The Democratic Candidates
Comments
-
It means I'll remember that when evaluating your opinion. Seems straightforward.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Please elaborate.mrussel1 said:
So zero. Got it. I'll keep that in mind.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Two stepcats.mrussel1 said:
How many children do you have?Spiritual_Chaos said:
It is a most valid example.cincybearcat said:
I think you need to learn to read and understand. It's like talking to a child waiting for their turn to speak next. You make no fucking sense.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Doesn't seem much has been that moved forward at all?cincybearcat said:
Yeah cause the political climate is sooooo good this way. Moderates are for moving forward. Just not only in the way 1 party thinks.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Just giving some context.cincybearcat said:
When did it become about just posting “it’s not the same” and all the “false equivalencies” bullshit?Spiritual_Chaos said:
Well, one side is shifting to "we should make a better society - look at how much better other countries are doing, we're been doing it wrong. oops" and the other side shifted to "we are awful, racist people and here: we give you Donald Trump"cincybearcat said:dignin said:
I believe Warren and Sanders are talking to those people.The Juggler said:cincybearcat said:
I’m more concerned.The Juggler said:I'm less confident about these democrats' chances than I was a month ago.
Mostly because
1) I now think Biden is a terrible candidate. Never liked the guy but thought he could win. He seems tired and like he doesn’t want to be there.
2) Dems keep moving left, which is away from me and moderates. So even if they win, I’m not going to like the result.
3) it seems like it’s a Biden/Sanders/Warren race at the moment at that is about as bad as it could get for me.
But yeah, overall, pretty disappointing if you're a moderate. They barely spent any time talking about the voters they need to win those most important 12-15 states last night.
But I do agree, if you are a moderate, the shift in the Democratic party would be disappointing.
The shift in both parties. Republicans just started sooner
So, its not the same.
Having kids die in cages and not stopping the gun-violence epidemic VS a green new deal and wanting citizens to actually live
Im simply saying each party is moving more towards their extremes. Each party moving away from the moderates in their party or the moderate independents. I’m not comparing policies.
Maybe it's time to leave the "moderates" behind and whatever their reasons are for staying "moderates" if some change is actually to happen - for the american people and the world.
Are you still allowed to beat your kids over there?
One example, I bet (just a theory) would have been gone if the US would have allowed itself to lean more left (as in e.g classic social democratic) through the years. And I bet the Warrens and the Bernies of the US would push for that being made illegal at a faster pace, than moderates while kids keep being beaten legally.
(And now I'm speaking of american moderates, and not the Swedish type of centrists. Which would be a bit more left-leaning (Social-liberal) with our political spectrum not being tilted as far right and as much focus on egocentrism.)
So why be a "moderate", when you are free to not be one and can have a look of your country. Would be my question. The world is burning.
I'm talking about the parties moving to their poles...away from the middle. You "Do you beat your kids"
Don't know why you edited your post to remove the part about you thinking I should be banned for my "nonsense" and telingl me to "fuck off".
But I guess that is a positive that you did change it.
Of if you are in your snarky mood. No need.0 -
What has having kids or not anything to do with my opinion?mrussel1 said:
It means I'll remember that when evaluating your opinion. Seems straightforward.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Please elaborate.mrussel1 said:
So zero. Got it. I'll keep that in mind.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Two stepcats.mrussel1 said:
How many children do you have?Spiritual_Chaos said:
It is a most valid example.cincybearcat said:
I think you need to learn to read and understand. It's like talking to a child waiting for their turn to speak next. You make no fucking sense.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Doesn't seem much has been that moved forward at all?cincybearcat said:
Yeah cause the political climate is sooooo good this way. Moderates are for moving forward. Just not only in the way 1 party thinks.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Just giving some context.cincybearcat said:
When did it become about just posting “it’s not the same” and all the “false equivalencies” bullshit?Spiritual_Chaos said:
Well, one side is shifting to "we should make a better society - look at how much better other countries are doing, we're been doing it wrong. oops" and the other side shifted to "we are awful, racist people and here: we give you Donald Trump"cincybearcat said:dignin said:
I believe Warren and Sanders are talking to those people.The Juggler said:cincybearcat said:
I’m more concerned.The Juggler said:I'm less confident about these democrats' chances than I was a month ago.
Mostly because
1) I now think Biden is a terrible candidate. Never liked the guy but thought he could win. He seems tired and like he doesn’t want to be there.
2) Dems keep moving left, which is away from me and moderates. So even if they win, I’m not going to like the result.
3) it seems like it’s a Biden/Sanders/Warren race at the moment at that is about as bad as it could get for me.
