Yes, this topic is super premature but given that in just over a day a new administration is taking office along with a new Senate majority, it's a good time for either party to be looking at the future (I'll make a similar topic for Republicans). So the question is, what do the Democrats need to do to win again in 2022/2024?

I'll start with my opinion - the next couple of months will be crucial in establishing what position the Democrats will be in in 2022.

1) I think the Biden administration will need to make a real dent in the effort to roll out the vaccines and to contain COVID. Biden has rolled out the framework for his plan to rapidly ramp up getting vaccines to people so they'll really have to manage that well which will be a challenge. I think it'll be *very* hard to get people to do another fully socially distant summer given the amount of pandemic fatigue there already is. I will say I'm not sure Biden's "100 days to mask up" campaign is a great idea because surely we'll still need to be using these masks in 100 days.

2) The Democrats will need to pass meaningful COVID relief that isn't just these one time checks. They'll need to address rent, student loans, AND direct payments in a way that meaningfully helps people.

3) Coming off point 2, Biden's tax plan is going to have to produce real results because he is advocating for a great deal of spending and investment at a time when the economy is in the toilet and the deficit is sky high.

4) This will be controversial but I think they need to push themselves further to the left for 2022, particularly in terms of the candidates they push. The number of eligible voters who don't vote is extremely high and I think it's a better play to invest in inspiring and motivational candidates with bold plans for the future to bring those people out to vote. The Dems already showed that they can do the local organizing it takes to drastically increase turnout, even in areas where historically aren't even in play. Especially looking at 2022, Dems need to do something to get midterm turnout up. Chasing conservative moderates and even disenfranchised Republicans can only get you so far.

5) Kamala. I think these next two years will be very important for her. If Biden chooses not to run in 2024 which I would say is likely, she has these next two years of high visibility as a Senate tie-breaker to establish herself as a viable Presidential candidate/President.

A bit of a wild card is how they handle Trump. If they just move on or if they get tied up in further prosecutions of Trump and his associates at the federal level. Chime in with ideas!

Can’t we have a year of rest from the endless election nonsense? The midterms are still two years away.

NYCVIE wrote:

Yes, this topic is super premature but given that in just over a day a new administration is taking office along with a new Senate majority, it's a good time for either party to be looking at the future (I'll make a similar topic for Republicans). So the question is, what do the Democrats need to do to win again in 2022/2024?

I'll start with my opinion - the next couple of months will be crucial in establishing what position the Democrats will be in in 2022.

1) I think the Biden administration will need to make a real dent in the effort to roll out the vaccines and to contain COVID. Biden has rolled out the framework for his plan to rapidly ramp up getting vaccines to people so they'll really have to manage that well which will be a challenge. I think it'll be *very* hard to get people to do another fully socially distant summer given the amount of pandemic fatigue there already is. I will say I'm not sure Biden's "100 days to mask up" campaign is a great idea because surely we'll still need to be using these masks in 100 days.

2) The Democrats will need to pass meaningful COVID relief that isn't just these one time checks. They'll need to address rent, student loans, AND direct payments in a way that meaningfully helps people.

3) Coming off point 2, Biden's tax plan is going to have to produce real results because he is advocating for a great deal of spending and investment at a time when the economy is in the toilet and the deficit is sky high.

4) This will be controversial but I think they need to push themselves further to the left for 2022, particularly in terms of the candidates they push. The number of eligible voters who don't vote is extremely high and I think it's a better play to invest in inspiring and motivational candidates with bold plans for the future to bring those people out to vote. The Dems already showed that they can do the local organizing it takes to drastically increase turnout, even in areas where historically aren't even in play. Especially looking at 2022, Dems need to do something to get midterm turnout up. Chasing conservative moderates and even disenfranchised Republicans can only get you so far.

5) Kamala. I think these next two years will be very important for her. If Biden chooses not to run in 2024 which I would say is likely, she has these next two years of high visibility as a Senate tie-breaker to establish herself as a viable Presidential candidate/President.

A bit of a wild card is how they handle Trump. If they just move on or if they get tied up in further prosecutions of Trump and his associates at the federal level. Chime in with ideas!

You've hit the nail on the head. Biden has to control the COVID narrative and smooth out-- or at least be able to say he smoothed out--the vaccine administration process. That will be the midterms. For 2024, who knows.

Can we please have just a couple of days devoid of US politics?

petertenthije wrote:

Can’t we have a year of rest from the endless election nonsense? The midterms are still two years away.

B777LRF wrote:

Can we please have just a couple of days devoid of US politics?

Sentiment understood but it's a pivotal moment in US politics given the stark divisions and the reset in government. With respect, there's always not commenting if you don't have anything to say

NYCVIE wrote:

Sentiment understood but it's a pivotal moment in US politics given the stark divisions and the reset in government.

I’ve heard the “pivot” argument for the best part of 20 years now. That can hardly be considered a pivot anymore.

It would most likely help to keep it quiet for a year so everyone can settle down. (Maybe get a hobby while you’re at it)

NYCVIE wrote:

4) This will be controversial but I think they need to push themselves further to the left for 2022, particularly in terms of the candidates they push. The number of eligible voters who don't vote is extremely high and I think it's a better play to invest in inspiring and motivational candidates with bold plans for the future to bring those people out to vote. The Dems already showed that they can do the local organizing it takes to drastically increase turnout, even in areas where historically aren't even in play. Especially looking at 2022, Dems need to do something to get midterm turnout up. Chasing conservative moderates and even disenfranchised Republicans can only get you so far.

Interesting idea given that the far left candidate couldn’t even muster 50% support within the Democratic Party. IMO the fracturing of the Democratic Party is only a few years behind that of the GOP.

flyguy89 wrote:

NYCVIE wrote:

4) This will be controversial but I think they need to push themselves further to the left for 2022, particularly in terms of the candidates they push. The number of eligible voters who don't vote is extremely high and I think it's a better play to invest in inspiring and motivational candidates with bold plans for the future to bring those people out to vote. The Dems already showed that they can do the local organizing it takes to drastically increase turnout, even in areas where historically aren't even in play. Especially looking at 2022, Dems need to do something to get midterm turnout up. Chasing conservative moderates and even disenfranchised Republicans can only get you so far.

Interesting idea given that the far left candidate couldn’t even muster 50% support within the Democratic Party. IMO the fracturing of the Democratic Party is only a few years behind that of the GOP.

On this I disagree. The Democrats lost seats in the house because of "leftist" rhetoric.

