TRUMp and TRUMan, Biden and Dewey

[Jeanne_S]

Not having a college degree now is considered undereducated? Really?
What did the liberal arts graduate say to the engineering grad?”Would you like a coke with your fries?”

 

[Ridgerunner]

Medicare For All

Medicare for All=Medicaid with deductibles for all. Remember that.

 

[Pattylt]

Not having a college degree now is considered undereducated? Really?
What did the liberal arts graduate say to the engineering grad?”Would you like a coke with your fries?”

At no time did I call them undereducated! The designation of lower and higher education has to do with having gone to college and you’re being kind of rude to consider them uneducated. They are a demographic classification. That group had tended to have lower voter turn out until Trump thus they were undercounted. That’s all I said and that’s all I meant. Funny that you jumped to a derogatory meaning…I didn’t.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

Medicare For All

Medicare for All=Medicaid with deductibles for all. Remember that.

I’m sorry, I’m not quite following you here. Could you elaborate a bit?

I am not trying to be cute or sarcastic, honestly, I couldn’t decipher what you meant, or why this would be the case. Can you provide a bit more information? (And, no, I’m not “sealioning” either. I suspect I have dealt with a “sealion” or two here on CAF, but it’s water under the bridge, I’ll just be careful what rabbit holes I get led down in the future.)

Sealioning - Wikipedia

 

[Jeanne_S]

Well since I am one who isn’t college educated,I am inclined to take offense rather than be derogatory towards such people.

 

[Pattylt]

I didn’t go to college until my mid 30’s so I’ve been both and never considered how the breakdown of polling would be considered a slight. I didn’t have a higher education until I went back and got one. That was just a simple fact. My husband only went for one year and never graduated college. He knows a heck of a lot more than most of the college grads he works with. It never bothered him either. I know that educated isn’t equal to smart.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Well I agree.The low educated comment you had posted has been a mantra of the left for the past four years.Trump supporters are not educated therefore just don’t know any better.
I chose not to attend college,was trained as a dental assistant instead.
Education and intellect are not one in the same.

 

[Pattylt]

After I graduated with my Medical Technologist degree, I worked in our hospital lab where everyone had the exact same education that I had. The level of intelligence was a whole different story!

 

[Muzhik]

my economic and social principles would be closer to Bernie Sanders and even (shudder!) AOC.

Remember to wear your blessed scapular and pray the Rosary daily, and you should be fine.

 

[Muzhik]

RE: the differences in poll results between Trump and Biden:

The phrase “shy Trump supporter” is inaccurate. It’s not shyness, it’s fear. When you have some leftist “peaceful protesters” saying that they’re going to “burn it all down”, especially if Trump wins, acts as a disincentive to publicly admit to being a Trump supporter.

Even to a pollster? Look at it this way: assuming it’s a telephone poll – I haven’t seen a whole lot of people doing “random” “person-in-the-street” polling for quite a few years – then you have a person asking you questions about your demographics: age, gender (more or less), rent, own, or other, that sort of thing. They may not have your name, but they have your phone number. From there, it’s fairly easy to get your address based on a number of commercial sources. Your name is not so important, but that can also be learned based on the demographic information you’ve given or confirmed.

You now have to trust that the polling person is a) legitimate and/or b) going to keep your demographic information private. Given the previous statements about 'burning it down", you have to wonder (and not be accused of paranoia) that someone will use this information to retaliate in some way after the election.

It might not be much, but it might be enough for a large enough number of people being polled to lie about who they support.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Recalling the young couple and their baby sleeping in their home.It was set afire because they had a Trump sign in their lawn

 

[Ridgerunner]

I have sea lions myself. Mine have a tendency to flag everything I say with which they disagree. Some I no longer respond to at all.

Medicare and Medicaid are both “discounted” from “reasonable and necessary” costs; Medicaid more than Medicare. The “plush” end of medicine is insured care or the self-pay of a wealthy person. But Medicare is much better pay to providers than Medicaid. In some places, Medicare is really good pay, especially if it’s accompanied by supplemental insurance. In theory, it averages about 60% of “reasonable and necessary” costs, but in some places, it’s a lot more than that.

