For starters, this is a thing that both sides of the political spectrum are equally guilty of. However, on the left, it's only started taking shape to the same manner as it has on the right.

Is dissent no longer allowed in our political circles? Is questioning a proposal grounds for censuring?

On a Facebook post, HuffPo reported how Sanders is proposing a $1.5T universal child care plan. I asked how much am I gonna be taxed for yet another service I have no interest in using. Well, I may as well have said that Hitler loved the Jews because that has unleashed a torrent of comments about how I'm selfish, how I don't see the bigger picture, and how my tax dollars already go to services I don't use.

I don't see a problem with questioning how much more of my income I have to give up. There's already a proposal to tax people based on their total income to pay for M4A (and if the bernietax.com calculator is correct, at my salary, I end up losing money, but I digress). This universal child care would be yet another tax on top of all we pay. I know my taxes already go towards program I don't use: public school, interstate, etc. But those are programs that everyone agrees and have been funded for years. In other words, we're conditioned to pay for them. My concern is mostly about continuing to take away income to pay for more services. Two programs, two different taxes. I can MAYBE get behind a M4A proposal provided it's phased in until it becomes the only thing since that IS a program I may end up using because I have no other choice. But being taxed based on wealth to pay for child care? At what point will I be able to say enough?

More importantly (and to restate the premise), what has happened with society nowadays that playing devil's advocate or looking out for oneself is now frowned upon? What ever happened to rational discussions or, at worst, agreeing to disagree? Why do I have to blindly follow and accept someone's plan in the name of the greater good without trying to make sure I stand to benefit as well?

einsteinboricua wrote:

I know my taxes already go towards program I don't use: public school, interstate, etc.

You can not not use either of those. Unless you go full blown "walden" that is. If the interstates where tolled, you'd pay for them at the store checkout, without schools keeping an economy around yourself may get tricky.

Best regards
Thomas

For quite a while. Somehow, I notice that mostly from those who consider themselves liberal....

einsteinboricua wrote:

For starters, this is a thing that both sides of the political spectrum are equally guilty of. However, on the left, it's only started taking shape to the same manner as it has on the right.

Is dissent no longer allowed in our political circles? Is questioning a proposal grounds for censuring?

On a Facebook post, HuffPo reported how Sanders is proposing a $1.5T universal child care plan. I asked how much am I gonna be taxed for yet another service I have no interest in using. Well, I may as well have said that Hitler loved the Jews because that has unleashed a torrent of comments about how I'm selfish, how I don't see the bigger picture, and how my tax dollars already go to services I don't use.

I don't see a problem with questioning how much more of my income I have to give up. There's already a proposal to tax people based on their total income to pay for M4A (and if the bernietax.com calculator is correct, at my salary, I end up losing money, but I digress). This universal child care would be yet another tax on top of all we pay. I know my taxes already go towards program I don't use: public school, interstate, etc. But those are programs that everyone agrees and have been funded for years. In other words, we're conditioned to pay for them. My concern is mostly about continuing to take away income to pay for more services. Two programs, two different taxes. I can MAYBE get behind a M4A proposal provided it's phased in until it becomes the only thing since that IS a program I may end up using because I have no other choice. But being taxed based on wealth to pay for child care? At what point will I be able to say enough?

More importantly (and to restate the premise), what has happened with society nowadays that playing devil's advocate or looking out for oneself is now frowned upon? What ever happened to rational discussions or, at worst, agreeing to disagree? Why do I have to blindly follow and accept someone's plan in the name of the greater good without trying to make sure I stand to benefit as well?

I think you have way more in common with how I tend to think than you realize.

On medicare for all: One argument commonly used is that "if you're paying for private insurance right now it's not like you'll really see a reduction in your take home pay because all that money will just go towards the taxes you have to pay" And I'm over here thinking, uh huh, right, you actually think the companies will raise my income by that amount? How disruptive to the economy could that be? Companies will just look at that as a big profit windfall - not having to cover their employees anymore.

trpmb6 wrote:

einsteinboricua wrote:

For starters, this is a thing that both sides of the political spectrum are equally guilty of. However, on the left, it's only started taking shape to the same manner as it has on the right.

Is dissent no longer allowed in our political circles? Is questioning a proposal grounds for censuring?

On a Facebook post, HuffPo reported how Sanders is proposing a $1.5T universal child care plan. I asked how much am I gonna be taxed for yet another service I have no interest in using. Well, I may as well have said that Hitler loved the Jews because that has unleashed a torrent of comments about how I'm selfish, how I don't see the bigger picture, and how my tax dollars already go to services I don't use.

