Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

CptJake wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:What's your alternate plan, Jake?

As a society, we choose to provide emergency care to people who can't pay, rather than let them suffer or die. To do that, the rest of us all wind up paying for that care.

So, what is my alternate plan? First I want to see exactly what you consider the problem(s) to be. Without scoping and defining the problem it is hard for me to come up with a plan.

...What specific problem/issue was the ACA supposed to address? I'm not being a smart ass here.

Well, there are a lot of problems related to health care. The ACA is so big because legislators tried to address a bunch of them. Edit: Ninja'd by Sebster; well, he gave the better, high-level view, here are a few smaller examples:

-People with pre-existing conditions not being able to get insurance.
-Insurance companies dropping people from coverage once they got sick.
-Kids not being able to get a job immediately after leaving their parents home/college and needing to stay on their parents' policy a bit longer.
-A large percentage (over 20%) of premiums being drained out of the system for profit rather than providing patient care.
-People without insurance incurring massive emergency room charges because they have no insurance and don't get preventive checkups or a simple doctor's visit and prescription when they have lesser symptoms and the problem can be caught when it's not as bad.
-The costs of said emergency care being passed on to taxpayers and premium-holders because we (and the Hippocratic Oath) require doctors to provide care even to people who can't afford it.

CptJake wrote:My perception is that the Democratic Party has held the idea of 'Universal Healthcare As A Right' as part of their platform for decades and that the ACA was an attempt to get that started. Since I do not believe 'Universal Healthcare' IS a 'right' I have issues with it, especially as the provided solution limits individual choices and freedoms and grants the Federal gov't more expansive powers.

Interesting. My perception is that both Republicans and Democrats (and most Independents, like me) have agreed for centuries that at least some care must be provided to people regardless of their ability to pay. It's not a Democratic ideal specifically to not let poor people die in the parking lot of the ER rather than help them. Now, I've known some hardcore Libertarians who are (or at least claim to be) just fine with the idea of letting those folks die, but I think that's extremism and putting a principle or ideal above other people's lives. I can honor and respect holding a principle above one's own life, but when it comes to a choice between slightly higher taxes or letting folks die, if a Libertarian chooses letting people die, I'm not really okay with that. In general, providing care to people who can't pay is the better approach. But the way we're doing it now is stupid and inefficient, and inadvertently encourages people to postpone care, get sicker, and wind up incurring greater costs and resulting in worse outcomes for themselves, their families, and the taxpayers/insurance premium-payers. Some kind of reform has got to be enacted.

I do agree that some Democrats have advocated for the idea of universal health care. Many people think that having a system like Canada or the UK (Or Switzerland, or Germany) would be good. The ACA is fundamentally a compromise idea, created by Republicans, as a way to try to address the many problems we're having with healthcare in this country. The Democrats caved and quit trying to get a real government-run program, or even a government-run OPTION (which Obama promised and which many of us supported him for), and instead went with the Republican idea, figuring that some reform was better than no reform, and hopefully they could get some progress made with bipartisan cooperation.

And instead we got opportunistic sentationalist scumbags making up lies about death panels, and scaring ignorant people into yelling at their Congressional representatives at town hall meetings.

CptJake wrote:We have already seen insurance premiums go up.

Yes, we've been seeing them go up for decades. Very rapidly. I've worked in health insurance or in service provision for health or travel insurance companies for most of the last decade. Every year the costs go up, and the premiums go up, and the benefits get reduced. At one point I worked at a major insurance company as a rep who specifically serviced the HR managers/health insurance admins/owners at medium and small businesses, and helped them every year with renewing and altering their plans to try to save costs. As every year the premiums went up and up, and so the companies cut benefits further and further.

There are a lot of reasons why costs go up. One of the biggest is because health insurance is largely a private, for-profit enterprise, and when you're operating for a profit, you need to take money out of the system for those profits. You also need to spend it on advertising and marketing. And on big executive salaries.