Medicare costs the insured person, but not very much compared to what it pays out.
But Medicare is only provided to about 15% of the population. Medicaid is provided to about 21%. Supposedly, Medicaid only pays about 1/3 of “reasonable and necessary” costs. Medicaid actually is a discounted payer, and most providers don’t really want to have very many Medicaid patients for that reason.

One needs to remember, that the Medicaid system only works because others are paying more. The privately insured and self-pay are paying a lot more. About 67% of the population has private health insurance, including all government worker programs except VA.

The private sector and the government together are paying the “discounts” for Medicaid. If we suddenly insure another 67% of the populace with government insurance, there is no “source” for the “discount” other than the government. The government will have to greatly increase its outlays for health coverage even if it does not fully replace the private “discount payers”. Even then, the great likelihood is that quality will go down in a way somewhat similar to the way it does in “free” clinics generally.

In some countries, a “private sector” exists alongside a “government sector”. Most of Europe (except Britain, I believe) is that way. The private sector in France, for example, is about 1/3 of the total, and it’s the superior third. France has a number of ways to “economize” to deal with that. One of them is that doctors in the public sector are paid about a half what they are paid here; a little less than $100,000 on average. Another is that the government doesn’t pay when the service is delivered. The patient pays, then bills the government. Illegals get no government pay at all, and ER use is very much discouraged. Deductibles are about 20% on average.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I live in the Ozarks of SW Mo. Trump support here is at least in the 80% level, so one can speak pretty freely because nobody is going to retaliate. A MAGA hat won’t draw adverse comment. But I wouldn’t respond to a pollster at all. Not at all, because I am well aware there are people in other parts of the country who might very well retaliate in some manner. I just don’t live in any of them, thank God.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I have sea lions myself. Mine have a tendency to flag everything I say with which they disagree. Some I no longer respond to at all.

Medicare and Medicaid are both “discounted” from “reasonable and necessary” costs; Medicaid more than Medicare. The “plush” end of medicine is insured care or the self-pay of a wealthy person. But Medicare is much better pay to providers than Medicaid. In some places, Medicare is really good pay, especially if it’s accompanied by supplemental insurance. In theory, it averages about 60% of “reasonable and necessary” costs, but in some places, it’s a lot more than that.

Medicare costs the insured person, but not very much compared to what it pays out.
But Medicare is only provided to about 15% of the population. Medicaid is provided to about 21%. Supposedly, Medicaid only pays about 1/3 of “reasonable and necessary” costs. Medicaid actually is a discounted payer, and most providers don’t really want to have very many Medicaid patients for that reason.

I didn’t realize all of that. To tell the truth, I know a bit more about Medicare than I do Medicaid. I suppose I would make it mandatory for all doctors to accept universal Medicare, which then would be basically single payer — you may only charge what Medicare will pay, and that’s that. As Michael Moore brought out in his movie Sicko, a doctor in the UK, who works for the NHS, can still make a fine living, more than they would make in most fields, they just couldn’t get as rich as Croesus.

You obviously know much more about insurance than I do. I just want to see everyone get the care they need, without having to worry about how it will be paid for. Obviously the best of everything could not just be “handed out” to everyone without limits — everyone would wait their turn — but it would be a fairer society. Look at Canada.

 

[jack63]

I follow polls almost obsessively. I like numbers. I like to find stuff other people just don’t see. The thing is the polls were fairly accurate in 2016. In key states In 2016 like PA, FL and MI they clearly show a shift to Trump right before the election.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/pa/pennsylvania_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5964.html#polls

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/mi/michigan_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-6008.html#polls

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/fl/florida_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5963.html

Will this happen again? I dunno…probably to some level. Interestingly if you follow the senate races…many of the toss up states are shifting republican practically out of no where…NC, IA, AZ, MN.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I just want to see everyone get the care they need, without having to worry about how it will be paid for. Obviously the best of everything could not just be “handed out” to everyone without limits — everyone would wait their turn — but it would be a fairer society. Look at Canada.