I don't see a problem with questioning how much more of my income I have to give up. There's already a proposal to tax people based on their total income to pay for M4A (and if the bernietax.com calculator is correct, at my salary, I end up losing money, but I digress). This universal child care would be yet another tax on top of all we pay. I know my taxes already go towards program I don't use: public school, interstate, etc. But those are programs that everyone agrees and have been funded for years. In other words, we're conditioned to pay for them. My concern is mostly about continuing to take away income to pay for more services. Two programs, two different taxes. I can MAYBE get behind a M4A proposal provided it's phased in until it becomes the only thing since that IS a program I may end up using because I have no other choice. But being taxed based on wealth to pay for child care? At what point will I be able to say enough?

More importantly (and to restate the premise), what has happened with society nowadays that playing devil's advocate or looking out for oneself is now frowned upon? What ever happened to rational discussions or, at worst, agreeing to disagree? Why do I have to blindly follow and accept someone's plan in the name of the greater good without trying to make sure I stand to benefit as well?

I think you have way more in common with how I tend to think than you realize.

On medicare for all: One argument commonly used is that "if you're paying for private insurance right now it's not like you'll really see a reduction in your take home pay because all that money will just go towards the taxes you have to pay" And I'm over here thinking, uh huh, right, you actually think the companies will raise my income by that amount? How disruptive to the economy could that be? Companies will just look at that as a big profit windfall - not having to cover their employees anymore.

On the flipside, maintaining the current system with its spiraling costs will only guarantee further limiting of employee numbers and perpetual squeezing of benefits and compensation. We use a decent HMO but would gladly junk them if we could - the productivity loss in our HR dept dealing with their admin demands is staggering.

einsteinboricua wrote:

More importantly (and to restate the premise), what has happened with society nowadays that playing devil's advocate or looking out for oneself is now frowned upon? What ever happened to rational discussions or, at worst, agreeing to disagree? Why do I have to blindly follow and accept someone's plan in the name of the greater good without trying to make sure I stand to benefit as well?

The discussion needs to happen, but people need to question the people making the decisions. The biggest issue around certain items, is that there tends to be an instantaneous gut reaction of that's socialist, or that's not a conservative solution, or that's not good for all of us that you saw in your discussions. It comes down to gut labeling. Obamacare or Romneycare.... Why isn't it called the Affordable care act?
Because the conservatives wanted to brand it as a bad thing.

Funny thing today , there is a study that shows Obamacare is more popular than ever, but Conservatives continue to shirk it even while reaping it's benefits. When you ask citizens about the details of the plan, they like them all, but call it Obamacare and then Conservatives freak out.


Common Core: The Conservatives jumped on it as a bad thing because they didn't understand it/States rights/NEA. Having worked my kids through the Math and reading, I find it better than before. We are actually teaching kids to understand the values and decimal places better than rote memorization in math, and there is an actual chart to understand where your kids are at in reading writing and math with their peers. Can it be made better? Yes, but not by tearing it apart and starting from scratch.


Medical care is one of those items that i think Society needs to get a handle on. People don't question the solutions. For 20 years we have been waiting for a Conservative solution, and it keeps on passing down the aisle ( Even though Obama care was modeled on a Conservative plan). Why don't we challenge those speaking points ? Why is everyone ok with Trump and the GOP waiting for an alternative until after the election? If their plan is so great, why not release it now? It Guarantees reelection correct?


We need to get away from letting politicians label items. we need to understand more about what is present.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

einsteinboricua wrote:

For starters, this is a thing that both sides of the political spectrum are equally guilty of. However, on the left, it's only started taking shape to the same manner as it has on the right.

Is dissent no longer allowed in our political circles? Is questioning a proposal grounds for censuring?

On a Facebook post, HuffPo reported how Sanders is proposing a $1.5T universal child care plan. I asked how much am I gonna be taxed for yet another service I have no interest in using. Well, I may as well have said that Hitler loved the Jews because that has unleashed a torrent of comments about how I'm selfish, how I don't see the bigger picture, and how my tax dollars already go to services I don't use.

I don't see a problem with questioning how much more of my income I have to give up. There's already a proposal to tax people based on their total income to pay for M4A (and if the bernietax.com calculator is correct, at my salary, I end up losing money, but I digress). This universal child care would be yet another tax on top of all we pay. I know my taxes already go towards program I don't use: public school, interstate, etc. But those are programs that everyone agrees and have been funded for years. In other words, we're conditioned to pay for them. My concern is mostly about continuing to take away income to pay for more services. Two programs, two different taxes. I can MAYBE get behind a M4A proposal provided it's phased in until it becomes the only thing since that IS a program I may end up using because I have no other choice. But being taxed based on wealth to pay for child care? At what point will I be able to say enough?