Back off trying to make those from other countries who entered and reside here illegally have chances to be given the opportunity for citizenship. If they do so, it will cause a backlash from Republicans and losing seats.
Expand ways for those with student loans get some relief, but not a blanket dismissal of debt. Blanket dismissal of all or parts of student loan debts will anger those that faithfully made payments with sacrifices in their lives, discourage private lenders, not have enough or any 'moral hazard' to discourage misuse. I believe those that got screwed by for profit colleges and trade schools, had serious/disabling health or mental health problems, had to drop out due to family care need relief.
More target help for the poor, unemployed - not blanket benefits that may discourage people from working.
Expanded Medicare/Medicaid so more have affordable healthcare.
Serious infrastructure spending but with checks to prevent excessive spending, put in reasonable labor, work rules, engineering, environmental reviews, limit profits of contractors, to lower costs to taxpayers.
Don't overdo 'diversity' demands in contracts and contractors.
Take more modest positions on hot button social issues like GLTBQ rights, abortion access.

ltbewr wrote:

Take more modest positions on hot button social issues like GLTBQ rights

What modest positions do you suggest?

luckyone wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

Take more modest positions on hot button social issues like GLTBQ rights

What modest positions do you suggest?

- There are only 2 genders
- Sex change operations should never be covered by Medicare/Medicaid/Tricare
- No child under 18 can get a sex change
- Transwomen cannot participate in women's sports (i.e. UFC)

Basically that's it. Gay marriage remains legal. gay adoption is fine, discrimination is outlawed. Just don't get insane. Most gay people I know don't even support the things I mentioned

luckyone wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

Take more modest positions on hot button social issues like GLTBQ rights

What modest positions do you suggest?

Honestly just a little more common sense and a little more distance from the “all sex is rape” crowd.

luckyone wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

NYCVIE wrote:

4) This will be controversial but I think they need to push themselves further to the left for 2022, particularly in terms of the candidates they push. The number of eligible voters who don't vote is extremely high and I think it's a better play to invest in inspiring and motivational candidates with bold plans for the future to bring those people out to vote. The Dems already showed that they can do the local organizing it takes to drastically increase turnout, even in areas where historically aren't even in play. Especially looking at 2022, Dems need to do something to get midterm turnout up. Chasing conservative moderates and even disenfranchised Republicans can only get you so far.

Interesting idea given that the far left candidate couldn’t even muster 50% support within the Democratic Party. IMO the fracturing of the Democratic Party is only a few years behind that of the GOP.

On this I disagree. The Democrats lost seats in the house because of "leftist" rhetoric.

The middle of the electorate has been speaking loud and clear for years. When Obama won in 2008 he lost the house in 2010 because of the far left and Biden won and still lost seats in the house including in CA which is unheard of. I have said and I still think Biden is smarter than most leaders in his party and wants to at least try for some bi-partisan stuff and not the ram stuff through approach of the Obama admin which also hurt them in the 2010 election. Whether Schumer and Pelosi cooperate we will have to see.

What is needed? It has been talked about ad nauseum here. We need a moderation. Fair taxation that doesn't vilify the successful, fair gun reform that doesn't infringe on our rights etc. Compromise. Problem is that stuff doesn't read well on cable news and they won't have it and they have influence, too much in fact.

In a week's time we will see how the country will be Governed. Trump will be gone and even though the media will use him as an excuse we will have to see some leadership from both parties. The Stimulus bill will be the barometer and we will get an idea of if it will be better or more of the same of the last 12 years.

The democrats win in 2022 by the following.

1, Healthcare. Make a push for single payer, highlighting the difference in Cadillac and non Cadillac work coverages vs the cost of insurance/care
2. Education. Make a solid push for Tax Write-offs that can be used for successful completion and employment in a field of study. (Apprenticeships in non college manufacturing/building disciplines included) Show ROI for estimated costs of education vs average expected salary.
3.Voter education: Push for more messaging from the House, Senate and White House about the rationale for their bills. Be prepared to battle the partisan misinformation channels of the GOP. ( will be tough with Sinclair and Premier broadcasting pushing misinformation into rural areas).
4. Taxes: Explain the Progressive Tax chart, and also try to inform people of their location on it, and where most of the wealth is.
5. Remove Tax exemptions from Churches that are politically active.
6.Immigration: Give a citizenship path to Dreamers/ Punish employers with increased unemployment taxes for employing undocumented workers.
7. Foreign Policy: Leave the embassy in Jerusalem alone, push for the Iran agreement to be reinstated. Push for sanctions on Iran.
8.Infrastructure: Implement a sprawling works program to fix the nation's infrastructure.

NIKV69 wrote:

The middle of the electorate has been speaking loud and clear for years. When Obama won in 2008 he lost the house in 2010 because of the far left and Biden won and still lost seats in the house including in CA which is unheard of.

The Democrats lost the House in 2010 because of the "far left"? Anyone can correct me if I'm wrong but, they lost in 2010 because of anti-Obamacare rhetoric from the Republicans on how it was socialist and it was the end of the world, etc. They then won back the House in 2018 on the platform of expanding Obamacare and Biden won the Presidency on the platform of expanding Obamacare. It seems the Republican machine did its job of discrediting the ACA but then had no alternative and they paid a price for it.

I'm also not entirely sure why you're making the House seats in California out to be a massive deal. Is it a big disappointment for the Dems that they couldn't retain them, yes. But those seats were all held by Republicans before 2019, and I believe the majority of them were held by Republicans for at least the better part of this century. You're making it sound like because it's California which is stereotypically uber-liberal that it's the biggest upset ever that they lost those House seats but Republicans have always been in play in the House there.

NIKV69 wrote:

In a week's time we will see how the country will be Governed. Trump will be gone and even though the media will use him as an excuse we will have to see some leadership from both parties. The Stimulus bill will be the barometer and we will get an idea of if it will be better or more of the same of the last 12 years.

On this we agree.

casinterest wrote:

The democrats win in 2022 by the following.

1, Healthcare. Make a push for single payer, highlighting the difference in Cadillac and non Cadillac work coverages vs the cost of insurance/care
2. Education. Make a solid push for Tax Write-offs that can be used for successful completion and employment in a field of study. (Apprenticeships in non college manufacturing/building disciplines included) Show ROI for estimated costs of education vs average expected salary.
3.Voter education: Push for more messaging from the House, Senate and White House about the rationale for their bills. Be prepared to battle the partisan misinformation channels of the GOP. ( will be tough with Sinclair and Premier broadcasting pushing misinformation into rural areas).
4. Taxes: Explain the Progressive Tax chart, and also try to inform people of their location on it, and where most of the wealth is.
5. Remove Tax exemptions from Churches that are politically active.
6.Immigration: Give a citizenship path to Dreamers/ Punish employers with increased unemployment taxes for employing undocumented workers.
7. Foreign Policy: Leave the embassy in Jerusalem alone, push for the Iran agreement to be reinstated. Push for sanctions on Iran.
8.Infrastructure: Implement a sprawling works program to fix the nation's infrastructure.