But yeah, overall, pretty disappointing if you're a moderate. They barely spent any time talking about the voters they need to win those most important 12-15 states last night.
But I do agree, if you are a moderate, the shift in the Democratic party would be disappointing.
The shift in both parties. Republicans just started sooner
So, its not the same.
Having kids die in cages and not stopping the gun-violence epidemic VS a green new deal and wanting citizens to actually live
Im simply saying each party is moving more towards their extremes. Each party moving away from the moderates in their party or the moderate independents. I’m not comparing policies.
Maybe it's time to leave the "moderates" behind and whatever their reasons are for staying "moderates" if some change is actually to happen - for the american people and the world.
Are you still allowed to beat your kids over there?
One example, I bet (just a theory) would have been gone if the US would have allowed itself to lean more left (as in e.g classic social democratic) through the years. And I bet the Warrens and the Bernies of the US would push for that being made illegal at a faster pace, than moderates while kids keep being beaten legally.
(And now I'm speaking of american moderates, and not the Swedish type of centrists. Which would be a bit more left-leaning (Social-liberal) with our political spectrum not being tilted as far right and as much focus on egocentrism.)
So why be a "moderate", when you are free to not be one and can have a look of your country. Would be my question. The world is burning.
I'm talking about the parties moving to their poles...away from the middle. You "Do you beat your kids"
Don't know why you edited your post to remove the part about you thinking I should be banned for my "nonsense" and telingl me to "fuck off".
But I guess that is a positive that you did change it.
Of if you are in your snarky mood. No need.
Have you seen all the James Bond movies?"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
Probably.. all the ones without the B actors.Spiritual_Chaos said:
What has having kids or not anything to do with my opinion?mrussel1 said:
It means I'll remember that when evaluating your opinion. Seems straightforward.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Please elaborate.mrussel1 said:
So zero. Got it. I'll keep that in mind.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Two stepcats.mrussel1 said:
How many children do you have?Spiritual_Chaos said:
It is a most valid example.cincybearcat said:
I think you need to learn to read and understand. It's like talking to a child waiting for their turn to speak next. You make no fucking sense.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Doesn't seem much has been that moved forward at all?cincybearcat said:
Yeah cause the political climate is sooooo good this way. Moderates are for moving forward. Just not only in the way 1 party thinks.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Just giving some context.cincybearcat said:
When did it become about just posting “it’s not the same” and all the “false equivalencies” bullshit?Spiritual_Chaos said:
Well, one side is shifting to "we should make a better society - look at how much better other countries are doing, we're been doing it wrong. oops" and the other side shifted to "we are awful, racist people and here: we give you Donald Trump"cincybearcat said:dignin said:
I believe Warren and Sanders are talking to those people.The Juggler said:cincybearcat said:
I’m more concerned.The Juggler said:I'm less confident about these democrats' chances than I was a month ago.
Mostly because
1) I now think Biden is a terrible candidate. Never liked the guy but thought he could win. He seems tired and like he doesn’t want to be there.
2) Dems keep moving left, which is away from me and moderates. So even if they win, I’m not going to like the result.
3) it seems like it’s a Biden/Sanders/Warren race at the moment at that is about as bad as it could get for me.
But yeah, overall, pretty disappointing if you're a moderate. They barely spent any time talking about the voters they need to win those most important 12-15 states last night.
But I do agree, if you are a moderate, the shift in the Democratic party would be disappointing.
The shift in both parties. Republicans just started sooner
So, its not the same.
Having kids die in cages and not stopping the gun-violence epidemic VS a green new deal and wanting citizens to actually live
Im simply saying each party is moving more towards their extremes. Each party moving away from the moderates in their party or the moderate independents. I’m not comparing policies.
Maybe it's time to leave the "moderates" behind and whatever their reasons are for staying "moderates" if some change is actually to happen - for the american people and the world.
Are you still allowed to beat your kids over there?
One example, I bet (just a theory) would have been gone if the US would have allowed itself to lean more left (as in e.g classic social democratic) through the years. And I bet the Warrens and the Bernies of the US would push for that being made illegal at a faster pace, than moderates while kids keep being beaten legally.
(And now I'm speaking of american moderates, and not the Swedish type of centrists. Which would be a bit more left-leaning (Social-liberal) with our political spectrum not being tilted as far right and as much focus on egocentrism.)
So why be a "moderate", when you are free to not be one and can have a look of your country. Would be my question. The world is burning.
I'm talking about the parties moving to their poles...away from the middle. You "Do you beat your kids"
Don't know why you edited your post to remove the part about you thinking I should be banned for my "nonsense" and telingl me to "fuck off".
But I guess that is a positive that you did change it.
