Health tab to hit $4.6 trillion in 2020

One out of every five dollars in our economy.
$13,710 for every man, woman and child.

Nine years away.

Your taxes WILL go up, even if we do nothing in the way of reform.

This is as close to statistical certainty as it gets.

----------------------------------------------------

Quote:

---

WASHINGTON (AP) — The nation's health care tab is on track to hit $4.6 trillion in 2020, accounting for about $1 of every $5 in the economy, government number crunchers estimate in a report out Thursday.

How much is that? Including government and private money, health care spending in 2020 will average $13,710 for every man, woman and child, says Medicare's Office of the Actuary.

By comparison, U.S. health care spending this year is projected to top $2.7 trillion, or about $8,650 per capita, roughly $1 of $6 in the economy. Most of that spending is for care for the sickest people.

The report from Medicare economists and statisticians is an annual barometer of a trend that many experts say is unsustainable but doesn't seem to be slowing down. A political compromise over the nation's debt and deficits might succeed in tapping the brakes on health care, but polarized lawmakers have been unable to deliver a deal.

The analysis found that President Barack Obama's health care overhaul would only be a modest contributor to growing costs, even though an additional 30 million people who would be otherwise uninsured stand to gain coverage.

The main reasons that health care spending keeps growing faster than the economy are the high cost of medical innovations and an aging society that consumes increasing levels of service.

Many of the newly insured people under the health care law will be younger and healthier. As a result, they are expected to use more doctor visits and prescription drugs and relatively less of pricey hospital care. Health care spending will jump by 8 percent in 2014, when the law's coverage expansion kicks in. But over the 2010-2020 period covered by the estimate, the average yearly growth in health care spending will be only 0.1 percentage point higher than without Obama's overhaul.

Part of the reason for that optimistic prognosis is that cuts and cost controls in the health care law start to bite down late in the decade. However, the same nonpartisan Medicare experts who produced Thursday's estimate have previously questioned whether that austerity will be politically sustainable if hospitals and other providers start going out of business as a result. The actuary's office is responsible for long-range cost estimates.

The report found that health care spending in 2010 grew at a historically low rate of 3.9 percent, partly because of the sluggish economy. That will change as the economy shakes off the lingering effects of the recession.

Government, already the dominant player because of Medicare and Medicaid, will become even more important. By 2020, federal, state and local government health care spending will account for just under half the total tab, up from 45 percent currently. As the health care law's coverage expansion takes effect, "health care financing is anticipated to further shift toward governments," the report said.

Estimates from previous years had projected that the government share would already be at the 50 percent mark, but the actuary's office changed its method for making the complex calculations. Under the previous approach, some private payments such as worker's compensation insurance had been counted in the government column. Technical accuracy — not political pressure — was behind that change, said Stephen Heffler, one of the experts who work on the estimates.

Separately, another new report finds that the United States continues to spend far more on health care than other economically developed countries. The study by the Commonwealth Fund found that U.S. health care spending per person in 2008 was more than double the median — or midpoint— for other leading economies. Although survival rates for some cancers were higher in the U.S., the report found that quality of care overall was not markedly better.

The Medicare actuary's estimates for health care spending are published in the journal Health Affairs

---

http://news.yahoo.com/govt-health-ta...--------------

Many who rail against socialised medicine complain about "rationed health care" and "death panels".

We have rationing in this country, by ability to pay.

We already have a socialisation of the costs, through all sorts of free-market cost shifting. It hides the true costs, as they get buried in increased prices for everything we buy, and services we pay for.

We are going to be faced with some tough calls, as in how much to pay. The alternative will be horror stories of neglected elderly, some of which are starting to emerge already.

It will get MUCH worse, and the only realistic solution I see is a single payor health care system, with the government acting as a giant insurance company. Otherwise I think costs are going to spiral out of control.

I would rather have the costs out front and in the open through direct taxes, than through a thousand little cuts of added costs to everything we buy. Both are less than perfect solutions, but a central clearinghouse for the risks benefits from an economy of scale that tens of thousands of insurance companies, HMO's and hospital systems can't hope to match.