I mostly agree but will be interesting to see about Iran. That's the gift that keeps on giving to Republicans because its so easy to message around that.

mjba257 wrote:

luckyone wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

Take more modest positions on hot button social issues like GLTBQ rights

What modest positions do you suggest?

1 There are only 2 genders
2 Sex change operations should never be covered by Medicare/Medicaid/Tricare
- No child under 18 can get a sex change
- Transwomen cannot participate in women's sports (i.e. UFC)

Basically that's it. Gay marriage remains legal. gay adoption is fine, discrimination is outlawed. Just don't get insane. Most gay people I know don't even support the things I mentioned

Points 1 and 2 are ridiculous, I'm sure even some Republicans would disagree with this. If you can't vote for the Democratic party because of such views, you have not voted for them in a long time anyway, and they don't want your vote !

It's time for the GOP to evolve on such issues, not for the Dems to go back.

Aesma wrote:

mjba257 wrote:

luckyone wrote:

What modest positions do you suggest?

1 There are only 2 genders
2 Sex change operations should never be covered by Medicare/Medicaid/Tricare
- No child under 18 can get a sex change
- Transwomen cannot participate in women's sports (i.e. UFC)

Basically that's it. Gay marriage remains legal. gay adoption is fine, discrimination is outlawed. Just don't get insane. Most gay people I know don't even support the things I mentioned

Points 1 and 2 are ridiculous, I'm sure even some Republicans would disagree with this. If you can't vote for the Democratic party because of such views, you have not voted for them in a long time anyway, and they don't want your vote !

It's time for the GOP to evolve on such issues, not for the Dems to go back.

Ok so you are saying that there are more than two genders (scientifically false) and are ok having taxpayer money fund what is essentially cosmetic surgery

mjba257 wrote:

and are ok having taxpayer money fund what is essentially cosmetic surgery

I'm afraid that this point shows that you understand 0% about why people have the procedure. It's far from cosmetic for them regardless of what you think.

cledaybuck wrote:

Really just one (huge) thing. Fix Covid so this country can get back to "normal."

^ This. Democrats' biggest priority right now should be passing measures intended to get this country back to normal, both economically and COVID-wise, and hopefully try not to pass anything too controversial prior to 2022 to minimize the effects of midterm backlash. If they do this successfully, they should probably be heading into 2024 with wind in their sails, and be the favorites to win reelection.

As for 2022, keeping both the House and the Senate would be challenging, but most presidents that entered office with narrow Congressional majorities (namely GWB in 2000 who entered in a similar position to Biden, with a 50-50 Senate and narrow House majority) had fairly mild first midterms, so Biden has that going for him. There aren't many vulnerable Dem senators at the moment since most were swept away in 2010, and there are open seats in PA and NC that they can try to pick up too, so while it's too early to speculate right now I'd say that they aren't in a terrible position there. As for the House, that'd admittedly be a much more challenging endeavor, but if the Senate passes the For the People Act to ban partisan gerrymandering that might help to level the playing field somewhat.

mjba257 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

mjba257 wrote:

1 There are only 2 genders
2 Sex change operations should never be covered by Medicare/Medicaid/Tricare
- No child under 18 can get a sex change
- Transwomen cannot participate in women's sports (i.e. UFC)

Basically that's it. Gay marriage remains legal. gay adoption is fine, discrimination is outlawed. Just don't get insane. Most gay people I know don't even support the things I mentioned

Points 1 and 2 are ridiculous, I'm sure even some Republicans would disagree with this. If you can't vote for the Democratic party because of such views, you have not voted for them in a long time anyway, and they don't want your vote !

It's time for the GOP to evolve on such issues, not for the Dems to go back.

Ok so you are saying that there are more than two genders (scientifically false) and are ok having taxpayer money fund what is essentially cosmetic surgery

As a psychiatrist let me weigh in here -- particularly as a psychiatrist who performs the evaluations required by the patients wishing to undergo these procedures -- it's not cosmetic. By bringing in scientific fact, what you're trying to state is that there are two biological sexes, though there are notable exceptions to that rule. Gender is a social and cultural construct by and large that is usually closely intertwined with sex, but they are not inseparable from each other. Your argument also ignores the fact that most transgender individuals identify as either one sex and gender or the other. If we truly believe in freedom, then we should let people be as they want to be, even if their personal lives with other consenting adults make us uncomfortable. But let's say it's not any of that and it's a choice: as taxpayers, we fund medical procedures that are directly related to lifestyle every single day. So, if that is your opinion, ideological consistency would suggest that any life style related medical treatment should be excluded from tax payer funds. These include, but are not limited to, anything related to diabetes (the overwhelming majority of diabetes is diet and lifestyle related, over 90% in fact), heart disease (also lifestyle related), many types of cancer (namely lung cancer associated with smoking, and liver cancer associated with alcohol intake), stroke (most of them occur in patients with poor diets and underlying causes such as high blood pressure), and motor vehicle accidents, often the result of a choice or behavior the driver indulged in. Good luck getting anywhere with that argument.

luckyone wrote:

mjba257 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Points 1 and 2 are ridiculous, I'm sure even some Republicans would disagree with this. If you can't vote for the Democratic party because of such views, you have not voted for them in a long time anyway, and they don't want your vote !

It's time for the GOP to evolve on such issues, not for the Dems to go back.

But let's say it's not any of that and it's a choice: as taxpayers, we fund medical procedures that are directly related to lifestyle every single day. So, if that is your opinion, ideological consistency would suggest that any life style related medical treatment should be excluded from tax payer funds.

Ding ding ding ding! You hit the nail on the head! I've said for years that people who smoke, eat badly, do drugs, etc. should not get government benefits. I am a pretty consistent person

mjba257 wrote:

luckyone wrote:

mjba257 wrote:

But let's say it's not any of that and it's a choice: as taxpayers, we fund medical procedures that are directly related to lifestyle every single day. So, if that is your opinion, ideological consistency would suggest that any life style related medical treatment should be excluded from tax payer funds.

Ding ding ding ding! You hit the nail on the head! I've said for years that people who smoke, eat badly, do drugs, etc. should not get government benefits. I am a pretty consistent person

Guess people who have knee issues from running shouldn't get benefits either. Since that's a lifestyle choice people make.

Also guessing someone who could be involved in a hunting accident, and need to receive medical care via tax payer funds, shouldn't receive it either since it's a lifestyle choice?

Just following your logic here.

I am already seeing some Republicans start with the "our nation is lost" rhetoric. Some Republicans will run on this in 2022. This notion that "we need to take OUR America back!" again. That might play well in some rural districts in the South and Midwest, but suburban and urban areas have had it.