More importantly (and to restate the premise), what has happened with society nowadays that playing devil's advocate or looking out for oneself is now frowned upon? What ever happened to rational discussions or, at worst, agreeing to disagree? Why do I have to blindly follow and accept someone's plan in the name of the greater good without trying to make sure I stand to benefit as well?

I think you have way more in common with how I tend to think than you realize.

On medicare for all: One argument commonly used is that "if you're paying for private insurance right now it's not like you'll really see a reduction in your take home pay because all that money will just go towards the taxes you have to pay" And I'm over here thinking, uh huh, right, you actually think the companies will raise my income by that amount? How disruptive to the economy could that be? Companies will just look at that as a big profit windfall - not having to cover their employees anymore.

Exactly, your cash salary won’t be increased by the amount of you and your employers health coverage cost. How much of that cost returned to the employee is going to depend on relative elasticities of supply and demand for labor. Likely, most of the money will stay with the employers, especially where there are substitutes, that is, replace labor with capital (see waiters losing jobs to computers or easily replaced with, say, illegal immigrants) or if the labor is in high demand and the employer must have that service. The former will lose out, the later might do better. Like always, Bernie’s plan will benefit the wealthier and hurt the working class, but that’s reality not politics. Except the working class and middle class will be paying more for care to pay for the truly poor.

On the flip side, and i do feel we probably need a thread for healthcare costs, it gives more freedom to workers. Imagine not being held captive to an employer due to needing the health care plan for preexisting conditions that a new company or carrier will not need to honor. Imagine being able to go to work knowing that your family is covered if you want to start a new company. There are places were there could be advantages. Health usually doesn't care much about where you work. it is based a bit on heredity and a bit on individual choices, and a lot on damned luck of the draw. Also know that based on actuary tables, we are far less likely to receive back what we put into social security and medicare for high earners, but we still donate just in case

trpmb6 wrote:

I think you have way more in common with how I tend to think than you realize.

On medicare for all: One argument commonly used is that "if you're paying for private insurance right now it's not like you'll really see a reduction in your take home pay because all that money will just go towards the taxes you have to pay" And I'm over here thinking, uh huh, right, you actually think the companies will raise my income by that amount? How disruptive to the economy could that be? Companies will just look at that as a big profit windfall - not having to cover their employees anymore.

Exactly.

I still think government has some role in helping people (subsidies to make services affordable), but I draw the line at "everything free". The public needs to understand that everything requires some form of effort. It can't all be the well off doing the heavy lifting.

Like you said: if I get taxed about $2500 to pay for M4A, will my employer grant me the amount as a raise every year because they're no longer on the hook for my health insurance? No. Raises barely keep up with inflation, and adding tax after tax represents a net loss in income.

It's interesting: the uber-conservatives are seen to favor the wealthy, yet the uber-progressives seem to favor the poor. Now, someone may claim that the poor deserve more attention, but what about those in between who get marginal benefits compared to both extremes?

Anyway, I'm still interested in seeing how the primaries continue, but I am more concerned about how the progressive wing will treat moderates when they attempt to keep their distance if Sanders becomes the nominee.

einsteinboricua wrote:

Anyway, I'm still interested in seeing how the primaries continue, but I am more concerned about how the progressive wing will treat moderates when they attempt to keep their distance if Sanders becomes the nominee.

They are going to primary most of them if they don't toe the party (Sanders) line. Part of your argument in this thread since dissent is no longer allowed.

casinterest wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

I think you have way more in common with how I tend to think than you realize.

On medicare for all: One argument commonly used is that "if you're paying for private insurance right now it's not like you'll really see a reduction in your take home pay because all that money will just go towards the taxes you have to pay" And I'm over here thinking, uh huh, right, you actually think the companies will raise my income by that amount? How disruptive to the economy could that be? Companies will just look at that as a big profit windfall - not having to cover their employees anymore.

Exactly, your cash salary won’t be increased by the amount of you and your employers health coverage cost. How much of that cost returned to the employee is going to depend on relative elasticities of supply and demand for labor. Likely, most of the money will stay with the employers, especially where there are substitutes, that is, replace labor with capital (see waiters losing jobs to computers or easily replaced with, say, illegal immigrants) or if the labor is in high demand and the employer must have that service. The former will lose out, the later might do better. Like always, Bernie’s plan will benefit the wealthier and hurt the working class, but that’s reality not politics. Except the working class and middle class will be paying more for care to pay for the truly poor.