The direct taxes will allow us to address systemic problems because they are much easier to track, and provide feedback for.

My two cents.

The sick-care division of the UCA vampire-squid is sucking wealth out of citizenry.
There's no way to stop it.

Just slowing it down will cause the sick-care industry to find other ways to screw us, just like swipe fees lost by banks will be recouped in fees and billing "errors" elsewhere.

There really is nothing to be done. Abandon Hope, All Ye Lower 95%.

But but the Democrats passed their healthcare overhaul and fixed everything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnakeBoy

But but the Democrats passed their healthcare overhaul and fixed everything.

---

Hell no, they didn't go nearly far enough to fix everything.

A good start, but too many half-assed solutions, like always, because of GOP foot stomping.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnakeBoy

But but the Democrats passed their healthcare overhaul and fixed everything.

---

You Lie

UCA blocked all the major reforms that would have "bent the cost curve down", while ensuring themselves 40M taxpayer-subsidized clients.

what was blocked?

hardcore public option for everybody.

killing Medicare Advantage

killing the Repug rule blocking the Feds from negotiating volume prices from BigPharma and device mfrs.

killing the tax expenditure of employer health plan benefits.

etc, etc.

Uh, anyone think this is a GOOD thing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Hell no, they didn't go nearly far enough to fix everything.

A good start, but too many half-assed solutions, like always, because of GOP foot stomping.

---

Can't pin that one on the GOP. They weren't involved in writing the bill and none of them voted for it. The bill we got is a 100% democratic creation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Can't pin that one on the GOP. They weren't involved in writing the bill and none of them voted for it. The bill we got is a 100% democratic clusterfuck.

---

fify

I'm not a fan of ACA but what was in place before wasn't anything to write home about either, tbh.

The saddest part is that this was a great opportunity to actually do some radical change (i.e.:single payor) and it was wasted. Then again, that vote demonstrated just how much of the same GOP and democrats are.

If you really want to tackle the problem of rising healthcare costs, find an answer to these two questions.

1. What are we going to do about a system where everyone gets treated, but not everyone is paying for it? (answer needs to include how we're going to handle illegals)

2. What are we going to do about an American population that is both A) aging and B) prefers to rely on the healthcare system to protect them from the consequences of living unhealthy lifestyles as opposed to actually changing their lifestyles?

As for single payor, given the mess that our single payor system for seniors called medicare is, why should anyone expect a single payor system for everyone to be anything other than an even bigger mess? All a single payor system does is shift the costs of those who can't afford coverage from the insured to the taxpayers, filtered through what can only be an incredibly inefficient federal bureaucracy. For all the faults our current system has, I don't see how we come out ahead.

Quote:

---

All a single payor system does is shift the costs of those who can't afford coverage from the insured to the taxpayers, filtered through what can only be an incredibly inefficient federal bureaucracy.

---

That's what's already happening, only it filters through an apparently incredibly efficient bureaucracies of public and private health care providers and insurance companies.

"Can't pin that one on the GOP"

You Lie

Barry and Dems made concession after concession after concession for the Repugs to weaken the reform and enrich the UCA, and still the Repugs didn't vote for it.

Same for TARP. Repugs started it under dupbay, and then voted against it under Barry, so they could tell their ignorant base that they were against it, when in fact TARP was a Repug idea that Pres McLiar and his Treasury would have done the same bailout.

If healthcare is too expensive we ought to get around, at some point, to actually talking about the COST of healthcare, and not just how we are going to pay the price.

Most other countries have solved this most basic of issues with a big, strong, government hand: Price controls on what healthcare providers can charge.

Doctors in Germany, for instance, make essentially the same income as German school teachers. (Just got back from there)

Germans are covered by private insurance (also heavily regulated).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 101A

If healthcare is too expensive we ought to get around, at some point, to actually talking about the COST of healthcare, and not just how we are going to pay the price.

Most other countries have solved this most basic of issues with a big, strong, government hand: Price controls on what healthcare providers can charge.

Doctors in Germany, for instance, make essentially the same income as German school teachers. (Just got back from there)

Germans are covered by private insurance (also heavily regulated).

---

Does anyone think doctors and teachers should earn the same pay?