Of if you are in your snarky mood. No need.
Have you seen all the James Bond movies?0 -
The government can step in anytime and remove anyone they want...that means they own those hospitals. They can pass legislation and do whatever they want. That means they own them. They fund them, they own them...just because these hospitals have overpaid executives does not mean the province does not own them...the province can do what they want with our hospitals...those hospital CEO's and boards are just BS.fife said:Meltdown99 said:
Hospitals in Ontario are owned by the government. Access to proper care is not just limited to remote areas. People in Southern Ontario struggle to find adequate family doctors and specialist...people in Windsor often need to commute to London for specialist...fife said:
i must say that hospitals in canada are not government entities but are actually non-profit entities. from what i remember 95% of our hospital are non-profit. i think the care is very good here but yes we do have major issues with access to care in the more remote areas in Canada.mrussel1 said:
Couldn't you effectively lower the prices by allowing people to buy into Medicare, creating true competition for private insurers, without blowing up the whole system?Lerxst1992 said:mcgruff10 said:Pretty crazy to think:
While Trump’s $267 billion is bad, the Democrats’ plans are worse. We counted $297 billion proposed by Biden, $690 billion from Buttigieg, $3.8 trillion from Warren, $4 trillion from Sanders and $4.3 trillion from Harris. That would double what the entire federal government spends now.
https://townhall.com/columnists/johnstossel/2019/07/31/free-stuff-n2550923?fbclid=IwAR2mDPL1ppxW1SxG5wCKCP46VVRPdlJcrnluYyr6jAnXOMZSFe1IlX6mhD4
Here's the video just in case you don't feel like reading today:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5odA8Gsmzs
Its actually even trickier than the wonky debates this week.
MFA is not free and will not include massive govt spending or an enormous tax
The trick is converting a sizable portion of the economy, what employers pay for healthcare, directly to worker salaries salaries. Pay us instead of our insurers.
If Bernie or Liz could do that, and then account for the lowering of the actual cost to provide care, the impact on our taxes would be minimal in theory
The reason I love Bernie but dont support him is he has done a terrible job communicating this. Too many Americans have a false perception on cost and I'll blame bernie for that because he has been talking about MFA healthcare the longest.
Forcing employers to turn money saved through employer matches into salary increases to net the cost to neutral for the inevitable tax increases feels much more difficult.
My biggest concern is quality of care if private hospitals turn into government entities. We have government hospitals in this country and the care is terrible, wait times atrocious, etc. The VA is awful.This is incorrect. we have to understand the difference between funding hospitals and owing them outright.Hospitals are independent corporations run by their own board of directors. The boards are responsible for day-to-day operational decisions on how to allocate the public funding they receive. They are accountable to their Local Health Integration Network (LHIN) and the government for the quality and efficacy of the care they provide.now you do raise a good point about family doctors and specialist, but the issue has less to do about single paying health care and more about other issues. for example, we have more have less people going into medical school so maybe what needs to happen is more funding into the sciences in high school and university. as this articles shows in that we need residency positions also. again I don't know if this is due to UHC or not.I remember when i left University with my degree in social work, I was head hunter by the Canadian government to go and work in very remote area in Nunavut (sadly i didn't go). the job offered great incentives so this maybe something that the government might have to do with doctors. again is this because of UHC? I don't think so.Give Peas A Chance…0 -
So question on the lack of doctors and residents... could this be related to the pay, if they are government employees (are they)? In the States, our brightest enter medical school because it's very prestigious and well paying. Could UHC/M4A change that dynamic?0
-
mrussel1 said:So question on the lack of doctors and residents... could this be related to the pay, if they are government employees (are they)? In the States, our brightest enter medical school because it's very prestigious and well paying. Could UHC/M4A change that dynamic?
Despite paying higher prices, Americans actually have less access to doctors, nurses and hospital beds. There are only 2.6 practicing doctors per 1,000 people in the US, compared to a median of 3.2 active physicians in the OECD, for instance.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/08/politics/health-care-spending/index.html
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
Less access is not truthful. With all the issues the US has in regards to health care, wait times to see a specialist, etc is not one of them. Sweden surprisingly has long wait times when compared to the US and even it's nordic nieghbors. It seems Germany might be the best model to follow.Spiritual_Chaos said:mrussel1 said:So question on the lack of doctors and residents... could this be related to the pay, if they are government employees (are they)? In the States, our brightest enter medical school because it's very prestigious and well paying. Could UHC/M4A change that dynamic?