CptJake wrote: The latest CBO projections indicate they believe penalty payments from individuals and companies will be higher than the earlier projections showed (because it is cheaper to pay the penalty than to comply with the law, that should say something), companies, especially small businesses, currently view the restrictions and requirements of the ACA as reasons to not expand/hire new employees, and the cost to the country is higher than initially projected.

Some companies and business owners may view them that way. Do you have some figures on how many?

CptJake wrote:1. As it stands, if you purchase insurance, either on your own or through your employer, YOU are freely entering a transaction in which YOU perceive the cost you pay is worth the benefits you gain from having paid that cost. As such, it really does NOT matter who else benefits or does not benefit from that transaction. If YOU are not happy with it, no one currently forces you into the transaction.

It does matter. Because when people make the irresponsible decision not to get coverage, when they need help later, they come asking for it. Some help is given, and it costs everyone else.

CptJake wrote:2. Health care is not a right. It is a commodity/service someone provides.

No? "Life" isn't the first "inalienable right"? I'm pretty sure that it is. I'm pretty sure that the Hippocratic Oath also means doctors have generally sworn to disagree with you on this one.

CptJake wrote: The more money you are willing to pay (or the more debt you are willing to incur) does indeed help to define the level and types of care you have access to, even in places with Gov't Provided Healthcare. As a society we collectively believe ourselves rich enough to provide some level of basic care to those who need it and cannot provide for it on their own.

Yup. And we manifestly are. We're the richest country in the world, and dozens upon dozens of poorer countries do so.

CptJake wrote: There are programs in place for that (Medicaid for example). People who pay state and federal taxes are already putting into those programs.

Yes, and expanding who all are eligible for Medicaid is one of the biggest and most expensive parts of the ACA.

CptJake wrote: Frankly if someone is not covered by one of those programs and chooses not to purchase insurance, they are accepting risk. That should be allowed. There should also not be freedom from consequences. Using tax payer dollars to mitigate the consequences from bad choices encourages those bad choices.

Okay, so this sounds like you are okay with the idea of hospitals refusing emergency care at the ER, or making patients wait until they produce proof of coverage. I understand what you're saying, but I think this is obviously a choice between a greater and lesser evil, and to my mind and morals I know which one is the greater evil. Are you sure you disagree with me about which one?

CptJake wrote:3. The gov't systems are not and will never be the most efficient way to solve a problem (though often we accept the inefficiencies to ensure the problem is solved), and the inefficiencies cost everyone who pays taxes.

I disagree. Many problems can only or can most efficiently be solved only by government, because a given problem is not one that profit-minded industries have any interest in.

In the 1960s the challenge presented was winning the space race against the Soviet Union, and putting a man on the moon. The government was the most efficient and probably the ONLY way to make this happen.

The interstate highway system is another prime example of an achievement accomplished by government that private industry wouldn't have accomplished, but which has resulted in massive economic benefits to the nation.

Fire Departments were private, profit-making organizations in many parts of the US in the 19th century. They famously in some case ignored houses burning down because the owners weren't paying them. We wised up and fixed that.

The police are another socialized institution in the US. Do you think crime would be better addressed by private industry?

In my view healthcare is much more akin to police or fire services than to selling vacuum cleaners. It's providing critical services on which people's lives depend, and on which the health and safety of the community rely. In fact I think you've got the idea of efficiency in this case exactly backwards. Because when you make healthcare a for-profit enterprise you immediately guarantee that money will be taken out of the system, away from patient care, to serve as profit.

CptJake wrote:4. No one is currently denied basic emergency services, regardless of their (in)ability to pay. People don't generally die in the ER because treatment was refused. Yes, I know someone will point out some case where it has happened, those are very isolated and not indicative of a systemic/policy level problem. gak happens, no system is ever perfect.

This makes me think you haven't read my last couple of posts at all. I TOLD YOU THIS. What I also told you is that WE PAY FOR IT.