On the flip side, and i do feel we probably need a thread for healthcare costs, it gives more freedom to workers. Imagine not being held captive to an employer due to needing the health care plan for preexisting conditions that a new company or carrier will not need to honor. Imagine being able to go to work knowing that your family is covered if you want to start a new company. There are places were there could be advantages. Health usually doesn't care much about where you work. it is based a bit on heredity and a bit on individual choices, and a lot on damned luck of the draw. Also know that based on actuary tables, we are far less likely to receive back what we put into social security and medicare for high earners, but we still donate just in case

Honestly that is the best argument in favor of a centralized medical coverage option. But no one ever talks about how advantageous that is. Read a story on the chive this morning about someone who had to switch healthcare mid plan year (his wife got a new job) and so they had to re-meet their deductible for that new plan. That really sucks. Having already paid in and you're thinking - great I've paid my deductible everything is "free to me" from here on out. Then woops, job change and now you gotta meet that new deductible. Its one reason I won't consider leaving the job I'm currently at (though in truth it wouldn't hold me back from really switching for the right gig) I'm already at my out of pocket max for the plan year.

In truth, as a conservative, I'm not really all that against a centralized option. I just have my doubts about the government's ability to actually implement it successfully.

einsteinboricua wrote:

For starters, this is a thing that both sides of the political spectrum are equally guilty of. However, on the left, it's only started taking shape to the same manner as it has on the right.

Is dissent no longer allowed in our political circles? Is questioning a proposal grounds for censuring?

On a Facebook post, HuffPo reported how Sanders is proposing a $1.5T universal child care plan. I asked how much am I gonna be taxed for yet another service I have no interest in using. Well, I may as well have said that Hitler loved the Jews because that has unleashed a torrent of comments about how I'm selfish, how I don't see the bigger picture, and how my tax dollars already go to services I don't use.

I don't see a problem with questioning how much more of my income I have to give up. There's already a proposal to tax people based on their total income to pay for M4A (and if the bernietax.com calculator is correct, at my salary, I end up losing money, but I digress). This universal child care would be yet another tax on top of all we pay. I know my taxes already go towards program I don't use: public school, interstate, etc. But those are programs that everyone agrees and have been funded for years. In other words, we're conditioned to pay for them. My concern is mostly about continuing to take away income to pay for more services. Two programs, two different taxes. I can MAYBE get behind a M4A proposal provided it's phased in until it becomes the only thing since that IS a program I may end up using because I have no other choice. But being taxed based on wealth to pay for child care? At what point will I be able to say enough?

More importantly (and to restate the premise), what has happened with society nowadays that playing devil's advocate or looking out for oneself is now frowned upon? What ever happened to rational discussions or, at worst, agreeing to disagree? Why do I have to blindly follow and accept someone's plan in the name of the greater good without trying to make sure I stand to benefit as well?

Keep in mind that some of those replies are bots and foreign trolls. They have zero interest in anything but playing on your emotions. Some of those replies are people with nothing better to do and some of the comments are from people who hate the socialist communist marxist.

There is nothing wrong with dissent. I have been trying to tell Republicans this for decades. It is okay to ask questions and form your own opinion based on your critical thinking skills. That is why I don't mind paying for public education, as long at they teach kids real skills. Like critical thinking and not catching a ball will make you a billionaire. Keep asking questions. Just keep your defenses up scrolling through the comments!

Germany used to have basically no child care. Result, people stopped making children. Reversing that trend is proving very difficult.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

einsteinboricua wrote:

Anyway, I'm still interested in seeing how the primaries continue, but I am more concerned about how the progressive wing will treat moderates when they attempt to keep their distance if Sanders becomes the nominee.

They are going to primary most of them if they don't toe the party (Sanders) line. Part of your argument in this thread since dissent is no longer allowed.

I've seen a concerning amount from the right, especially regarding Trump... look at how the never Trumpers were trashed, and look at CPAC getting all butthurt and disinviting Romney. Look at how much crap Murkowski and Collins always are putting up with. Toe Trump's line or suffer.


-----


I agree (once again!) with einsteinboricua... I've seen a lot more intolerance of differing opinions from the left in the last few years. I hate these lithmus tests being thrown around. You can be left of Bernie but "wrong" on one single issue and then you're literally worse than Hitler.

What's also annoying is digging up things from years past. Now if someone thought something 20 years ago and thinks the same thing NOW then ok. But someone said something against gay marriage in 2008 and is forever a terrible bigot? Someone better tell Obama that.

