Our Next President?

[seobook]

Re: med costs

I don't see why it would be any harder now than then. It's not like Massachusetts didn't have any debt obligations in 1820 when Maine was cut out of her. Ditto with West Virginia. Don't see why it should be any more difficult to work through which entity gets which assets and which liabilities than it was to break up Ma Bell or spin Fox out like just happened the other day. Let the markets panic if they want. They get over it soon enough.

When the financial economy controls the political economy debt is holier than any version of god.

Also, given the lack of willpower to scrub the fraud out of the healthcare system, the economy is structurally dependent on asset bubbles for the government to fund itself.

In the current age of social media - where rage leads all - it would probably take an extreme degree of physical violence to alter the financial system for the better of the bottom 80% of the economy.

Capital is much more entrenched in its control over government. And it is much more mobile.

[dcarrigg]

Re: med costs

It was easier to make new states when the economy was not saturated by debt. It would be much harder to divide assets & pension liabilities today. Sharp changes in either could perhaps end up rescoring debt ratings & force redemptions of debt & issuance of new debt at a higher rate.

I don't see why it would be any harder now than then. It's not like Massachusetts didn't have any debt obligations in 1820 when Maine was cut out of her. Ditto with West Virginia. Don't see why it should be any more difficult to work through which entity gets which assets and which liabilities than it was to break up Ma Bell or spin Fox out like just happened the other day. Let the markets panic if they want. They get over it soon enough.

[seobook]

Re: med costs

It's only gonna get worse given demographic trends. In the past, these problems were dealt with by making new states. Split Dakota into north and south for political reasons & senate count. Split Maine off of Massachusetts for the same reasons. Don't see why they couldn't have north and south Rhode Island. About as many people as the Dakotas combined there now...

It was easier to make new states when the economy was not saturated by debt. It would be much harder to divide assets & pension liabilities today. Sharp changes in either could perhaps end up rescoring debt ratings & force redemptions of debt & issuance of new debt at a higher rate.

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: med costs

...We are a republic, not a pure democracy...

That's a pretty import point vt.

It's clear to me we get better government through representative democracy than we do through direct democracy. At the state level I've seen the explosion of direct referendums over the past 30 years, and I'm not very impressed with the results of most of these referendums in my state and others.

It's not that we citizens are stupid; it's that we individual citizens just don't have the time to deeply research the consequences, nor the skills to understand the legal subtleties of referendum language. It's too easy for a smooth operator with a hidden agenda to whip the mob into a frenzy and get a goofy referendum passed into law. We get better laws when our representatives and their staffs work through the issue and write the laws.

I'm awfully glad we don't have any mechanism for direct citizen referendums at the federal level.

[dcarrigg]

Re: med costs

It's only gonna get worse given demographic trends. In the past, these problems were dealt with by making new states. Split Dakota into north and south for political reasons & senate count. Split Maine off of Massachusetts for the same reasons. Don't see why they couldn't have north and south Rhode Island. About as many people as the Dakotas combined there now...

[dcarrigg]

Re: med costs

I very much like that book, vt. Gustave de Beaumont and Alexis de Tocquville were keen observers of America. In fact, they observed pure democracy in town meetings in New England. They also observed slavery on plantations in Georgia. And if I recall correctly, they just about predicted civil war because of the wide gap in values back in 1830, a generation and a half before civil war finally broke out.

I think in a way, the story of America has always been spit in two like this.

There was John Winthrop's Massachusetts vision of a City on a Hill based on the Sermon on the Mount when he founded Mass Bay colony on Arbella. It was very concerned with things like direct democracy, education, and being an example for the world. Oh, it was a cruel, religious intolerant place of witch trials and more. But it was as democratic as anything since ancient Athens.

Then there was the Virginia colony idea of Sir Walter Raleigh. He himself was a nobleman. He was much more interested in order. Burgesses could not vote directly in town meetings. They could only elect representatives to assemble. There never was direct democracy there.

The tradition of local pure democratic government continues to this day, if only in the six New England states, where every citizen is a town legislator, counties mean basically nothing, and towns have the power of cities and counties combined in other states.

Here, where I live, we are a pure democracy. This is part of how we don't see eye to eye. My first experience with government was as a little boy dragged along to a town meeting where I saw my father, who was no elected official, argue his part for how something in the town ought to go. It was pure democracy, in the literal sense. And I suspect that colors how I view government in America, and how I think it should be even when it isn't yet, to this day.

It's funny because you can see it in elements of pop culture like the Simpsons monorail episode and such. I always wondered what people in other parts of the country think they're doing in those town meetings where town citizens are deciding how to spend budget surpluses. It's totally normal here. But to the rest of the country it must seem like the mad invention of a wild cartoon writer.

Anyways, if ever you see crazy northeastern blue state people going on about Democracy in America, realize that we very much use direct democracy in our day-to-day governments up here and have for about 400 years. Southerners can keep telling us we're a republic not a democracy until they're blue in the face, but when town meeting day comes around, it's not gonna jibe with reality.

[vt]

Re: med costs

We are a republic, not a pure democracy.