We pay for it in the form of higher costs at the hospital because they have to jack up the prices for everyone else to compensate for the people who can't pay. We pay for it in the form of higher insurance premiums when the hospitals pass on their higher costs to the insurers. We pay for it in the form of taxes when the hospitals get tax write-offs for care they're not able to get compensated for. WE'RE PAYING FOR THE ER CARE RIGHT NOW. We're just doing it the dumb, expensive, inefficient, counterproductive way. We could save lives and money if those people had regular coverage, got care before it turned into absurdly expensive ER care, and paid the hospitals.

CptJake wrote:1. Allow insurance providers to sell policies across state lines. Allow for 'bare minimum' policies. Encourage employers to allow new employees to bring their current policies if they choose to do so (perhaps paying the employee a portion of what the employer would have contributed to the employer sponsored policy and allowing the employee to buy their own with pre-tax dollars).

That's part of the idea of the insurance exchanges which are part of the ACA, isn't it? So you're agreeing with at least one part of the ACA.

CptJake wrote:2. Implement some type of tort reform. A lot of hospitals do a lot of tests and treatments not because they are medically required but because the hospital administration is scared of lawsuits. Personal example. My son crashed a car and went to the ER under his own power just to get 'checked out'. He was shaken up but not really hurt. No ambulance ride, no traumatic blood gushing injuries. They gave him an MRI 'just to be sure'. Several thousand dollars worth of 'being sure' because the hospital was scared if they didn't perform it they may be sued.

There are more factors here than just fear of being sued. The culture of healthcare in the US right now is one of "always provide the higher level of care"; it's easier for hospitals to get compensated by the insurance for doing so, and bringing in the dollars for those expensive procedures when someone CAN afford it and DOES have coverage helps them offset the poor people. Tort reform has been enacted all over the country. Malpractice insurance premiums NEVER go down in the states that enact it. The malpractice insurance companies just keep jacking the premiums. Tort reform is also an area where business lobbies are working very hard to take away your freedom to seek compesation for induries done to you. If you're interesting in protecting freedom, I strongly recommend that you check out the HBO documentary "Hot Coffee" for an easy and entertaining way to learn more. Here's an article about it:
http://www.idonotwanttobeyourlawyer.com/hot-coffee-hbos-must-see-documentary-about-tort-reform/

CptJake wrote:3. Crack down HARD on lazy, incompetent or corrupt Fed employees and on private companies that commit fraud against existing programs. As a tiny example, all those 'Scooter Store' and 'Testing Supply' commercials you see where the company files your Medicare/Medicaid paperwork for you. In many cases they are forcing us, the tax payer, to fund a service that is not actually needed because they know how to fill out paperwork to make it appear as if the service or product is needed. In other cases certain Fed employees either through laziness, incompetence or corruption approve these types of paperwork and worse, again costing tax payers. Frankly the fact that a whole class of businesses exists to take advantage of Federal programs is a great example as to why Fed porgrams are rarely a good answer.

I agree that fraud and waste absolutely needs to be weeded out. There's a bunch of stuff for that in the ACA. I guess that's another part of it you agree with.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2012_01/the_aca_actually_combats_fraud034488.php

Members of Congress of both parties often complain about fraud and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid (M&M), usually charging that the President is not doing enough to keep bad guys from stealing money from these vital programs.

Guess what? Thanks to provisions in the Affordable Care Act (ACA/ObamaCare) and to an unprecedented effort by the Obama Administration, more progress has been made in the past three years to combat health care fraud and abuse than ever before. There was a 68.9 percent increase in criminal health care fraud prosecutions from 2010 to 2011, and 2010 was already the highest ever.

McDonough helped work on the ACA’s provisions related to fraud prevention, and sketches out the areas in which the law is improving enforcement.

Part of the effort involves hyper-charged efforts to catch bad guys through the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT), and a bigger part involves re-engineering the system to keep them out. For example, prior to the ACA, if a bad guy got kicked out of one state Medicaid program for fraud, he got kicked out of one program; under the ACA, when he gets kicked out of one, and he gets kicked out of all them, including Medicare. That’s smart, and that’s just a tiny bit of what the ACA does on fraud & abuse.