Of course it's the vocal minority but these people do have a LOT of sway. Companies bow to them trying to avoid controversy. Just like "when did you start beating your wife" is an unwinnable question, no matter how false, many people (lefties!) are being eaten by their own for trivial, exaggerated, or outright false arguments

Won't end well. If the party goes too far left, the moderate Republicans start looking a lot closer to a moderate Dem than the far left...

einsteinboricua wrote:

and if the bernietax.com calculator is correct, at my salary, I end up losing

the Game

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

It wasn’t the absence of child care that caused the decline in birth rates—it was the increase in economic opportunities for women.

You bring up an interesting point to my wandering mind. Is this a bad thing? Women are making more money so the household income doubles. Women then have fewer children, which means families can invest these resources into fewer children, meaning each child benefits more. Fewer children also means less strain on resources like public transit and roads and schools in the future

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

It wasn’t the absence of child care that caused the decline in birth rates—it was the increase in economic opportunities for women.

French women work more than German women, while making more babies.

stl07 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

It wasn’t the absence of child care that caused the decline in birth rates—it was the increase in economic opportunities for women.

You bring up an interesting point to my wandering mind. Is this a bad thing? Women are making more money so the household income doubles. Women then have fewer children, which means families can invest these resources into fewer children, meaning each child benefits more. Fewer children also means less strain on resources like public transit and roads and schools in the future

Fewer than 3, 5 or 10 children is fine. Fewer than 1, however...

DeltaMD90 : on the right there is nobody left to silence, dissent isn't even conceptualized, everybody toes the line. The exceptions are rare and are indeed ostracized (McCain, Romney...).

One can express an opinion but how it is said can make a difference in reactions or acceptance.

Aesma wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

It wasn’t the absence of child care that caused the decline in birth rates—it was the increase in economic opportunities for women.

French women work more than German women, while making more babies.

Overall birth rate has steadily decreased with the increase of women participation worldwide in every country.

That doesn't mean there aren't going to be regional differences depending on many socioeconomic and cultural factors.

DeltaMD90 wrote:

I agree (once again!) with einsteinboricua... I've seen a lot more intolerance of differing opinions from the left in the last few years.

I get the distinct impression that's not because there is more intolerance among the left then among the right.

The left still allow open dissent, even if it is accepted reluctantly and grudgingly.

From the right wing all dissent is kept "within the family". The rare cases where someone does dissent are immediately headline news all over the world (McCain, Romney). Immediately followed by a lot of push-back from right-wing supporters, Fox, Breitbart etc. On the right the dissent does not start untill someone leaves the party. Just look at all the books that have been published by former white house officials from the Trump era.

kalvado wrote:

For quite a while. Somehow, I notice that mostly from those who consider themselves liberal....

Wealthy conservatives are equally protective and savage when it comes to anyone taking away their nice little loopholes and lucrative rorts.

I pretty much distrust all the sides of politics and the supporters of each side.

cpd wrote:

kalvado wrote:

For quite a while. Somehow, I notice that mostly from those who consider themselves liberal....

Wealthy conservatives are equally protective and savage when it comes to anyone taking away their nice little loopholes and lucrative rorts.

I pretty much distrust all the sides of politics and the supporters of each side.

It maybe that being entrenched and unwilling to talk is more or less expected from old fart; less so from someone positioning themselves as very open-minded.
But I got hissed in some discussions even for mentioning an old saying - those who don't want to change the world at 20 don't have a heart....

Aesma wrote:

Germany used to have basically no child care. Result, people stopped making children. Reversing that trend is proving very difficult.

Are there any in-laws (grand mothers/fathers) in Germany or France, why would not having free child care stop them from having children?. Central Asia and Africa they don't have much free child care, nonetheless they have among the highest child birth rates in the world.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Germany used to have basically no child care. Result, people stopped making children. Reversing that trend is proving very difficult.

Are there any in-laws (grand mothers/fathers) in Germany or France, why would not having free child care stop them from having children?. Central Asia and Africa they don't have much free child care, nonetheless they have among the highest child birth rates in the world.

I really recommend the book on cultural anthropology called Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches by Marvin Harris. It has answers to many of those questions and how necessity plays into it. Speaking of which, I think I'm going to re-read that book.

petertenthije wrote:

The left still allow open dissent, even if it is accepted reluctantly and grudgingly.

I don't know if that's the case anymore. Seems like every day, dissent is slowly stifled on the left as well. And some politicians are taking their cue for it.

AOC is already on the offensive, endorsing a couple of progressives against incumbent establishment/moderate Democrats. Even on the debates, wanting to take a cautious and gradual approach to progressive agenda items is met with the equivalent of "you're really a Republican-lite and you're not worthy of our vote".