I think Democrats will try to make things happen, like making health care even more affordable, covid relief, student loan forgiveness, taxes, etc. only to be blocked by Republicans. This is what Democrats will run on. "Give us a clear majority because you know our end game and we can fix this!" Republicans will counter with "give us another chance because we've changed!" as they always seem to do.

SWALUV wrote:

mjba257 wrote:

luckyone wrote:

Ding ding ding ding! You hit the nail on the head! I've said for years that people who smoke, eat badly, do drugs, etc. should not get government benefits. I am a pretty consistent person

Guess people who have knee issues from running shouldn't get benefits either. Since that's a lifestyle choice people make.

Also guessing someone who could be involved in a hunting accident, and need to receive medical care via tax payer funds, shouldn't receive it either since it's a lifestyle choice?

Just following your logic here.

I have always been a proponent of cutting Medicaid/Medicare. I believe in universal private health insurance. I work in the healthcare field and I can personally attest how much of a pain in the ass Medicare and Medicaid are.

But to the point, lifestyle choices that are entirely detrimental to your health and have zero benefits (i.e smoking, eating bad, drinking, drug use) should not ever be subsidized by taxpayer funds. If you wish to smoke, go at it. It's a free country. But know that their are consequences to your choices and when/if you find yourself with a serious health problem caused by your smoking, be prepared to burden the cost.

mjba257 wrote:

SWALUV wrote:

mjba257 wrote:

Ding ding ding ding! You hit the nail on the head! I've said for years that people who smoke, eat badly, do drugs, etc. should not get government benefits. I am a pretty consistent person

Guess people who have knee issues from running shouldn't get benefits either. Since that's a lifestyle choice people make.

Also guessing someone who could be involved in a hunting accident, and need to receive medical care via tax payer funds, shouldn't receive it either since it's a lifestyle choice?

Just following your logic here.

I have always been a proponent of cutting Medicaid/Medicare. I believe in universal private health insurance. I work in the healthcare field and I can personally attest how much of a pain in the ass Medicare and Medicaid are.

Medicaid depends on the state and my experiences have accordingly varied -- some indeed are a downright pain in the rump. But in my experience Medicare is far simpler to deal with than most private insurances, particularly when it comes to prior auths. I wouldn't have a problem with universal private insurance (actually that's what Germany does, the government pays the private companies), if they weren't legally entitled to be so restrictive with pre-existing conditions such as they were before the ACA.

luckyone wrote:

mjba257 wrote:

SWALUV wrote:

Guess people who have knee issues from running shouldn't get benefits either. Since that's a lifestyle choice people make.

Also guessing someone who could be involved in a hunting accident, and need to receive medical care via tax payer funds, shouldn't receive it either since it's a lifestyle choice?

Just following your logic here.

I have always been a proponent of cutting Medicaid/Medicare. I believe in universal private health insurance. I work in the healthcare field and I can personally attest how much of a pain in the ass Medicare and Medicaid are.

Medicaid depends on the state and my experiences have accordingly varied -- some indeed are a downright pain in the rump. But in my experience Medicare is far simpler to deal with than most private insurances, particularly when it comes to prior auths. I wouldn't have a problem with universal private insurance (actually that's what Germany does, the government pays the private companies), if they weren't legally entitled to be so restrictive with pre-existing conditions such as they were before the ACA.

Medicare and Medicaid are a pain-in-the-but because of all the red tape associated with it. Bureaucratic nonsense. That's my problem. And I also take issue with how so many people are able to scam the system, particularly with people claiming disability. I know people who are legitimately disabled (i.e. paraplegics, blind people, quadruple amputees, etc.) who took years to finally get disability benefits. Yet I frequently encounter people who I just have to ask myself, "You can get disability for that?"

Simply put, they don't. Biden isn't liberal enough for the far left (most that post here) and will still too left for most all moderates. Biden will cause the party to break apart once they don't have a common cause to rally for (removing trump). He will be too old and unable mentally to run for re-election in 2024.... Republicans will easily win. The next four years will be a split of the party, with moderate voters rejecting the extreme policy's far left and the far left unhappy with Biden. He is in an impossible situation.....Enjoy the time your have!

mjba257 wrote:

luckyone wrote:

mjba257 wrote:

I have always been a proponent of cutting Medicaid/Medicare. I believe in universal private health insurance. I work in the healthcare field and I can personally attest how much of a pain in the ass Medicare and Medicaid are.

Medicaid depends on the state and my experiences have accordingly varied -- some indeed are a downright pain in the rump. But in my experience Medicare is far simpler to deal with than most private insurances, particularly when it comes to prior auths. I wouldn't have a problem with universal private insurance (actually that's what Germany does, the government pays the private companies), if they weren't legally entitled to be so restrictive with pre-existing conditions such as they were before the ACA.

Medicare and Medicaid are a pain-in-the-but because of all the red tape associated with it. Bureaucratic nonsense. That's my problem. And I also take issue with how so many people are able to scam the system, particularly with people claiming disability. I know people who are legitimately disabled (i.e. paraplegics, blind people, quadruple amputees, etc.) who took years to finally get disability benefits. Yet I frequently encounter people who I just have to ask myself, "You can get disability for that?"

Hmm, a cynical person would question why you appear to lump Medicare fraud in with disability benefits. Those who know, are aware that what you're referring to is actually run by the Social Security Administration. Also, verified "Medicare fraudulent billings" accounts for $30-40 million out of a budget depending on the year of $600-800 billion (As someone who works in healthcare, you can do math, but I'll spare you the trouble -- it's statistically zero). Commercial insurance fraud for the same years are about $7-10 million. There is a nebulous "Improper payment," that isn't well parsed out to the tune of $50 billion. Meanwhile it's comical that you somehow suggest that private payers have less red tape than Medicare or Medicaid while anyone who actually has to spend time on the phone dealing with the insurance companies will laugh you out of the room. But go on and continue informing us about your expertise in the healthcare field, I'd love to hear about your role...

KWexpress wrote:

Simply put, they don't. Biden isn't liberal enough for the far left (most that post here) and will still too left for most all moderates. Biden will cause the party to break apart once they don't have a common cause to rally for (removing trump). He will be too old and unable mentally to run for re-election in 2024.... Republicans will easily win. The next four years will be a split of the party, with moderate voters rejecting the extreme policy's far left and the far left unhappy with Biden. He is in an impossible situation.....Enjoy the time your have!

I think the chosen nebulous unifying boogeyman for the Left, where most of the propaganda will be directed, is Climate Change fear. Just like the Nazis choose to have a unifying thing to hate and fear and fight (the Jews), so will the Left ramp up their indoctrination of hating carbon emissions, first to all school children. And social media, daytime and nighttime talk shows, all kids shows, etc.