CptJake wrote:5. Force individuals to be responsible for their actions. If I lead a lifestyle which includes high risk activities I should expect insurance companies to charge me higher premiums or even deny coverage for injuries or illnesses related to those high risk activities. If I choose as an individual to skip coverage and still engage in those activities I should reasonably expect to only receive rudimentary emergency care until I can show I have a mechanism to pay for more (to include ability to secure credit if that is what is needed). If that means a person doesn't get expensive fancy care, so be it. Freedom of choice is not freedom from consequences.

What's a high risk activity? How about working at a factory where you get exposed to carcinogens, and get cancer? Is that your fault, if you chose to work there to feed your family? How about if the factory concealed the health risks? Government health and safety regs are about the only things giving those workers a chance to avoid some of these risks in the first place. Even if the factory's on the up and up, how about if they just didn't know? Do you think mesothelioma is people's own fault and they should just suck it up?

Mannahnin wrote:Interesting. My perception is that both Republicans and Democrats (and most Independents, like me) have agreed for centuries that at least some care must be provided to people regardless of their ability to pay.

Indeed. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act was the act that mandated hospitals accept anyone, regardless of their ability to pay. It was signed into power in 1986... by Ronald Reagan.

The Insurance Mandate was conceived by far right think tank The Heritage Foundation, as a means of resolving the issue of uncovered people and reforming the system (because even to them the idea of simply not providing healthcare was an absolute non-starter).

I'm beginning to think all this whole, ridiculous mess shows is that you can't move reform forward by taking the other side's ideas and expecting them to go along with the thing they'd originally argued for. All they'll do is reflexively oppose the idea, and move further to the right to do so.

sebster wrote:
I'm beginning to think all this whole, ridiculous mess shows is that you can't move reform forward by taking the other side's ideas and expecting them to go along with the thing they'd originally argued for. All they'll do is reflexively oppose the idea, and move further to the right to do so.

Its symptomatic of the present US political culture, where compromise is the devil.

People will variously argue over whose fault that is, but ultimately its just about everyone's fault; Democrats, Republicans, their devotees (no one ever blames them, for some reason), and the people that throw their hands in the air while opting out.

It would have been nice if Obama and the Dems would have/could have actually put in a public option (single payer being a dreamlike fantasy), while they had their majorities in the house and senate. Instead they went compromise, and have been getting the hand of cooperation slapped away ever since.

Mannahnin wrote:It would have been nice if Obama and the Dems would have/could have actually put in a public option (single payer being a dreamlike fantasy), while they had their majorities in the house and senate. Instead they went compromise, and have been getting the hand of cooperation slapped away ever since.

Well, one thing that I think politicians and their advisers are still getting used to is that most people who really care actually don't want compromise, even if its beneficial to the interests of both sides. The trend towards partisan polarization has been pretty consistent since Reagan, but its only just now reaching its stride, and with the internet (among other things) around its harder to simply lie. Moreover, because web publishing is relatively easy, people can make a pretty penny via ad revenue by basically engaging in tabloid journalism with respect to political gaffes.

There are lots of issues in play, and many people presently studying why the parties became more polarized, and how we can pull them closer together. Personally, I think the issue is that no one has yet figured out how to pull liberal social issues together with conservative economic ones due to the existence of significant crossover between the two spheres (healthcare and environmentalism primarily). And that the parties will grow closer as the religious right loses political capital, given that they are essentially the only group really clinging to purely social issues of any sort. I guess the disappearance of gay rights and abortion rights activists would have a similar effect, but I don't see that happening, and it hasn't happened in culturally similar nations.

dogma wrote:Its symptomatic of the present US political culture, where compromise is the devil.

People will variously argue over whose fault that is, but ultimately its just about everyone's fault; Democrats, Republicans, their devotees (no one ever blames them, for some reason), and the people that throw their hands in the air while opting out.

Funnily enough, the US was until very recently seen as the place where bills could be passed with support from both sides, where members weren't expected to vote along the party line.