YUP, this is exactly what happened with Biden, who was moderate on abortion, but was forced to cave this year in the election

einsteinboricua wrote:

petertenthije wrote:

The left still allow open dissent, even if it is accepted reluctantly and grudgingly.

I don't know if that's the case anymore. Seems like every day, dissent is slowly stifled on the left as well. And some politicians are taking their cue for it.

AOC is already on the offensive, endorsing a couple of progressives against incumbent establishment/moderate Democrats. Even on the debates, wanting to take a cautious and gradual approach to progressive agenda items is met with the equivalent of "you're really a Republican-lite and you're not worthy of our vote".

Calling people out is different than not allowing dissent. The United States has been pushed farther and farther to the right since at least Reagan. Some Democrats do not want to see a dramatic shift back to the values of Kennedy and FDR because of the far right wing push back. Look at the outrage from Republicans over giving gays the right to marry. Some moderate Democrats felt it was too much, too soon but went along anyway.

I think there are two distinct groups within the Democratic party. However, the Democratic party understands they must all get along, instead of this "all or nothing" approach Republicans have.

einsteinboricua wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

I think you have way more in common with how I tend to think than you realize.

On medicare for all: One argument commonly used is that "if you're paying for private insurance right now it's not like you'll really see a reduction in your take home pay because all that money will just go towards the taxes you have to pay" And I'm over here thinking, uh huh, right, you actually think the companies will raise my income by that amount? How disruptive to the economy could that be? Companies will just look at that as a big profit windfall - not having to cover their employees anymore.

Exactly.

I still think government has some role in helping people (subsidies to make services affordable), but I draw the line at "everything free". The public needs to understand that everything requires some form of effort. It can't all be the well off doing the heavy lifting.

Like you said: if I get taxed about $2500 to pay for M4A, will my employer grant me the amount as a raise every year because they're no longer on the hook for my health insurance? No. Raises barely keep up with inflation, and adding tax after tax represents a net loss in income.

It's interesting: the uber-conservatives are seen to favor the wealthy, yet the uber-progressives seem to favor the poor. Now, someone may claim that the poor deserve more attention, but what about those in between who get marginal benefits compared to both extremes?

Anyway, I'm still interested in seeing how the primaries continue, but I am more concerned about how the progressive wing will treat moderates when they attempt to keep their distance if Sanders becomes the nominee.

How much are you paying in premiums and copays/deductibles now? I have a hunch that if the monies taken out of employees paychecks for healthcare were leveled/averaged across the population paying them now, and sent to Medicare, we may actually SAVE money. Problem is the Healthcare lobby...

bhill wrote:

How much are you paying in premiums and copays/deductibles now? I have a hunch that if the monies taken out of employees paychecks for healthcare were leveled/averaged across the population paying them now, and sent to Medicare, we may actually SAVE money. Problem is the Healthcare lobby...

Premium: $0 (from 2023 onwards, I'll pay $40/month). Company's been picking up the tab.
Deductible: $1400, with a $2800 out of pocket limit.

einsteinboricua wrote:

bhill wrote:

How much are you paying in premiums and copays/deductibles now? I have a hunch that if the monies taken out of employees paychecks for healthcare were leveled/averaged across the population paying them now, and sent to Medicare, we may actually SAVE money. Problem is the Healthcare lobby...

Premium: $0 (from 2023 onwards, I'll pay $40/month). Company's been picking up the tab.
Deductible: $1400, with a $2800 out of pocket limit.

People are talking about money as if that is the only issue.
We want to improve healthcare for everyone, without reducing quality to anyone? Great. Who is going to do that?
I, for one, had a few situations when appointments for certain things were available only few months in the future. More patients means it will be worse.
Great to have a free care for cancer, too bad that available appointment is past expected survival date.
OK, OK, available preventive care may reduce total spending in future. But what about first year when people with previously undiagnosed condition will flood the system?

Which is not the argument against any plans, but an argument that critical thinking is a bit more involved. And yes, I totally expect to be flamed by both sides.

cpd wrote:

kalvado wrote:

For quite a while. Somehow, I notice that mostly from those who consider themselves liberal....

Wealthy conservatives are equally protective and savage when it comes to anyone taking away their nice little loopholes and lucrative rorts.

I pretty much distrust all the sides of politics and the supporters of each side.

It's a human nature thing. Not trying to be a "but all sides do it kinda guy" but all sides do do it. I don't think the parties are equally good or bad, and some encourage a bit more open-mindedness (in some areas,) but every group of people across time act largely the same.