If they can get everyone to buy in on the fear, then they can exact controls and taxes, and restrictions of freedoms that the public and business community would not otherwise go in for. The UN has been wanting for years to have this Global Carbon Tax, so that the Christ hating, and Israel hating UN majority can dictate to the world, and transfer wealth from haves to the have nots --- I think this can be called Communism, or, a form of Fascism.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

KWexpress wrote:

Simply put, they don't. Biden isn't liberal enough for the far left (most that post here) and will still too left for most all moderates. Biden will cause the party to break apart once they don't have a common cause to rally for (removing trump). He will be too old and unable mentally to run for re-election in 2024.... Republicans will easily win. The next four years will be a split of the party, with moderate voters rejecting the extreme policy's far left and the far left unhappy with Biden. He is in an impossible situation.....Enjoy the time your have!

I think the chosen nebulous unifying boogeyman for the Left, where most of the propaganda will be directed, is Climate Change fear. Just like the Nazis choose to have a unifying thing to hate and fear and fight (the Jews), so will the Left ramp up their indoctrination of hating carbon emissions, first to all school children. And social media, daytime and nighttime talk shows, all kids shows, etc.

If they can get everyone to buy in on the fear, then they can exact controls and taxes, and restrictions of freedoms that the public and business community would not otherwise go in for. The UN has been wanting for years to have this Global Carbon Tax, so that the Christ hating, and Israel hating UN majority can dictate to the world, and transfer wealth from haves to the have nots --- I think this can be called Communism, or, a form of Fascism.

Right...you know more than climatologists, oceanographers and geophysicists because you read stuff online / watched a few YouTube videos. Guess what? That’s not how science works (fortunately).

mjba257 wrote:

SWALUV wrote:

mjba257 wrote:

Ding ding ding ding! You hit the nail on the head! I've said for years that people who smoke, eat badly, do drugs, etc. should not get government benefits. I am a pretty consistent person

Guess people who have knee issues from running shouldn't get benefits either. Since that's a lifestyle choice people make.

Also guessing someone who could be involved in a hunting accident, and need to receive medical care via tax payer funds, shouldn't receive it either since it's a lifestyle choice?

Just following your logic here.

I have always been a proponent of cutting Medicaid/Medicare. I believe in universal private health insurance. I work in the healthcare field and I can personally attest how much of a pain in the ass Medicare and Medicaid are.

But to the point, lifestyle choices that are entirely detrimental to your health and have zero benefits (i.e smoking, eating bad, drinking, drug use) should not ever be subsidized by taxpayer funds. If you wish to smoke, go at it. It's a free country. But know that their are consequences to your choices and when/if you find yourself with a serious health problem caused by your smoking, be prepared to burden the cost.

The latter part is sensible but you’re unfairly tarnishing Medicare due to the relatively fixable issue of fraud - which is largely due to people being VERY chummy with unethical clinics.

Network and state line restrictions are a bear to companies located in more than one state dealing with private insurers. I can tell you costs would be MASSIVELY reduced for employers if we simply had a universal public program like Australia or Japan’s. If people want to cover their bad lifestyle choices, they can purchase supplemental private coverage.

Aaron747 wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

KWexpress wrote:

Simply put, they don't. Biden isn't liberal enough for the far left (most that post here) and will still too left for most all moderates. Biden will cause the party to break apart once they don't have a common cause to rally for (removing trump). He will be too old and unable mentally to run for re-election in 2024.... Republicans will easily win. The next four years will be a split of the party, with moderate voters rejecting the extreme policy's far left and the far left unhappy with Biden. He is in an impossible situation.....Enjoy the time your have!

I think the chosen nebulous unifying boogeyman for the Left, where most of the propaganda will be directed, is Climate Change fear. Just like the Nazis choose to have a unifying thing to hate and fear and fight (the Jews), so will the Left ramp up their indoctrination of hating carbon emissions, first to all school children. And social media, daytime and nighttime talk shows, all kids shows, etc.

If they can get everyone to buy in on the fear, then they can exact controls and taxes, and restrictions of freedoms that the public and business community would not otherwise go in for. The UN has been wanting for years to have this Global Carbon Tax, so that the Christ hating, and Israel hating UN majority can dictate to the world, and transfer wealth from haves to the have nots --- I think this can be called Communism, or, a form of Fascism.

Right...you know more than climatologists, oceanographers and geophysicists because you read stuff online / watched a few YouTube videos. Guess what? That’s not how science works (fortunately).

Considering most climatologists, oceanographers and geophysicists have been wrong with their predictions... I'd tend to agree with your sarcasm. If a person with a degree makes a guess, it's still a guess.

KWexpress wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

I think the chosen nebulous unifying boogeyman for the Left, where most of the propaganda will be directed, is Climate Change fear. Just like the Nazis choose to have a unifying thing to hate and fear and fight (the Jews), so will the Left ramp up their indoctrination of hating carbon emissions, first to all school children. And social media, daytime and nighttime talk shows, all kids shows, etc.

If they can get everyone to buy in on the fear, then they can exact controls and taxes, and restrictions of freedoms that the public and business community would not otherwise go in for. The UN has been wanting for years to have this Global Carbon Tax, so that the Christ hating, and Israel hating UN majority can dictate to the world, and transfer wealth from haves to the have nots --- I think this can be called Communism, or, a form of Fascism.

Right...you know more than climatologists, oceanographers and geophysicists because you read stuff online / watched a few YouTube videos. Guess what? That’s not how science works (fortunately).

Considering most climatologists, oceanographers and geophysicists have been wrong with their predictions... I'd tend to agree with your sarcasm. If a person with a degree makes a guess, it's still a guess.

Well, the poster who brought up Climate Change Fear made some of the most radical and far fetched predictions about the outcome of the election. And that individual was wrong. So...

KWexpress wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

I think the chosen nebulous unifying boogeyman for the Left, where most of the propaganda will be directed, is Climate Change fear. Just like the Nazis choose to have a unifying thing to hate and fear and fight (the Jews), so will the Left ramp up their indoctrination of hating carbon emissions, first to all school children. And social media, daytime and nighttime talk shows, all kids shows, etc.

If they can get everyone to buy in on the fear, then they can exact controls and taxes, and restrictions of freedoms that the public and business community would not otherwise go in for. The UN has been wanting for years to have this Global Carbon Tax, so that the Christ hating, and Israel hating UN majority can dictate to the world, and transfer wealth from haves to the have nots --- I think this can be called Communism, or, a form of Fascism.

Right...you know more than climatologists, oceanographers and geophysicists because you read stuff online / watched a few YouTube videos. Guess what? That’s not how science works (fortunately).