Despite paying higher prices, Americans actually have less access to doctors, nurses and hospital beds. There are only 2.6 practicing doctors per 1,000 people in the US, compared to a median of 3.2 active physicians in the OECD, for instance.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/08/politics/health-care-spending/index.html
hippiemom = goodness0 -
This has nothing to do with my question about Canada. If you have other random graphs, start a thread or something.Spiritual_Chaos said:mrussel1 said:So question on the lack of doctors and residents... could this be related to the pay, if they are government employees (are they)? In the States, our brightest enter medical school because it's very prestigious and well paying. Could UHC/M4A change that dynamic?
Despite paying higher prices, Americans actually have less access to doctors, nurses and hospital beds. There are only 2.6 practicing doctors per 1,000 people in the US, compared to a median of 3.2 active physicians in the OECD, for instance.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/08/politics/health-care-spending/index.html0 -
Yep. Sweden has longer wait times than some other countries in some specialist areas. Not like our health care system is perfect.cincybearcat said:
Less access is not truthful. With all the issues the US has in regards to health care, wait times to see a specialist, etc is not one of them. Sweden surprisingly has long wait times when compared to the US and even it's nordic nieghbors. It seems Germany might be the best model to follow.Spiritual_Chaos said:mrussel1 said:So question on the lack of doctors and residents... could this be related to the pay, if they are government employees (are they)? In the States, our brightest enter medical school because it's very prestigious and well paying. Could UHC/M4A change that dynamic?
Despite paying higher prices, Americans actually have less access to doctors, nurses and hospital beds. There are only 2.6 practicing doctors per 1,000 people in the US, compared to a median of 3.2 active physicians in the OECD, for instance.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/08/politics/health-care-spending/index.html
How much shorter are the waiting times in Germany?"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
No, it’s not pay related. As has been said, it’s almost all supply of physicians, in terms of how many can be trained. There are many, many applications for each spot in medical school, and then for each residency spot. The issue is how many training positions are available in the universitiesmrussel1 said:So question on the lack of doctors and residents... could this be related to the pay, if they are government employees (are they)? In the States, our brightest enter medical school because it's very prestigious and well paying. Could UHC/M4A change that dynamic?my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf0 -
I just found some compelling data that might add some insight to the discussion:
I'll ride the wave where it takes me......0 -
No, that’s not how it works.Meltdown99 said:
The government can step in anytime and remove anyone they want...that means they own those hospitals. They can pass legislation and do whatever they want. That means they own them. They fund them, they own them...just because these hospitals have overpaid executives does not mean the province does not own them...the province can do what they want with our hospitals...those hospital CEO's and boards are just BS.fife said:Meltdown99 said:
Hospitals in Ontario are owned by the government. Access to proper care is not just limited to remote areas. People in Southern Ontario struggle to find adequate family doctors and specialist...people in Windsor often need to commute to London for specialist...fife said:
i must say that hospitals in canada are not government entities but are actually non-profit entities. from what i remember 95% of our hospital are non-profit. i think the care is very good here but yes we do have major issues with access to care in the more remote areas in Canada.mrussel1 said:
Couldn't you effectively lower the prices by allowing people to buy into Medicare, creating true competition for private insurers, without blowing up the whole system?Lerxst1992 said:mcgruff10 said:Pretty crazy to think:
While Trump’s $267 billion is bad, the Democrats’ plans are worse. We counted $297 billion proposed by Biden, $690 billion from Buttigieg, $3.8 trillion from Warren, $4 trillion from Sanders and $4.3 trillion from Harris. That would double what the entire federal government spends now.
https://townhall.com/columnists/johnstossel/2019/07/31/free-stuff-n2550923?fbclid=IwAR2mDPL1ppxW1SxG5wCKCP46VVRPdlJcrnluYyr6jAnXOMZSFe1IlX6mhD4
Here's the video just in case you don't feel like reading today:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5odA8Gsmzs
Its actually even trickier than the wonky debates this week.
MFA is not free and will not include massive govt spending or an enormous tax
The trick is converting a sizable portion of the economy, what employers pay for healthcare, directly to worker salaries salaries. Pay us instead of our insurers.
If Bernie or Liz could do that, and then account for the lowering of the actual cost to provide care, the impact on our taxes would be minimal in theory
The reason I love Bernie but dont support him is he has done a terrible job communicating this. Too many Americans have a false perception on cost and I'll blame bernie for that because he has been talking about MFA healthcare the longest.
Forcing employers to turn money saved through employer matches into salary increases to net the cost to neutral for the inevitable tax increases feels much more difficult.