Recognizing this helps one combat (but never truly eliminate) it. I may give the right the benefit of the doubt too often and am maybe too hard on my fellow lefties sometimes, but I used to be right wing, close minded, and thought I was right about it all. Don't want to just become left wing, close minded, and think I'm right about it all

Pretty kumbaya, cliche, and something a cringely liberal would say, but it'd be much better if we all got along and tried to understand each other more

kalvado wrote:

einsteinboricua wrote:

bhill wrote:

How much are you paying in premiums and copays/deductibles now? I have a hunch that if the monies taken out of employees paychecks for healthcare were leveled/averaged across the population paying them now, and sent to Medicare, we may actually SAVE money. Problem is the Healthcare lobby...

Premium: $0 (from 2023 onwards, I'll pay $40/month). Company's been picking up the tab.
Deductible: $1400, with a $2800 out of pocket limit.

People are talking about money as if that is the only issue.
We want to improve healthcare for everyone, without reducing quality to anyone? Great. Who is going to do that?
I, for one, had a few situations when appointments for certain things were available only few months in the future. More patients means it will be worse.
Great to have a free care for cancer, too bad that available appointment is past expected survival date.
OK, OK, available preventive care may reduce total spending in future. But what about first year when people with previously undiagnosed condition will flood the system?

Which is not the argument against any plans, but an argument that critical thinking is a bit more involved. And yes, I totally expect to be flamed by both sides.

What will happen is a 'rationing' of healthcare and a 'board' or committee' selecting those who would need healthcare more than others, giving priority to certain patients over others. What's worse is that the system might get 'flooded' with an infinite amount of people looking for healthcare that just crossed the US border and are eligible because according to the plan by Sanders they will be also entitled to care (illegal immigrants).

When Obamacare was implemented I saw first hand the collapse and huge wait times of most doctor offices here in Florida, from a simple PCP to most important specialists. That was with Obamacare, imagine with this 'health care for all'.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

kalvado wrote:

einsteinboricua wrote:

Premium: $0 (from 2023 onwards, I'll pay $40/month). Company's been picking up the tab.
Deductible: $1400, with a $2800 out of pocket limit.

People are talking about money as if that is the only issue.
We want to improve healthcare for everyone, without reducing quality to anyone? Great. Who is going to do that?
I, for one, had a few situations when appointments for certain things were available only few months in the future. More patients means it will be worse.
Great to have a free care for cancer, too bad that available appointment is past expected survival date.
OK, OK, available preventive care may reduce total spending in future. But what about first year when people with previously undiagnosed condition will flood the system?

Which is not the argument against any plans, but an argument that critical thinking is a bit more involved. And yes, I totally expect to be flamed by both sides.

What will happen is a 'rationing' of healthcare and a 'board' or committee' selecting those who would need healthcare more than others, giving priority to certain patients over others. What's worse is that the system might get 'flooded' with an infinite amount of people looking for healthcare that just crossed the US border and are eligible because according to the plan by Sanders they will be also entitled to care (illegal immigrants).

When Obamacare was implemented I saw first hand the collapse and huge wait times of most doctor offices here in Florida, from a simple PCP to most important specialists. That was with Obamacare, imagine with this 'health care for all'.

now THAT is the problem which needs to be discussed... Do you think question would sit well with either Donald or Bernie supporters?

Aesma wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

It wasn’t the absence of child care that caused the decline in birth rates—it was the increase in economic opportunities for women.

French women work more than German women, while making more babies.

That is the problem about talking in averages... Are the French women who are working more than the Germans also the ones having more babies, or a different subset? Are those two groups even born in the same country?

einsteinboricua wrote:

For starters, this is a thing that both sides of the political spectrum are equally guilty of. However, on the left, it's only started taking shape to the same manner as it has on the right.

Is dissent no longer allowed in our political circles? Is questioning a proposal grounds for censuring?

I am not sure if this a thread on dissent or health care.

My union had a written rule against "causing dissent". Every month members were fined, suspended, whatever for various infractions never named but I finally started looking up the numbers. The dissent clause was a common infraction. Up to that point I could have made a career in the union but that pretty much destroyed my ambitions as it became clear the leaders where just the few smarts cats leading (and stealing from) the ignorant and apathetic.

But I am curious. I can come up with many cases of people on the left causing loss of income, careers, businesses based solely on some private citizen's political leanings or contributions. At the local level. Restaurants were targeted and closed for example, executives losing their jobs... Nevermind way dissent is commonly stifled on the internet. Can you provide examples of conservatives and or Republican actions that stifled dissent? (Parliamentary proceedings in government do not count, they are the rules).