Compare that to countries with the Westminster system, where it makes the news whenever a single person crosses the floor to against a bill put up by his side.

But the US has changed very quickly, the antagonistic tone thrown out is all of a sudden so much nastier than we get over here, and the demand for absolute party loyalty has surpassed us. The treatment of Olympia Snowe, for instance, in just voting to have a bill brought out of committee (when her vote wasn't even needed to bring it out of committee, and she ended up voting against it in the senate anyway) was incredible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:It would have been nice if Obama and the Dems would have/could have actually put in a public option (single payer being a dreamlike fantasy), while they had their majorities in the house and senate. Instead they went compromise, and have been getting the hand of cooperation slapped away ever since.

The issue was that they ended up having to compromise with the blue dogs in their own party, who were running away from healthcare reform as fast as the Republicans could make up stupid nonsense about it.

Which, I think, came back to no Democratic actually going out and championing the bill. To this day no Democratic leader has actually gone out and sold the savings, expanded care and other benefits of the bill.

sebster wrote:The treatment of Olympia Snowe, for instance, in just voting to have a bill brought out of committee (when her vote wasn't even needed to bring it out of committee, and she ended up voting against it in the senate anyway) was incredible.

She's gotten a lot of flak for her stance of the birth control issue too.

Its a shame she's retiring, she was a great Senator.

dogma wrote:She's gotten a lot of flak for her stance of the birth control issue too.

Its a shame she's retiring, she was a great Senator.

And a welcome check on the lunatic set that's becoming more and more prominent in the Republican party.

sebster wrote:
And a welcome check on the lunatic set that's becoming more and more prominent in the Republican party.

If nothing else, the election to replace her looks to be close in terms of crazy, versus not crazy.

sebster wrote:Nor does reform mean a government take over. You can look elsewhere and find much more successful health sectors, built around a private sector operating under better incentives, with a strong level of baseline, government provided care.

Hell, the "Obamacare" system (originally proposed by the Republican party, so I bet you five bucks that if this was being argued five years ago we'd be seeing people who are decrying it instead support it) is specifically designed to compromise and allow the free market to continue.

Basically this PREVENTS a government takeover, because the only other vialbe alternative that's been suggested is the single government payer plan.

dogma wrote:

sebster wrote:
And a welcome check on the lunatic set that's becoming more and more prominent in the Republican party.

If nothing else, the election to replace her looks to be close in terms of crazy, versus not crazy.

Sadly, I have to say that the founders of the GOP would not recognize it (I have actually read some of the personal letters of the earliest Republicans to rise to the Federal level during the Buchanan administration). You know, being that they founded the party partially out of a desire to right social injustices rather then to inflict them out of bizarre notions of ideology or conservatism, and showed a willingness to at least try to work with those that disagreed with them on compromise.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Sadly, I have to say that the founders of the GOP would not recognize it (I have actually read some of the personal letters of the earliest Republicans to rise to the Federal level during the Buchanan administration). You know, being that they founded the party partially out of a desire to right social injustices rather then to inflict them out of bizarre notions of ideology or conservatism, and showed a willingness to at least try to work with those that disagreed with them on compromise.

Its fair to say that any ~160 year old political party wouldn't likely be recognized by its founders. I'm sure the founders of the Democratic Party wouldn't recognize it either, which is why the whole argument who freed the salves, or even who enacted the New Deal, is basically a joke.

That aside, I tend to believe (but have no evidence to support) the notion that as material conditions improve, minor political issues like ideology become more important by way of eliminating major issues like "Lots of people in our country are starving to death."

So since the thread has been derailed from the Supreme Court doing their job and determining a law is constitutional or not, I will chime in on the new yet related subject matter.

Who here pays out of pocket for minor medical expenses? You know, yearly check ups at the doctor, the occassional or ongoing generic prescription, or even more expensive procedures like xrays and outpatient surgeries?

I do. Let me tell you, our society is so brain washed to not know the difference between health insurance and healthcare, that people literally think they can not go see a doctor unless they have insurance.