Germans, apparently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

All a single payor system does is shift the costs of those who can't afford coverage from the insured to the taxpayers, filtered through what can only be an incredibly inefficient federal bureaucracy. For all the faults our current system has, I don't see how we come out ahead.

---

We're already shifting the burden to the taxpayers in a major way. 1 in 10 americans don't have a job, and no coverage. They get sick the same. The elderly, who use the system the most for obvious reasons are already dumped by private insurance to the government. Add to that the undocumented and those that think they're too smart and don't need insurance, but have an accident or get sick just the same. The reality here is that we're already shouldering a lot. Might aswell pick up the rest, have Medicare control pricing with suppliers, like most other government-run services, raise some taxes if you have to, and provide the service.

If you don't want to go that far, then use a hybrid system (which I stated is my favorite). Have the government run some clinics and hospitals that provide 'basic' care (which is the basically the bulk of care), and let private insurance provide a supplemental service for the high end stuff, or concierge type of service, for the people that can afford it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 101A

If healthcare is too expensive we ought to get around, at some point, to actually talking about the COST of healthcare, and not just how we are going to pay the price.

Most other countries have solved this most basic of issues with a big, strong, government hand: Price controls on what healthcare providers can charge.

Doctors in Germany, for instance, make essentially the same income as German school teachers. (Just got back from there)

Germans are covered by private insurance (also heavily regulated).

---

And you're spot on. The difference here is that a lot of these countries view healthcare as an investment in the country (a sort of right to basic care for a better society), so they tell providers that they're in this not just for the buck, but you're also going to have to give up some dough for the benefit of the entire country. In a way, that's the reason the comparison with teachers is more than just apt. Granted, it's a mentality that will probably not work well with some people here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Germans, apparently.

---

Implement that here and watch med school enrollment plummet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Implement that here and watch med school enrollment plummet.

---

That's ok. There's plenty of indian doctors willing to come over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Implement that here and watch med school enrollment plummet.

---

Why are there still Germans applying to medical school?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Why are there still Germans applying to medical school?

---

Or Americans willing to be teachers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

That's ok. There's plenty of indian doctors willing to come over.

---

Great

Hell, let's just continue down the road of scorched Earth economic policies laid out by progressives. There are already symptoms of that cancer showing up in europe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

"Can't pin that one on the GOP"

You Lie

Barry and Dems made concession after concession after concession for the Repugs to weaken the reform and enrich the UCA, and still the Repugs didn't vote for it.

---

Right. I'm sure that's exactly how it went down.

Democrats: "We want you to vote for our healthcare bill."

Republicans: "No fucking way."

Democrats: "What if we gave you all these concessions?"

Republicans: "Fuck you."

Democrats, huddled in a room amongst themselves: "Even though we don't need the Republicans in order to get a bill passed, is everyone okay if we just make a bunch of concessions to Republicans?"

Republicans, open door: "Go find a death panel you fucking socialists!"

Democrats, once again among themselves: "Great idea, we definitely need to make concessions to the republicans."

Bill passes, with no republicans voting for it.

Democrats: "Crap. This bill sucks. This is all the Republicans fault."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Hell, let's just continue down the road of scorched Earth economic policies laid out by progressives. There are already symptoms of that cancer showing up in europe.

---

Without Googling some douchebag's blog, what specific symptoms are showing up in the health care system in Germany?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Hell, let's just continue down the road of scorched Earth economic policies laid out by progressives. There are already symptoms of that cancer showing up in europe.

---

Depends on which part of Europe. Some countries are doing well (i.e.: Germany). A little closer to home, how bout them Canadians? How are their faring with their healthcare costs? You would think they're swimming in debt... you know, like the US?

Canada has shown that left or right has little to do with it. It's about being serious about addressing issues, and putting country over party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Without Googling some douchebag's blog, what specific symptoms are showing up in the health care system in Germany?

---

I'm not just talking about health care (no Googling required)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Why are there still Germans applying to medical school?

---

Because they don't need to get in $150,000 worth of debt to do it there?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

I'm not just talking about health care (no Googling required)

---

Sorry, that's what the thread is about, and we were comparing it to Germany. If you don't know, just say so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

Because they don't need to get in $150,000 worth of debt to do it there?

