I think the health care issue highlights the real choice Democrats will need to make as the field narrows down to, say, Sanders and Biden: Do they go for a major transformation of the country's economic model, or for a more moderate course aimed at fine-tuning the existing model more to their liking?
The New York Times took the courageous approach of endorsing one from each camp.
If only the republicans would be brave enough to offer a suggestion in this area. But they haven't offered any sort of actual suggestion on healthcare since mitt romney suggested something shockingly similar to the ACA...
Which Deval Patrick is now trying to claim credit for.Originally Posted by jp1
One nice thing about being Republican is that “leave people alone” is a perfectly acceptable default position.
While I think the both major parties have some work to do deciding what sort of party they want to be, the primary season makes that decision a more immediate (or perhaps less avoidable) issue for the Democrats.
I have a few of those. But, rather than blaming them for their addictions and telling them they are undeserving of my tax dollars, I recognize that addictions are diseases that can and should be treated. I'm grateful for their access to all kinds of resources that can help them, and I recognized that helping them will decrease the burden on society, not increase it. If they refuse those resources, I can't do anything about that, but I can thank God and the powers-that-be that enable them to make that choice.
Alan, I am very sorry for your loss.
ETA: I may have gone off on a tangent. In terms of personal choice to pay for "sin tax" over copays, that doesn't negate the need to give everyone equal access to healthcare. It's not an issue of "oh, you can afford it--just cut back on x, y, or z"--it's an issue of a system that is wildly inefficient. This crazy profit-motivated system has given us a system that costs twice as much as all other developed nations and gives us half the results.
Last edited by catherine; 1-28-20 at 9:25am.
"Do any human beings ever realize life while they live it--every, every minute?" Emily Webb, Our Town
www.silententry.wordpress.com
Sanders may use deficits as something other than pure game playing, which is all they are to the Republican party, they are a means and many will say a weapon used in wealth distribution period. Republicans don't actually care about deficits, they care about giving tax breaks to the well off and using the resulting deficits as a reason/excuse to then cut social programs, they are a means of changing the distribution of income in a highly unequal direction, to the point of creating mass poverty as a result (not the only cause but). And that's the entire of their policy.
I mean Republicans themselves don't actually reduce deficits one may have noticed after decades of this. There are strategic reasons of deficit spending that make a lot of sense like trying to spend out of the Great Depression, and a Sanders might, but that's not game playing.
Other than that, we probably would not get the whole of Sander's agenda, it's very hard, we would at least get good policy on the margins which would be a very good thing, that is not intended to destroy government (with bad staffing etc). It would be a remarkable change in itself.
----
As for the flakey relatives, I don't know what the weird compulsion is to focus on them, rather than the saintly relatives who may be spending themselves into bankruptcy trying to save them (Catherine, ok not bankrupt, but has taken the hit). Alan would have probably given the copay had he known (ok a copay isn't going to bankrupt one unless one is already down and out, but clearly that's just an inexpensive example). A social safety net helps people not have to destroy themselves trying to save some wayward relative who darn it they may love. It helps everyone. The relative may not have a great life, ok well they are messed in the head and all right, they are not examples of self-actualization to put it mildly, HOWEVER they won't starve, die from lack of healthcare, sleep on the streets is all. The basic minimum.
Trees don't grow on money
Also, back then, so much of the world was still rebuilding from WWII, we didn't have conflicts on multiple fronts. (we still had Korea, which a recent, former president, made a call to check on a neighbor I has growing up, who was then found after being MIA)While that is a convenient phrase, it is important to look at the effective tax rates back then, not the notional ones. The tax code was so different that even though the top bracket was 91%-ish, there were enough shelters and such that the *effective* rate wasn't particularly high.
We had a much different standard of living (one car, size of houses, etc), and a lot more savings, from all the money not spent/earned, during the war. So, not really sure the "golden age" is really a fair comparison.
Interesting, because I too believe that deficits matter, but I'm so jaded that i assume a bloated spend-like-there's-no-tomorrow budget has just become status quo for a nation of, for and by spoiled children, D's and R's alike. If "I" am going to spend like there's no tomorrow, let it be on the welfare of human beings in general, and not prized specimens.
I do tend to agree with the sentiment that not all that much is going to happen if Bernie gets elected, but ... hey. In the last five years, the word socialist has gone from an evil-eye inciting epithet to a measured consideration.
All the sore losers are coming out of the woodwork. First Hillary, now John Kerry was heard saying he may have to jump into the race to stop Bernie if Biden tanks. The establishment is quaking in its boots.
In truth, Hillary has a right to be sore, as the election was demonstrably stolen from her--and she won anyway, except for the anachronistic electoral college.
That said, it's time for a new vision, so I wish these ghosts of elections past (looking at you, Biden) would just go away.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