Considering most climatologists, oceanographers and geophysicists have been wrong with their predictions... I'd tend to agree with your sarcasm. If a person with a degree makes a guess, it's still a guess.

Mmmkay but reputable scientists and researchers never claim to have all the answers - the quest for information is the process. All of those predictions are stated in papers with ‘may’, ‘is likely to’, ‘could cause’ etc. That’s just the nature of complex data analysis. And while specific effects can be tough to predict with accuracy, there is consensus on what is happening overall.

None of it changes the fact that non-experts are not in a position to dispute complex analyses based on an internet ‘education’. That’s why we rely on satellites for weather and not palm readers.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

KWexpress wrote:

Simply put, they don't. Biden isn't liberal enough for the far left (most that post here) and will still too left for most all moderates. Biden will cause the party to break apart once they don't have a common cause to rally for (removing trump). He will be too old and unable mentally to run for re-election in 2024.... Republicans will easily win. The next four years will be a split of the party, with moderate voters rejecting the extreme policy's far left and the far left unhappy with Biden. He is in an impossible situation.....Enjoy the time your have!

I think the chosen nebulous unifying boogeyman for the Left, where most of the propaganda will be directed, is Climate Change fear. Just like the Nazis choose to have a unifying thing to hate and fear and fight (the Jews), so will the Left ramp up their indoctrination of hating carbon emissions, first to all school children. And social media, daytime and nighttime talk shows, all kids shows, etc.

If they can get everyone to buy in on the fear, then they can exact controls and taxes, and restrictions of freedoms that the public and business community would not otherwise go in for. The UN has been wanting for years to have this Global Carbon Tax, so that the Christ hating, and Israel hating UN majority can dictate to the world, and transfer wealth from haves to the have nots --- I think this can be called Communism, or, a form of Fascism.

Imagine attempting to make a serious comparison between fears of climate change today and fear of Jews in Nazi Germany, yikes.

Aaron747 wrote:

mjba257 wrote:

SWALUV wrote:

Guess people who have knee issues from running shouldn't get benefits either. Since that's a lifestyle choice people make.

Also guessing someone who could be involved in a hunting accident, and need to receive medical care via tax payer funds, shouldn't receive it either since it's a lifestyle choice?

Just following your logic here.

I have always been a proponent of cutting Medicaid/Medicare. I believe in universal private health insurance. I work in the healthcare field and I can personally attest how much of a pain in the ass Medicare and Medicaid are.

But to the point, lifestyle choices that are entirely detrimental to your health and have zero benefits (i.e smoking, eating bad, drinking, drug use) should not ever be subsidized by taxpayer funds. If you wish to smoke, go at it. It's a free country. But know that their are consequences to your choices and when/if you find yourself with a serious health problem caused by your smoking, be prepared to burden the cost.

The latter part is sensible but you’re unfairly tarnishing Medicare due to the relatively fixable issue of fraud - which is largely due to people being VERY chummy with unethical clinics.

Network and state line restrictions are a bear to companies located in more than one state dealing with private insurers. I can tell you costs would be MASSIVELY reduced for employers if we simply had a universal public program like Australia or Japan’s. If people want to cover their bad lifestyle choices, they can purchase supplemental private coverage.

My issues with Medicare are twofold - one is personal. I work in hospital registration. Anytime someone comes in who has medicare, I am required to ask a series of questions which takes up time. Also, if said patient is being admitted to the hospital, I have to print out a special form for them to sign. No other insurance plans require me to do that stuff. So naturally, I have grown to have a seething hatred of Medicare, that is not political in any way.

But from a political/economic/ethical standpoint, we also need to acknowledge that a lot of Medicare spending is flat out wasteful. What's the statistic, something like 70% of the average persons lifetime healthcare coverage will be spent during the last 30 days of life? So much medicare spending is simply delaying the inevitable. Let's be real - is it really worth it to operate on an 85 year old? Especially when you consider that surgery or no surgery, the person will be dead in 5 years anyway.

My proposition is, why instead of wasting money on dragging out an old person's already miserable life and instead put it towards something more useful, such as children's health, infrastructure, education, etc?

mjba257 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

mjba257 wrote:

I have always been a proponent of cutting Medicaid/Medicare. I believe in universal private health insurance. I work in the healthcare field and I can personally attest how much of a pain in the ass Medicare and Medicaid are.

But to the point, lifestyle choices that are entirely detrimental to your health and have zero benefits (i.e smoking, eating bad, drinking, drug use) should not ever be subsidized by taxpayer funds. If you wish to smoke, go at it. It's a free country. But know that their are consequences to your choices and when/if you find yourself with a serious health problem caused by your smoking, be prepared to burden the cost.

The latter part is sensible but you’re unfairly tarnishing Medicare due to the relatively fixable issue of fraud - which is largely due to people being VERY chummy with unethical clinics.

Network and state line restrictions are a bear to companies located in more than one state dealing with private insurers. I can tell you costs would be MASSIVELY reduced for employers if we simply had a universal public program like Australia or Japan’s. If people want to cover their bad lifestyle choices, they can purchase supplemental private coverage.

My issues with Medicare are twofold - one is personal. I work in hospital registration. Anytime someone comes in who has medicare, I am required to ask a series of questions which takes up time. Also, if said patient is being admitted to the hospital, I have to print out a special form for them to sign. No other insurance plans require me to do that stuff. So naturally, I have grown to have a seething hatred of Medicare, that is not political in any way.

But from a political/economic/ethical standpoint, we also need to acknowledge that a lot of Medicare spending is flat out wasteful. What's the statistic, something like 70% of the average persons lifetime healthcare coverage will be spent during the last 30 days of life? So much medicare spending is simply delaying the inevitable. Let's be real - is it really worth it to operate on an 85 year old? Especially when you consider that surgery or no surgery, the person will be dead in 5 years anyway.

My proposition is, why instead of wasting money on dragging out an old person's already miserable life and instead put it towards something more useful, such as children's health, infrastructure, education, etc?

"Let be real?", let people over 85 years old die?, because "face it they'll be dead in 5 years anyway"
Is that what your crystal ball said?
If you contract covid-19, you'd gladly accept the medical care, wouldn't you?, im sure that there are much better, and more humane ways to address the health care system, I don't think your plan would be in the top 100 ideas, in fact yours sounds like one of the most heartless and hypocritical things I've heard on a.net
Congrats

ClipperMonsoon wrote:

mjba257 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

The latter part is sensible but you’re unfairly tarnishing Medicare due to the relatively fixable issue of fraud - which is largely due to people being VERY chummy with unethical clinics.

Network and state line restrictions are a bear to companies located in more than one state dealing with private insurers. I can tell you costs would be MASSIVELY reduced for employers if we simply had a universal public program like Australia or Japan’s. If people want to cover their bad lifestyle choices, they can purchase supplemental private coverage.