---

Bingo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

That's what's already happening, only it filters through an apparently incredibly efficient bureaucracies of public and private health care providers and insurance companies.

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

We're already shifting the burden to the taxpayers in a major way. 1 in 10 americans don't have a job, and no coverage. They get sick the same. The elderly, who use the system the most for obvious reasons are already dumped by private insurance to the government. Add to that the undocumented and those that think they're too smart and don't need insurance, but have an accident or get sick just the same. The reality here is that we're already shouldering a lot. Might aswell pick up the rest, have Medicare control pricing with suppliers, like most other government-run services, raise some taxes if you have to, and provide the service.

If you don't want to go that far, then use a hybrid system (which I stated is my favorite). Have the government run some clinics and hospitals that provide 'basic' care (which is the basically the bulk of care), and let private insurance provide a supplemental service for the high end stuff, or concierge type of service, for the people that can afford it.

---

We're still left with the fundamental problem of everybody getting treated and not everybody having to pay. So all we're doing is just shuffling which inefficient system we want to funnel costs of the uninsured through. It's not a solution, it's doing something for the sake of being able to say we're doing something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Sorry, that's what the thread is about, and we were comparing it to Germany. If you don't know, just say so.

Bingo.

---

What kind of health care system do the broke european countries have?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

What kind of health care system do the broke european countries have?

---

You really want to avoid talking about Germany at all costs don't you? :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

You really want to avoid talking about Germany at all costs don't you? :lol

---

Not t all. Do you want to talk about the massive spending cuts they had to make?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Not t all. Do you want to talk about the massive spending cuts they had to make?

---

Did you Google them?

Completely anecdotal evidence re healthcare and Germany.

Last month our exchange student's grandparents came to visit him/us from Germany. His grandmother had some heart problems here, and went to the hospital.

According to grandparents far and away the best hospital/care they have ever received. Were stunned at the politeness, efficiency, speed and thoroughness of the experience.

and here's a cool website with all kinds of statistics. The one in the link shows per capita GOVERNMENT expenditures on healthcare. The U.S. government, while covering about a half of its population STILL spends more per capita (whole population) than Canada, Germany, Great Britain, etc.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 101A

and here's a cool website with all kinds of statistics. The one in the link shows per capita GOVERNMENT expenditures on healthcare. The U.S. government, while covering about a half of its population STILL spends more per capita (whole population) than Canada, Germany, Great Britain, etc.....

---

link?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

We're still left with the fundamental problem of everybody getting treated and not everybody having to pay. So all we're doing is just shuffling which inefficient system we want to funnel costs of the uninsured through. It's not a solution, it's doing something for the sake of being able to say we're doing something.

---

Uh? What I proposed would get rid of insurance for basic care. It would be taxpayer funded, much like medicare. As 101A pointed out, we already cover half of the population (with a bias towards the ones that need more care, the elderly). So we're already shouldering the bulk of the burden. Pick up the other, less risky half, and simply apply price/profits caps on providers, like most any other nation with a similar system already does. You might need to raise taxes a bit to compensate, but then again it would be offset by what insured people already get off their checks for insurance coverage.

If some people want and can afford a higher tech, or concierge type of service, they can go to a private insurer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 101A

According to grandparents far and away the best hospital/care they have ever received. Were stunned at the politeness, efficiency, speed and thoroughness of the experience.

---

I wouldn't doubt it. Did she had to pay out of pocket though? Or was this covered by traveler's insurance?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

Uh? What I proposed would get rid of insurance for basic care. It would be taxpayer funded, much like medicare. As 101A pointed out, we already cover half of the population (with a bias towards the ones that need more care, the elderly). So we're already shouldering the bulk of the burden. Pick up the other, less risky half, and simply apply price/profits caps on providers, like most any other nation with a similar system already does. You might need to raise taxes a bit to compensate, but then again it would be offset by what insured people already get off their checks for insurance coverage.

If some people want and can afford a higher tech, or concierge type of service, they can go to a private insurer.