My biggest concern is quality of care if private hospitals turn into government entities. We have government hospitals in this country and the care is terrible, wait times atrocious, etc. The VA is awful.This is incorrect. we have to understand the difference between funding hospitals and owing them outright.Hospitals are independent corporations run by their own board of directors. The boards are responsible for day-to-day operational decisions on how to allocate the public funding they receive. They are accountable to their Local Health Integration Network (LHIN) and the government for the quality and efficacy of the care they provide.now you do raise a good point about family doctors and specialist, but the issue has less to do about single paying health care and more about other issues. for example, we have more have less people going into medical school so maybe what needs to happen is more funding into the sciences in high school and university. as this articles shows in that we need residency positions also. again I don't know if this is due to UHC or not.I remember when i left University with my degree in social work, I was head hunter by the Canadian government to go and work in very remote area in Nunavut (sadly i didn't go). the job offered great incentives so this maybe something that the government might have to do with doctors. again is this because of UHC? I don't think so.my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf0 -
So quote the post you are responding to instead of posting out (ace frehleys) into the void. You asked a question in the end of your post, and I posted a response to that question - as in: other countries have more doctors while having a different system.mrussel1 said:
This has nothing to do with my question about Canada. If you have other random graphs, start a thread or something.Spiritual_Chaos said:mrussel1 said:So question on the lack of doctors and residents... could this be related to the pay, if they are government employees (are they)? In the States, our brightest enter medical school because it's very prestigious and well paying. Could UHC/M4A change that dynamic?
Despite paying higher prices, Americans actually have less access to doctors, nurses and hospital beds. There are only 2.6 practicing doctors per 1,000 people in the US, compared to a median of 3.2 active physicians in the OECD, for instance.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/08/politics/health-care-spending/index.html
Here you have a graph that might help you with your attitude:
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
mrussel1 said:So question on the lack of doctors and residents... could this be related to the pay, if they are government employees (are they)? In the States, our brightest enter medical school because it's very prestigious and well paying. Could UHC/M4A change that dynamic?I don't know if this was a question about the lack of doctors in canada but i think it is. I don't have any stats that show the lack of doctors has anything to do with pay to be honest so can't answer that question. but to answer the question if they are government workers the answer is no. of course some people have a different opinion but what it means to be owned by the government.I don't know if you read the article i posted early but here is a quote talking about the same concern medical schools are having in america." A survey by the Association of American Medical Colleges found that 78% of medical school deans are concerned about the ability of incoming students to find residency positions of their choice nationwide. The problem could end up being worse there because unlike in Canada, where provincial governments control the number of residency positions, in the US any hospital can set up a residency program and determine how many residents will be admitted."
0 -
I was trying to find it again. But they were the best.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Yep. Sweden has longer wait times than some other countries in some specialist areas. Not like our health care system is perfect.cincybearcat said:
Less access is not truthful. With all the issues the US has in regards to health care, wait times to see a specialist, etc is not one of them. Sweden surprisingly has long wait times when compared to the US and even it's nordic nieghbors. It seems Germany might be the best model to follow.Spiritual_Chaos said:mrussel1 said:So question on the lack of doctors and residents... could this be related to the pay, if they are government employees (are they)? In the States, our brightest enter medical school because it's very prestigious and well paying. Could UHC/M4A change that dynamic?
Despite paying higher prices, Americans actually have less access to doctors, nurses and hospital beds. There are only 2.6 practicing doctors per 1,000 people in the US, compared to a median of 3.2 active physicians in the OECD, for instance.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/08/politics/health-care-spending/index.html
How much shorter are the waiting times in Germany?
hippiemom = goodness0 -
Oh man, I hope you survive the terrible conditions of US hospitals! Seriously, though, hope you’re okay dude!mcgruff10 said:0 -
another reason is that Canada has some stupid rules on foreign trained doctors. i remember reading a report that Canada doctor shortage could all be solved if we accepted foreign traded doctors.oftenreading said:
No, it’s not pay related. As has been said, it’s almost all supply of physicians, in terms of how many can be trained. There are many, many applications for each spot in medical school, and then for each residency spot. The issue is how many training positions are available in the universitiesmrussel1 said:So question on the lack of doctors and residents... could this be related to the pay, if they are government employees (are they)? In the States, our brightest enter medical school because it's very prestigious and well paying. Could UHC/M4A change that dynamic?
0 -
All good my man. I was working out last week and felt a little too sore in the man only area. Turns out I have a small hernia. Surgery to follow so I have to lay low for around six weeks. Good times.PJPOWER said:
Oh man, I hope you survive the terrible conditions of US hospitals! Seriously, though, hope you’re okay dude!mcgruff10 said:I'll ride the wave where it takes me......0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 149K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.2K The Porch
- 279 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.3K Flea Market
- 39.3K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help