My issues with Medicare are twofold - one is personal. I work in hospital registration. Anytime someone comes in who has medicare, I am required to ask a series of questions which takes up time. Also, if said patient is being admitted to the hospital, I have to print out a special form for them to sign. No other insurance plans require me to do that stuff. So naturally, I have grown to have a seething hatred of Medicare, that is not political in any way.

But from a political/economic/ethical standpoint, we also need to acknowledge that a lot of Medicare spending is flat out wasteful. What's the statistic, something like 70% of the average persons lifetime healthcare coverage will be spent during the last 30 days of life? So much medicare spending is simply delaying the inevitable. Let's be real - is it really worth it to operate on an 85 year old? Especially when you consider that surgery or no surgery, the person will be dead in 5 years anyway.

My proposition is, why instead of wasting money on dragging out an old person's already miserable life and instead put it towards something more useful, such as children's health, infrastructure, education, etc?

"Let be real?", let people over 85 years old die?, because "face it they'll be dead in 5 years anyway"
Is that what your crystal ball said?
If you contract covid-19, you'd gladly accept the medical care, wouldn't you?, im sure that there are much better, and more humane ways to address the health care system, I don't think your plan would be in the top 100 ideas, in fact yours sounds like one of the most heartless and hypocritical things I've heard on a.net
Congrats

Welcome to reality, bud. It's harsh but it's true. Healthcare is a finite resource. Not just in terms of funding, but also in equipment. It is important we allocate resources accordingly and in my opinion, as well as many, many others, children and young adults are the most valuable members of our society as they are our future. The health and wellbeing, both physical and mental, of our younger population, is critical. So yes, spend less on the elderly, and more on the young

mjba257 wrote:

ClipperMonsoon wrote:

mjba257 wrote:

My issues with Medicare are twofold - one is personal. I work in hospital registration. Anytime someone comes in who has medicare, I am required to ask a series of questions which takes up time. Also, if said patient is being admitted to the hospital, I have to print out a special form for them to sign. No other insurance plans require me to do that stuff. So naturally, I have grown to have a seething hatred of Medicare, that is not political in any way.

But from a political/economic/ethical standpoint, we also need to acknowledge that a lot of Medicare spending is flat out wasteful. What's the statistic, something like 70% of the average persons lifetime healthcare coverage will be spent during the last 30 days of life? So much medicare spending is simply delaying the inevitable. Let's be real - is it really worth it to operate on an 85 year old? Especially when you consider that surgery or no surgery, the person will be dead in 5 years anyway.

My proposition is, why instead of wasting money on dragging out an old person's already miserable life and instead put it towards something more useful, such as children's health, infrastructure, education, etc?

"Let be real?", let people over 85 years old die?, because "face it they'll be dead in 5 years anyway"
Is that what your crystal ball said?
If you contract covid-19, you'd gladly accept the medical care, wouldn't you?, im sure that there are much better, and more humane ways to address the health care system, I don't think your plan would be in the top 100 ideas, in fact yours sounds like one of the most heartless and hypocritical things I've heard on a.net
Congrats

Welcome to reality, bud. It's harsh but it's true. Healthcare is a finite resource. Not just in terms of funding, but also in equipment. It is important we allocate resources accordingly and in my opinion, as well as many, many others, children and young adults are the most valuable members of our society as they are our future. The health and wellbeing, both physical and mental, of our younger population, is critical. So yes, spend less on the elderly, and more on the young

Practitioners of medicine don’t get into the profession generally to triage care in the manner you describe. While your attitude is shared by a lot of claims adjusters, it ignores the economic reality that in a finite resource system everyone will eventually use, a larger risk pool reduces costs. ‘Forms’ are not a valid reason to oppose something as that’s easily rectified.

Aaron747 wrote:

Practitioners of medicine don’t get into the profession generally to triage care in the manner you describe. While your attitude is shared by a lot of claims adjusters, it ignores the economic reality that in a finite resource system everyone will eventually use, a larger risk pool reduces costs. ‘Forms’ are not a valid reason to oppose something as that’s easily rectified.

If I had a dime for every non-clinical staff member who felt the need to inform me how healthcare should be run, I could retire. Why they choose to inform me is beyond me. I'm not an administrator. If hospitals were run the way they suggest they'd be out of business. And that's before we even get into the discussion of who is eligible for care and revisit the "Obamacare death panel" hysteria.

luckyone wrote:

If I had a dime for every non-clinical staff member who felt the need to inform me how healthcare should be run, I could retire. Why they choose to inform me is beyond me. I'm not an administrator. If hospitals were run the way they suggest they'd be out of business. And that's before we even get into the discussion of who is eligible for care and revisit the "Obamacare death panel" hysteria.

Only, in the Orwellian world we live in now... They will name the Death Panels as "Life Panels."

DIRECTFLT wrote:

luckyone wrote:

If I had a dime for every non-clinical staff member who felt the need to inform me how healthcare should be run, I could retire. Why they choose to inform me is beyond me. I'm not an administrator. If hospitals were run the way they suggest they'd be out of business. And that's before we even get into the discussion of who is eligible for care and revisit the "Obamacare death panel" hysteria.

Only, in the Orwellian world we live in now... They will name the Death Panels as "Life Panels."

We don’t live in an Orwellian world - you’ll recall Orwell’s work got published.

Aaron747 wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

luckyone wrote:

If I had a dime for every non-clinical staff member who felt the need to inform me how healthcare should be run, I could retire. Why they choose to inform me is beyond me. I'm not an administrator. If hospitals were run the way they suggest they'd be out of business. And that's before we even get into the discussion of who is eligible for care and revisit the "Obamacare death panel" hysteria.

Only, in the Orwellian world we live in now... They will name the Death Panels as "Life Panels."

We don’t live in an Orwellian world - you’ll recall Orwell’s work got published.

"Death panels" is a very derogatory term meant to quash any discussion about a very real and serious problem affecting the US healthcare system, which is the burden of the elderly. IT IS COMMON SENSE PEOPLE!!! You don't operate on a 90 year old. It is a waste of time, money, and resources. Just give them a pain killer and send 'em on their way. Focus on the young, you know the people who are the future

mjba257 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Only, in the Orwellian world we live in now... They will name the Death Panels as "Life Panels."

We don’t live in an Orwellian world - you’ll recall Orwell’s work got published.

"Death panels" is a very derogatory term meant to quash any discussion about a very real and serious problem affecting the US healthcare system, which is the burden of the elderly. IT IS COMMON SENSE PEOPLE!!! You don't operate on a 90 year old. It is a waste of time, money, and resources. Just give them a pain killer and send 'em on their way. Focus on the young, you know the people who are the future

MDs present options - it’s up to the 90 year-old patient and their family as to whether they want to undergo a high risk procedure at that age.