---

Apparantely I'm missing something. If the goal is to lower costs, what have we accomplished if we've lowered someone's premiums but their taxes went up?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Apparantely I'm missing something. If the goal is to lower costs, what have we accomplished if we've lowered someone's premiums but their taxes went up?

---

You're missing the price control part. When the suppliers can only negotiate with one huge care provider they can 1) sell in bulk and reduce prices and 2) have to find a way to accommodate their prices to what the care provider is willing to pay or work with a small and niche private system (or get out of business).
The VA already has a somewhat similar system in place with mandatory % rebates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

You're missing the price control part. When the suppliers can only negotiate with one huge care provider they can 1) sell in bulk and reduce prices and 2) have to find a way to accommodate their prices to what the care provider is willing to pay or work with a small and niche private system (or get out of business).
The VA already has a somewhat similar system in place with mandatory % rebates.

---

And the only way to accomplish that is to force everybody into a government controlled monopoly over an industry that's soon to be 1/5 of our economy?

Not liking the sound of that.

German doctors went on strike when they were asked to work a 42 hour week instead of a 38 hour week. Good luck getting an doctors appointment here if they reduce their work week to 38 hours.

"to force everybody into a government controlled monopoly over an industry that's soon to be 1/5 of our economy"

not everybody, just, as a start, all patients under Medicare/Medicaid/VA, for which the govt would be single-buyer and force volume discounts on BigPharma, just like single-buyers in socialist countries with national health systems for onto BigPharma, making BigPharma drugs much cheaper in socialist countries.

Just another case where Human-Americans are "free" to be fucked by unregulated, avaricious capitalism, while the socialist countries fuck BigPharma.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnakeBoy

German doctors went on strike when they were asked to work a 42 hour week instead of a 38 hour week. Good luck getting an doctors appointment here if they reduce their work week to 38 hours.

---

How many hours do they work taking appointments now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

And the only way to accomplish that is to force everybody into a government controlled monopoly over an industry that's soon to be 1/5 of our economy?

Not liking the sound of that.

---

We're shouldering half of that 1/5 of the economy with taxpayers money already. And it's the reason cost is astronomical compared to other countries.
If you have any better idea for lowering prices that doesn't include price control, let me know.

what's wrong with "price control"?

You people seem to have no problem with rip-off sick-care prices killing 1000s of Human-Americans every year because the poor can't afford to get health care soon enough, aka, free-market death panels.

Note that life expectancy of Human-Americans after age 65 compares very well with social democracies, but below 65, including infant mortalities, Human-Americans mortality is way down the international league tables.

WTH magic occurs at age 65? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

How many hours do they work taking appointments now?

---

It varies. I think around 30 hours for scheduled office appointments would be around average for primary car physicians. Much less for a surgeon.

Do you think scheduled appointments are all that comprises a physicians work week?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnakeBoy

It varies. I think around 30 hours for scheduled office appointments would be around average for primary car physicians. Much less for a surgeon.

Do you think scheduled appointments are all that comprises a physicians work week?

---

Did I say that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Hell no, they didn't go nearly far enough to fix everything.

A good start, but too many half-assed solutions, like always, because of GOP foot stomping.

---

Well you should learn to be happy with it because it's all your going to get. No democrat president will take on the issue again after the ass kicking both Clinton and Obama have recieved for trying to take on the issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Did I say that?

---

You narrowed your question to "taking appointments".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnakeBoy

You narrowed your question to "taking appointments".

---

Exactly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Exactly.

---

Do you think scheduled appointments are all that comprises a physicians work week?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnakeBoy

No democrat president will take on the issue again after the ass kicking both Clinton and Obama have recieved for trying to take on the issue.

---

exactly. The UCA sick-care corps (and their investors) will make damn sure, as they've done to Clinton and Barry, they NOBODY touches their cheese.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

exactly. The UCA sick-care corps (and their investors) will make damn sure, as they've done to Clinton and Barry, they NOBODY touches their cheese.

---

Look at the bright side, you have one issue you can bitch and moan about for the rest of your life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnakeBoy

Do you think scheduled appointments are all that comprises a physicians work week?

---

Did I say that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Did I say that?