But in fairness, you have already answered the question, it is the "progressive" left doing this and getting away with it. Now they are turning on more moderate Democrats and people like you are noticing. What goes around, come around.

stl07 wrote:

You bring up an interesting point to my wandering mind. Is this a bad thing? Women are making more money so the household income doubles. Women then have fewer children, which means families can invest these resources into fewer children, meaning each child benefits more. Fewer children also means less strain on resources like public transit and roads and schools in the future

On the flip side of all that, women are not making enough money to pay for child care(why would we be talking about this), household income did not double (household income increased but wages stagnated), women have less TIME to invest in their child (probably the single most important resource a mother can give a child). Fewer child in theory should have meant less strain on public transit and roads and schools (and resources) but in fact as we were told to make less babies, the very same people insist on increased immigration, claiming we need to "grow" our population, making the place more crowded than ever before. So which is it?

^^Here's the thing. Immigrants are of working age and in almost every study, contribute way more in taxes then they use in resources, unlike babies, which is why politicians of every side like them in countries with space (ie. USA, Canada) Now, that may not be the same in countries that are full like those in Europe.

As far as dissent goes, you really have two options:

1. Dissent for strategic reasons
2. Dissent on an opinion

If someone dissents for strategic reasons, they are usually lying to gain something.
If someone dissents on an opinion, they are passionate and believe in what they are saying.

In other words:
If you are willing to accept a bribe to change your position on something, your position is strategic.
If you will not compromise on a position for any reason, you firmly believe in it with passion.

The people that control the society and government of any country attain power because they began with a firm belief in something, whether that belief is right or wrong. Reaching the apex of society requires making many enemies and a strong moral conviction in your goal. If someone is lying for hollow strategic reasons but they don't actually believe in what they are telling others, that person will not make it far in society because people can see through it. It is human nature to trust people who have confidence in their own abilities. Passionate people bring a passionate message. Fake people bring a fake message. The only people who can make it to the top are those believe in something with passion and moral conviction, because they are the ones who don't sell out for a cheap strategy, they stay the course even when it gets tough because their belief drives a goal which must be met. Strong resolve and belief will get you through tough times, but having a hollow strategy without believing in it will result in certain and utter failure. A hollow strategy with a soulless lack of passion or belief in a goal makes a person vulnerable to compromising their morals and becoming a sellout. Someone who is passionate about something will not compromise in their pursuit of that goal. Those who believe in something are inherently more committed to its success than those who are doing it for strategic reasons.

This has never been more true than today.

There are too many people in the world that lie to the public for hollow strategic reasons. Many powerful and influential figures don't believe what they are saying to others because they know they are misleading the public. When they dissent for fake reasons, people can tell and it makes them angry. Nobody likes a fake person.

But once in a while, you see someone who challenges popular opinions regardless of much hate they get because they believe in what they are saying and nobody can bribe them. They can't be bought. The public likes people with guts who can stand up for something because it means they have a backbone. Their enemies will hate people like this since they hide behind hollow strategic reasons while these figures become more and more popular because of their uncompromising beliefs and inability to be bribed into submission. The public looks for people who defend their values and have a moral compass in a sea of spineless people.

These people don't just dissent, they don't go away until they bring the real change they desire. And that's why people who believe in what they say are so popular regardless of how much they may be hated by the masses. Because they don't fear or care what their enemies say. When Martin Luther King took to the steps of Washington DC at the zenith of the civil rights movement, he didn't fear anyone, nor did he begin his march for any strategic goal. He wanted equality for a better society and a better world, driven solely by a dream and a vision that he believed in with only the conviction that he had. There is no substitute for true passion and conviction, it is not something that can be faked. Those who dissent with real passion will always bring vociferous debate while those who fake dissent and sellout will be crushed under the weight of their own duplicity and deception to mislead the public.

Dissent is still allowed, but it is more unpopular to dissent in today's time due to megaphones amplifying the voices of fringes and radicals. The radicals become moderates and the moderates become radicals. Just to be a neutral mainstream moderate now requires dissent from radicals because now radicals have been given as much credibility as moderates. 10, 20 years ago, radicals were considered lunatics who should be ignored and this resulted in less dissent and more cooperation. The more credibility society gives to fringes and radicals, the harder it is not to dissent from them and the harder it is to work together. Amplifying the voices of radicals causes division and dissent that didn't exist when moderates held power in society. Moderates will see the dissent of other moderates as easier to accept than radicals accepting the dissent of other radicals. Dissent is still allowed, but it is a lot harder today and takes far more courage and moral conviction than it used to, even 10 or 20 years ago.

mham001 wrote:

). Fewer child in theory should have meant less strain on public transit and roads and schools (and resources) but in fact as we were told to make less babies,

No one was told to have less children. An increasing number of women decided to pursue a professional career instead of staying at home because they could and wanted to.