Also, since I do pay out of pocket for these things, I shopped around for a doctor. Some offices could not answer the simple "how much if I pay in cash?" question. I found a doctor I like, I get my annual checkup and it runs me about $150.

I had a minor outpatient surgery awhile back, I shopped around for that as well, and got prices from reputable surgeons ranging from $800 to $5,000 I opted for the $800 and paid it off in a timely manner.

Eye Exam and glasses every couple years, $99

If I had paid for "health insurance" that would cover all those things, it would cost me $700-$800 a month. I have saved a lot of money going the cash route on this.

For health insurance, I have what used to be called Major Medical, but is now known as Catastrophic coverage. Basically it covers things like broken leg, chopped off a finger or hand, stroke, heart attack, cancer treatments, what have you. That costs about $150 a month.

When insurance is added to the mix, now a doctors office has to have a billing department that knows how to bill each insurance company correctly, this tacks on an extra cost, and the insurance companies are often mandated by local governments about what has to be covered on all plans, so this increases your premiums.

Most people have insurance provided through employers and pay about $150-300 a month, and the company is paying the other $400-1,000 depending on the plan.

Doctors offices that vary in price for procedure from $800 to $5,000 causes a problem in the insurance industry because they want it all even and will pay X amount. This screws up the market place, and increases the overall costs, because doctors will creep it up to they will eventually get paid more.

Patients rarely have any idea what a procedure costs, so they do not object to procedures that cost in the thousands of dollars, when it may not be needed. Doctors are under pressure to run a billion and one tests even if they are unlikely to help, because of medical malpractice insurance which they are all required to carry. Further driving up the costs of health insurance.

Basic public education math skills should help you determine what the best option is.

I am all for less "health insurance" and more "health care."

dogma wrote:
Its fair to say that any ~160 year old political party wouldn't likely be recognized by its founders. I'm sure the founders of the Democratic Party wouldn't recognize it either, which is why the whole argument who freed the salves, or even who enacted the New Deal, is basically a joke.

That aside, I tend to believe (but have no evidence to support) the notion that as material conditions improve, minor political issues like ideology become more important by way of eliminating major issues like "Lots of people in our country are starving to death."

You would be surprised on the Democratic Party, actually. Some of the original founders would have little trouble recognizing it, particularly if you count it's earliest incarnations. Espousing intellect and education over inherited wealth and position, eschewing big business in favor of a 'people centric' approach, adopting controversial positions on the role of government in people's lives, both financial and otherwise. They would, however, be horrified at the abandonment of the idea of limited government. (It should be pointed out though that opposition to 'big government' was one of the few things that almost every early politician agreed on. It was not really until the late 19th century that government really started to balloon due to the rapidly increasing size of the US).

I disagree. As people become more desperate, infighting along ideological lines can become fracture points in a society, causing it's collapse.

BaronIveagh wrote:
I disagree. As people become more desperate, infighting along ideological lines can become fracture points in a society, causing it's collapse.

In that instance there generally isn't an established government, or even any true political parties.

Look at Africa, there are plenty of groups that call themselves political parties, but they're really somewhere between armed militia and clans.

dogma wrote:
In that instance there generally isn't an established government, or even any true political parties.

Look at Africa, there are plenty of groups that call themselves political parties, but they're really somewhere between armed militia and clans.

Actually it happens when there is an established government and pressure gets to high as well. Look at the Yugoslav Wars. Once thing reach a certain tipping point, this sort of factionalism become inevitable.

In Yugoslavia's pseudo defense they were a fractured country doomed to failure to begin with.

People mock current attempts at nation building. Gotta say, we're doing it better now than the post-WWII world

Melissia wrote:

sebster wrote:Nor does reform mean a government take over. You can look elsewhere and find much more successful health sectors, built around a private sector operating under better incentives, with a strong level of baseline, government provided care.

Hell, the "Obamacare" system (originally proposed by the Republican party, so I bet you five bucks that if this was being argued five years ago we'd be seeing people who are decrying it instead support it) is specifically designed to compromise and allow the free market to continue.