As to focusing on the young, there are lots of ways to do that if implementing a universal public system. Take a page from what many countries do successfully - have comprehensive preventive care, including mandatory annual physicals for all employees, with more things looked at after 35. This also dramatically contributes to later cost savings in the long run.

Aaron747 wrote:

mjba257 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

We don’t live in an Orwellian world - you’ll recall Orwell’s work got published.

"Death panels" is a very derogatory term meant to quash any discussion about a very real and serious problem affecting the US healthcare system, which is the burden of the elderly. IT IS COMMON SENSE PEOPLE!!! You don't operate on a 90 year old. It is a waste of time, money, and resources. Just give them a pain killer and send 'em on their way. Focus on the young, you know the people who are the future

MDs present options - it’s up to the 90 year-old patient and their family as to whether they want to undergo a high risk procedure at that age.

As to focusing on the young, there are lots of ways to do that if implementing a universal public system. Take a page from what many countries do successfully - have comprehensive preventive care, including mandatory annual physicals for all employees, with more things looked at after 35. This also dramatically contributes to later cost savings in the long run.

I forget the guys name, but he wrote an article where the gist was that once he turned 75, he would refuse any medical treatment of any kind from that point forward. The only healthcare he would seek would be palliative in nature. That is how our healthcare system should work. Once a person turns 75, Medicare will only cover palliative treatments from that point on. If someone above that age wishes to undergo a high risk procedure, then they will have to pay out of pocket.

mjba257 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

mjba257 wrote:

"Death panels" is a very derogatory term meant to quash any discussion about a very real and serious problem affecting the US healthcare system, which is the burden of the elderly. IT IS COMMON SENSE PEOPLE!!! You don't operate on a 90 year old. It is a waste of time, money, and resources. Just give them a pain killer and send 'em on their way. Focus on the young, you know the people who are the future

MDs present options - it’s up to the 90 year-old patient and their family as to whether they want to undergo a high risk procedure at that age.

As to focusing on the young, there are lots of ways to do that if implementing a universal public system. Take a page from what many countries do successfully - have comprehensive preventive care, including mandatory annual physicals for all employees, with more things looked at after 35. This also dramatically contributes to later cost savings in the long run.

I forget the guys name, but he wrote an article where the gist was that once he turned 75, he would refuse any medical treatment of any kind from that point forward. The only healthcare he would seek would be palliative in nature. That is how our healthcare system should work. Once a person turns 75, Medicare will only cover palliative treatments from that point on. If someone above that age wishes to undergo a high risk procedure, then they will have to pay out of pocket.

I don’t think hospital CEOs will like that policy very much.

mjba257 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

mjba257 wrote:

"Death panels" is a very derogatory term meant to quash any discussion about a very real and serious problem affecting the US healthcare system, which is the burden of the elderly. IT IS COMMON SENSE PEOPLE!!! You don't operate on a 90 year old. It is a waste of time, money, and resources. Just give them a pain killer and send 'em on their way. Focus on the young, you know the people who are the future

MDs present options - it’s up to the 90 year-old patient and their family as to whether they want to undergo a high risk procedure at that age.

As to focusing on the young, there are lots of ways to do that if implementing a universal public system. Take a page from what many countries do successfully - have comprehensive preventive care, including mandatory annual physicals for all employees, with more things looked at after 35. This also dramatically contributes to later cost savings in the long run.

I forget the guys name, but he wrote an article where the gist was that once he turned 75, he would refuse any medical treatment of any kind from that point forward. The only healthcare he would seek would be palliative in nature. That is how our healthcare system should work. Once a person turns 75, Medicare will only cover palliative treatments from that point on. If someone above that age wishes to undergo a high risk procedure, then they will have to pay out of pocket.

Does that not just blatantly lead to increased wealth disparities? If you have money and can afford healthcare and in your later years you need an operation, great. If you need the same operation but you're poor... "tough luck, go pick out your casket while you can though." This is such an irritating conversation. These last twelve months have really brought to life how many Americans see elderly people as disposable or not providing a high enough return on investment.

Aaron747 wrote:

mjba257 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

MDs present options - it’s up to the 90 year-old patient and their family as to whether they want to undergo a high risk procedure at that age.

As to focusing on the young, there are lots of ways to do that if implementing a universal public system. Take a page from what many countries do successfully - have comprehensive preventive care, including mandatory annual physicals for all employees, with more things looked at after 35. This also dramatically contributes to later cost savings in the long run.

I forget the guys name, but he wrote an article where the gist was that once he turned 75, he would refuse any medical treatment of any kind from that point forward. The only healthcare he would seek would be palliative in nature. That is how our healthcare system should work. Once a person turns 75, Medicare will only cover palliative treatments from that point on. If someone above that age wishes to undergo a high risk procedure, then they will have to pay out of pocket.

I don’t think hospital CEOs will like that policy very much.

Not to mention hysterical voters who are paranoid at baseline about "the government running their lives." This is an exercise in mental masturbation. It would never play, much less contribute to either party winning in 2022/24. Let's move on.

NYCVIE wrote:

mjba257 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

MDs present options - it’s up to the 90 year-old patient and their family as to whether they want to undergo a high risk procedure at that age.

As to focusing on the young, there are lots of ways to do that if implementing a universal public system. Take a page from what many countries do successfully - have comprehensive preventive care, including mandatory annual physicals for all employees, with more things looked at after 35. This also dramatically contributes to later cost savings in the long run.

I forget the guys name, but he wrote an article where the gist was that once he turned 75, he would refuse any medical treatment of any kind from that point forward. The only healthcare he would seek would be palliative in nature. That is how our healthcare system should work. Once a person turns 75, Medicare will only cover palliative treatments from that point on. If someone above that age wishes to undergo a high risk procedure, then they will have to pay out of pocket.

Does that not just blatantly lead to increased wealth disparities? If you have money and can afford healthcare and in your later years you need an operation, great. If you need the same operation but you're poor... "tough luck, go pick out your casket while you can though." This is such an irritating conversation. These last twelve months have really brought to life how many Americans see elderly people as disposable or not providing a high enough return on investment.

I hear those kinds of words a lot when discussing the elderly. "disposable", "expendable", which is unfortunate because it muddies the discussion. A better way to word it is "of lower priority" which they are. It is not fair to the younger, healthier members of society that they have to suddenly stop living their lives just so some 90 year old can live just a little longer. Us young people should be allowed to go to the bar. Go to a sporting event. Go to a concert. Travel the world. Have people at our weddings. Work in person. Go to school. etc. Oldies need to take one for the team