---

Did I say you did?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnakeBoy

Did I say you did?

---

Then why did you ask?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Then why did you ask?

---

Why didn't you answer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

link?

---

Sorry:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/he...tional-dollars

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

I wouldn't doubt it. Did she had to pay out of pocket though? Or was this covered by traveler's insurance?

---

Her credit card included medical insurance coverage when traveling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnakeBoy

Why didn't you answer?

---

Didn't seem necessary tbh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 101A

Sorry:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/he...tional-dollars

---

Thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Didn't seem necessary tbh.

---

Congrats on answering a question. Keep working on it...baby steps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnakeBoy

Congrats on answering a question. Keep working on it...baby steps.

---

I answer them quite often. Thanks for confirming it wasn't necessary at all. Keep working on one that's relevant...baby steps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Keep working on one that's relevant...baby steps.

---

Nah, I'm fine with asking irrelevant questions in response to an irrelevant question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnakeBoy

Nah, I'm fine with asking irrelevant questions in response to an irrelevant question.

---

It was quite relevant. Yours need work...baby steps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

I'm not a fan of ACA but what was in place before wasn't anything to write home about either, tbh.

The saddest part is that this was a great opportunity to actually do some radical change (i.e.:single payor) and it was wasted. Then again, that vote demonstrated just how much of the same GOP and democrats are.

---

7-8 years later, still feel that way?

We may get a major party pushing for universal health insurance in 2020.

"The saddest part is that this was a great opportunity to actually do some radical change (i.e.:single payor) and it was wasted."

there was NEVER a great opportunity for radical change, improvement

BigPharma, BigInsurance etc "allowed" weak ACA to pass, only because they all got paid $10Bs more, lost nothing.

Any true Medicare for All will be gutted by the same crowd, if not actually blocked.

Americans get whatever the oligarchy allows them to get, and the oligarchy ALWAYS get paid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

7-8 years later, still feel that way?

We may get a major party pushing for universal health insurance in 2020.

---

I do. I think it will be used as a campaign tool, and then if they manage to win back the presidency, they'll back down. Either coz they don't control Congress, or because it will be another 'consensual' law that doesn't address cost, etc.

Trump might be a terrible president and the GOP a terrible party, but the democrats are far from inspiring any kind of confidence. Both sides play gotcha politics, chicanery, and a reform like that requires seriousness, compassion, planning, negotiation... I don't see it.

I don't mean to single her out to be mean, I bring her up because she's the epitome of idiocy in this matter... as long as there are dumb, uneducated, uncultured people like rmt around that deal largely in dogma, it's going to be extremely difficult to get serious reform in those areas. They're just looking for a soundbite or an excuse to pull out the pompoms and vote against their own interests. I've disagreed with a lot of people, but at the same time had good, thoughtful conversations about this topic throughout the years, and it's not that tough to find some common ground. But Congress (and politics in general) are not in the business of reasoning or serving their constituents these days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

I do. I think it will be used as a campaign tool, and then if they manage to win back the presidency, they'll back down. Either coz they don't control Congress, or because it will be another 'consensual' law that doesn't address cost, etc.

Trump might be a terrible president and the GOP a terrible party, but the democrats are far from inspiring any kind of confidence. Both sides play gotcha politics, chicanery, and a reform like that requires seriousness, compassion, planning, negotiation... I don't see it.

---

there seem to be signs what you are saying is right:



Close

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D1GToMvUcAIKtpO.png:large

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

I do. I think it will be used as a campaign tool, and then if they manage to win back the presidency, they'll back down. Either coz they don't control Congress, or because it will be another 'consensual' law that doesn't address cost, etc.

Trump might be a terrible president and the GOP a terrible party, but the democrats are far from inspiring any kind of confidence. Both sides play gotcha politics, chicanery, and a reform like that requires seriousness, compassion, planning, negotiation... I don't see it.

---

I sadly concur. I keep mulling over moving to one of the social democracies. The optimist says to stick around and fight it out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

I sadly concur. I keep mulling over moving to one of the social democracies. The optimist says to stick around and fight it out.

---

move, cause the fight is "pre-lost"