Medical care is a scarce resource. The supply is limited. If there is no limitation on its use, the system will become insolvent. Medicare only covers about 9% of the population and it’s already massively insolvent and unsustainable.

So if there are to be limits, and that’s unavoidable, what will they be? “Waiting one’s turn” will probably be crippling or fatal in many cases. So who gets selected for no treatment? And what is the compelling reason why I should be entitled to have my neighbor pay for my care without having to spend my own resources?

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

I just want to see everyone get the care they need, without having to worry about how it will be paid for. Obviously the best of everything could not just be “handed out” to everyone without limits — everyone would wait their turn — but it would be a fairer society. Look at Canada.

Medical care is a scarce resource. The supply is limited. If there is no limitation on its use, the system will become insolvent. Medicare only covers about 9% of the population and it’s already massively insolvent and unsustainable.

So if there are to be limits, and that’s unavoidable, what will they be? “Waiting one’s turn” will probably be crippling or fatal in many cases. So who gets selected for no treatment? And what is the compelling reason why I should be entitled to have my neighbor pay for my care without having to spend my own resources?

Bearing one another’s burdens. As secularized and as spiritually nihilistic as they are, the affluent, European and European-derived (Canada, Australia, et al) Western democracies “get this”. The United States doesn’t.

Taxes would have to be increased, and increased sharply. Nothing in this world is free. Many of these liberal democracies have very high taxes, but the citizens get a lot back in return. The only catch is, you have to have a growing population, and a younger population, to make many of these social benefits “work”. When secularized Westerners decided that contraception was the way to go, and small families were the way to go… well, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. Not every country can be Norway, with more oil than they know what to do with.

And as far as “waiting one’s turn”, I know this situation personally. My cousin emigrated to a Scandinavian country, took up residency (and possibly citizenship, I’m not sure), and availed himself of their free health system. He suffered crippling migraines and “got in line” for a brain scan, but it was going to take six months. He noted “in six months I might be dead”… and he was. He was found dead in the outdoors, no autopsy was done, no way to know, we suspect he might have been murdered. (I cannot discuss it beyond that.)

 

[Ridgerunner]

Nothing in this world is free. Many of these liberal democracies have very high taxes, but the citizens get a lot back in return.

I’m not sure they do. In some countries, there is a two-tier or multi-tier system. With Medicaid, we already have one, just not as expanded as in some other countries. In some socialized medicine countries, one can be forced to wait so long for diagnosis or care that it’s too late to remedy the problem.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

Nothing in this world is free. Many of these liberal democracies have very high taxes, but the citizens get a lot back in return.

I’m not sure they do. In some countries, there is a two-tier or multi-tier system. With Medicaid, we already have one, just not as expanded as in some other countries. In some socialized medicine countries, one can be forced to wait so long for diagnosis or care that it’s too late to remedy the problem.

Can’t be helped. Society can do what it can do, but there will always be limits. My cousin’s having to wait might have been what killed him. No way to know. He was cremated, so no autopsy would ever be possible.

And people who can’t afford health care in this country die of that, too. People die in both market-based and socialized medical systems, it’s just different people.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Can’t be helped. Society can do what it can do, but there will always be limits. My cousin’s having to wait might have been what killed him. No way to know. He was cremated, so no autopsy would ever be possible.

And people who can’t afford health care in this country die of that, too. People die in both market-based and socialized medical systems, it’s just different people.

Medicaid is “need based”; that is, one cannot get it if one’s income or assets are over a certain limit. If above, then Obamacare subsidizes it up to an income of $80,000 for a family of four. Over a hundred million have employment based care. What compelling reason is there to change it all to a Medicaid-type system that will require a lot more in the way of taxes?

And will it be free to people regardless of income? If so, what is the justification for that? Are we to buy their cars and food too?