Read "Democracy In America"

https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Ame...ghydr-20&psc=1

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: med costs

the electoral college, and the non-population-based number of senators for each state were devised to convince smaller and less populous states to sign onto the constitution and join the UNITED states. here we are now, about - what- 230 years later still living with that deal. i don't see it going away: there are too many states which are beneficiaries, certainly too many to allow an amendment to the constitution, and even too many to get the national popular vote compact.

in a way, i can see a silver lining to these realities. ultimately they will FORCE the different political tribes to deal with one another. wasn't that the idea in creating the UNITED states?

All good points.
Senators representing just 25% of the US population have a veto proof 60 votes that can defeat Senators representing the other 75% of Americans.

These 62 senators represent about one-fourth of the people in the United States.

[jk]

Re: med costs

the electoral college, and the non-population-based number of senators for each state were devised to convince smaller and less populous states to sign onto the constitution and join the UNITED states. here we are now, about - what- 230 years later still living with that deal. i don't see it going away: there are too many states which are beneficiaries, certainly too many to allow an amendment to the constitution, and even too many to get the national popular vote compact.

in a way, i can see a silver lining to these realities. ultimately they will FORCE the different political tribes to deal with one another. wasn't that the idea in creating the UNITED states?

[dcarrigg]

Re: med costs

Warren wants to dissolve the electoral college. Any Warren supporters having second thoughts yet?

Haven't really had time to look into it in depth yet. But isn't she talking about the national popular vote compact? That plan has been around for years. Fwiw, I think even if it worked, it'd work once and only once than states would crash out of it. But there's nothing totally strange or illegal about it. No constitutional restrictions on how states choose to assign electoral college delegates. Maine and Nebraska are relevant examples.

That said, looks like she's not handling the press on it well.

[davidstvz]

Re: med costs

Warren wants to dissolve the electoral college. Any Warren supporters having second thoughts yet?

[rjwjr]

Re: med costs

Warren is a lightweight. I read her 2003 book (The Two Income Trap) and found it informative but, lacking in solutions that resonated with me. Just because she can identify some issues doesn't mean she knows how to solve them. Add in the lack of charisma and recent rookie mistakes (heritage, beer thingy) and she fails the heavy-weight test. We have 350million+ people from which to choose. We can do better than Warren. Much better.

That being said, rather than trying to identify the best third party solution/candidate, my opinion is that our efforts would have the greatest potential impact coupled with the greatest potential chance of becoming reality if we created a groundswell of support for; 1] greater states rights (less federal power) and 2] senate & congressional term limits. All of this federal power is exacerbating the political divide while simultaneously increasing the stakes. Dilute/diffuse the problem by marginalizing the players and spreading the power. Instead of rallying behind finding a candidate, let's rally around finding someone to lead us toward getting some constitutional amendments on a federal ballot.

And, that being said, I personally don't see why any logical individual would ever vote for a progressive/liberal/democratic candidate for president when comparing the current state of affairs in California, New York, Illinois versus those in South Dakota, Texas, Tennessee. I'm registered Non-Party Affiliated because I hate the politics on both sides, but hey, conservative leaders have done a better job state-by-state in the metrics that make sense to me. It's about as black & white as it gets.

And, before you pigeon-hole me as a biased conservative, I'm also a pro-choice (although it's a horrible choice to be faced with), pro-gay marriage (although straight), atheist (although I respect most God-fearing individuals for their moral compass & compassion toward others). I think for myself and methinks conservatives have proven better public leaders than have progressives.

It's science

[lakedaemonian]

Re: med costs

At least 3 solutions:

Fed or state governements open up clinics available to the public at cost.

Price transparency and real choice, both at individual level and for insurance companies

End the model of "fee for service" make it more like "fixed salary for so many patients"

Direct government control of prices (japan)


A big mystery is why a major insurer does not create a vertically integrated system and offer care at 1/10 the price,
and gain market share. Kaiser is the closest.

Check out Circle Medical.

Disclosure: we are investors

Circle Medical are enhancing the primary care medical experience leveraging technology(genuine AI: Doctor/Machine hybrid utilisation) combined with reduced fixed infrastructure costs.

Small(Bay Area only), but very fast growing, and with far higher margins compared with traditional primary care.

Worth keeping an eye on.

[Polish_Silver]

Stuck with Repocrats !

Yada, yada.

Paint anyone who disagrees with a left wing agenda as a heartless person who wants to deny health care and education to little children.

Bill Clinton was a centrist and his administration did well. Democrats and Republicans were both centrists before 2000.


As Woodsman said the left and right elites have no idea what they are doing and that their days a few. They will be replaced as independents with real innovative ideas to solve problems are voted into power and unite the nation.

The electoral system prevents independents from getting into office. How can an independent get a plurality in a congressional district?

Until we have proportional representation, things will not change, because new parties do not have a chance. How can we get those
in power to change the system that keeps them in power?

[Polish_Silver]

med costs

At least 3 solutions:

Fed or state governements open up clinics available to the public at cost.

Price transparency and real choice, both at individual level and for insurance companies

End the model of "fee for service" make it more like "fixed salary for so many patients"

Direct government control of prices (japan)


A big mystery is why a major insurer does not create a vertically integrated system and offer care at 1/10 the price,
and gain market share. Kaiser is the closest.