare system. But they are rare. It is an incredibly unpopular position, like dismantling social security would be over here. Once people get healthcare it won't be easy to roll back but the price of freedom is vigilance right.
Trump has been a shining example of things that shouldn't be possible yet they are happening right.
We shouldn't accept a President who hides his tax returns, says he grabs women by the genitalia, lies about everything, and imprisons kids BUT here we are right. So if Trump can't totally destroy everything in an attempt to get he and his buddies richer, then maybe the good guys can do the same thing and make things better while they are at it too. I mean there's obviously NO qualifications required to hold office in the age of Trump. So screw it, save the planet; make things better.
Piss off conservatives, they are going to complain and cry regardless - it's what they do, it's their thing.
Or, work with the more centrist ones and make changes that will last more than 2-8 years. Perish the thought!
Two thoughts - I dont think any policy is ever going to be popular if it bogs itself down in too much math. It's easy to say "If we raise taxes, we can have better roads and less children will die of measles!". It's harder to say "We're going to take another 3% of your yearly earnings so that Idaho can have a 900 million dollar rail system and double the size of Boise's pediatric ward".
It's probably just not smart politics
Second - If we subscribe to the "laboratory of democracy" concept, where we can try out certain programs in certain states to understand how they work, it doesnt take a lot of effort to see what a very, very similar country might be doing. I'd posit that Canada can be viewed as a reasonable analog for a starting point for social and economic programs in the USA. I suspect Washington state has more in common with Canada than it does with Texas.
At the end of the day, we have to try something.
Edit
Like how Obamacare started a conservative answer to the idea of universal healthcare? It was Obama's attempt at a more centrist answer to one of our countries biggest problems. In today's climate, tacking to the center just gives the other side more ground to retreat and claim your proposal in unreasonable.
I imagine you're saying that tongue in cheek. It's just not possible for the government to give detailed predictions of the financial effect on every individual person. If they really wanted to do that they would need to know everything about you - your insurance arrangements, your job, salary, travel arrangements, health history, genetic markers etc etc (and I doubt whether opponents of health care reform would generally welcome the government knowing and using such detailed data about them). The government can (and does) give an overall impact analysis of proposed legislation, with some indication of the effect by groups (for instance classed by income). However, the more detail that is provided the more opportunity there is for some individual to say that a particular assumption doesn't apply to them and therefore the entire proposal is flawed.
I again come back to the point of just how obvious it is that the US system is unnecessarily expensive. If you think that's not the case then please explain why, either:
- some particular characteristic of the US system justifies a cost nearly half again as expensive than the next most expensive system anywhere in the world; or
- what is so unique about US society that means that a cheaper system could not be used. There are plenty of systems elsewhere that are not government-run, so there's no particular requirement for the government to be withholding anything from your paycheck (though personally I think a government run system makes sense, it's possible I'm being unduly influenced by having that system currently in the UK
I have to admit, bad as I knew Trump was going to be, I didn't see concentration camps and unconstitutional declarations of national emergencies just so he could push his agenda.
Really can't say it's the fault of people who voted for Trump that he carried that out, much as people who elected Hitler didn't know where that was going.
Now, RE-ELECTING Trump, it's on their heads, knowing what has happened.
Those clerical jobs aren't going to suddenly be obsoleted because we have Medicare-for-all. People are still going to have their health records. Doctors and hospitals are still going to need to be filing their records and billing and coding and crap to send to the government who is going to need to process them and send out payments. Sure, a number of them are going to be cut (that's part of the idea behind Medicare-for-all, afterall), but not ALL of them.
Plus, it took what, 6 years for the ACA to be fully phased in? It's going to take at LEAST that long for medicare-for-all. Time enough for new job training or re-training.
Would it really matter if they did explain it?
As Grond0 said, you're asking for detail that would be impossible to know without the government knowing a LOT more info about you than even most liberals would be comfortable with them knowing.
Would you trust what the government said about what the government says even if they did?
Yes it would make a difference to me. A detailed explanation of where the money is coming from wouldn't be that hard to explain. I don't mean I want some explanation letter telling me exactly what it would cost me personally; though wouldn't that be nice?
Also, if we did go to a single-payer government run system, I'd like to know what happens to the money my employer is paying for my insurance right now. Does that money go to me in the form of a raise in salary? It should and that would offset much of the financial burden on me. I suspect that it won't and that this is the reason most companies are in favor of health-care reform...
Would depend on how it was written. The reality is it's going to take a LOT of money to implement. FICA-Medicare would probably go up 12% (from about 3% to 15%). That would be about the ballpark funding, so total FICA would be about 27.3% when you throw in SS funding.
Obviously people would scream about the federal tax rates effectively jumping 12%.
Most likely employer paid insurance would be converted into some sort of tax-deductible voluntary contribution for FICA tax deduction. Since that's literally what it is, paying the tax voluntarily.
Or it would go away, be a raise in salary, and then increased taxes.
It's not like anything's concrete yet.
Moreover, this is also a country where you can be charged $30 for an Advil in an emergency room. I looked up the cost at Wal-Mart of a 24 count package of the same. It is $4, or about 16 cents per pill. Which means that the hospital or healthcare provider is charging you nearly 200x more than it's base retail value. Not 5x more, not even 50x more, but TWO HUNDRED times more. That is just a single example. That isn't healthcare, it's robbery.
It's nearly impossible to actually get public records of what a hospital is charging, so a reporter for Vox asked readers to send in their bills. She studied over a 1000 of them, and this is what she found:
https://www.vox.com/health-care/2018/12/18/18134825/emergency-room-bills-health-care-costs-america
None of our international friends here have to deal with any of this, ever. In fact, they, to a person, likely think it is absolute lunacy of the highest order.