Basically this PREVENTS a government takeover, because the only other vialbe alternative that's been suggested is the single government payer plan.

There is another step in between, with the option of baseline healthcare being guaranteed, and people able to go out and buy better healthcare plans from private insurers if they want (single payer means there is only government healthcare).

But I definitely agree that this plan could very easily have come out of a Republican government, and if it did then most of the people arguing that it's unconstitutional would be arguing that it is constitutional and vice versa.

It's kind of why the only result I don't want to see come out of the Supreme Court decision is a 5-4 split along party lines. That'd basically be the Supreme Court telling the country that it's now just a political body, no different to either house of government.

Yeah, even 6:3 would be better...

BaronIveagh wrote:Sadly, I have to say that the founders of the GOP would not recognize it (I have actually read some of the personal letters of the earliest Republicans to rise to the Federal level during the Buchanan administration). You know, being that they founded the party partially out of a desire to right social injustices rather then to inflict them out of bizarre notions of ideology or conservatism, and showed a willingness to at least try to work with those that disagreed with them on compromise.

There's been countless changes along the way, but basically the core changes that have defined how everything has ended up as it is today came from the South switching its vote over Civil Rights, and Reagan's showing how to capture the evangelical vote for the right wing (helped in large part by a broad drift of the evangelical community to the right, likely started with Billy Graham).

I just love showing these pictures because of how clear they make the switch in Southern voting patterns. Here's an immensely popular Republican candidate, Eisenhower, who in 1956 wins the whole of the country except the South, who would never vote Republican because of the Civil War.



And here's the vote from 1964, where a popular enough candidate in Johnson beat Goldwater, running on a segregationist platform. Johnson won everything but the South. Up until then the South had turned out for the Democrats, and since then the South has been a stronghold for Republican votes.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:Also, since I do pay out of pocket for these things, I shopped around for a doctor. Some offices could not answer the simple "how much if I pay in cash?" question. I found a doctor I like, I get my annual checkup and it runs me about $150.

I agree with your overall point, and think a broad review of the healthcare system in the US should consider making a large number of small scale treatments as user pays, and encourage the user to chase the lowest price.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:In Yugoslavia's pseudo defense they were a fractured country doomed to failure to begin with.

People mock current attempts at nation building. Gotta say, we're doing it better now than the post-WWII world

Well, it's funny how it works, though. Germany was a collection of individual states, with many tied to Austria more than they were tied to the other Germanic states. Yet they were unified, and had little internal strife. Even in to the middle of the 19th century French wasn't the most common language in France. India to this day has hundreds of languages, and is only one nation because Britain declared it such.

I'm not saying what happened in Yugoslavia didn't come in large part from gluing a bunch of countries together and expecting them to get along, but at the same time it's funny how often that's actually worked.

But yeah, modern efforts are at least better than what they used to be. Which is faint praise, but praise none the less.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:Yeah, even 6:3 would be better...

If it's going to go down, it's better that it at least looks like the constitution decided the matter, and not partisan politics.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Actually it happens when there is an established government and pressure gets to high as well. Look at the Yugoslav Wars. Once thing reach a certain tipping point, this sort of factionalism become inevitable.

Yugoslavia is a bad example because the factions predated the government by quite some time, centuries in some cases.

sebster wrote:It's kind of why the only result I don't want to see come out of the Supreme Court decision is a 5-4 split along party lines. That'd basically be the Supreme Court telling the country that it's now just a political body, no different to either house of government.

Which is why I'm reasonably confident a 5-4 split is likely. We shall continue to get the government we deserve.

Ouze wrote:

sebster wrote:It's kind of why the only result I don't want to see come out of the Supreme Court decision is a 5-4 split along party lines. That'd basically be the Supreme Court telling the country that it's now just a political body, no different to either house of government.

Which is why I'm reasonably confident a 5-4 split is likely. We shall continue to get the government we deserve.

I suspect that even a 6:3 will be regarded as politically motivated by many, with the conservative swing being regarded as a RINO.