|
Post by doctork on Nov 5, 2014 23:49:22 GMT -5
It did seem to me yesterday that many of the voters and poll workers knew each other, but then of course since voting is by precinct, we all really were neighbors, whether we were acquainted with each other or not.
The only complaint I've heard here about picture ID is the problem that Natives have with obtaining passports (requires more documents that a drivers license). Native Americans weren't entitled to US citizenship and voting rights until the 1920's, and many of the elders were born at home or otherwise have difficulty with the necessary documentation.
I expect the ID problem is not limited to urban poor, as proof problems occur frequently in rural areas too, given the older average age, and the longer distance from the Office of Vital Records. It may be easier to hide non-US origin in a big city but I dunno - in a small town you really stick out if "you're from away."
Reminds me of when Amber got her drivers license in West Virginia. Among the "documents" one could use to prove her age was "personal recognition." If the DMV examiner had known you since you were knee high to a grasshopper and was willing to state that, you were good. Fuggedabout that birth certificate stuff!
Anyway, I voted for Anne Kirkpatrick, our (D) Congresswoman, and she won. AFAIK, her (R) opponent never made a single overture to the Native American population, big oversight IMHO. It appears that Ron Barber, who was appointed to, and then subsequently ran for and won Gabby Giffords' district two years ago, was defeated by Martha McSally, his Republican opponent and military fighter pilot who was the first female to fly into enemy territory. Sounds like she earned her victory, though all Arizonans hold a soft, sad spot for Gabby. Ron too was injured in that assassination attack.
|
|
|
Post by booklady on Jan 29, 2016 19:08:55 GMT -5
I posted this on facebook in reply to one of Gail's posts, but it warrants some attention here, at least I think so. Doc, I have complained about insurance companies before (I think they are thieves and greedy monsters that do NOTHING but take their cuts as they pass money from one party to another -- or, too often, take money from people and then NOT pass any along to an attending physician -- and should be shut down and put out of business), and you, with your experience, have defended them and criticized the pharmaceutical companies. Seems like in this article, we both have our complaints proved valid. This just boils my butt. Or whatever the expression is! boston.cbslocal.com/2016/01/29/tufts-health-plan-hepatitis-c-harvoni/
|
|
|
Post by BoatBabe on Jan 30, 2016 11:41:08 GMT -5
"Boils my butt" is perfect. Seriously; proves the definition of "perfect."
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Jan 30, 2016 21:46:50 GMT -5
I'd prefer to consider my viewpoint and posts as "explaining" the health insurers rather than "defending" them. And of course there are some insurers that are honorable and make a great effort to serve their "covered lives" and others that clearly will do anything possible to make more money by delaying and denying payment, even if it is clearly unethical or illegal. At the moment, it is the pharmas that are responsible for the most reprehensible price gouging. Tufts Health Plan would pay Nichole's bill in a heartbeat if it were $850 (less than one CT scan of the liver) instead of $85,000.
"We the people" have chosen to have health insurance provided largely by publicly traded for-profit companies. They are legally required to do everything possible WITHIN THE LAW to increase shareholder wealth, ie, make money. I think this is where the worst offenders operate though having said that, I think that Tufts is a physician-run not-for-profit. That is theoretically the "best" way to provide health insurance - by companies that exist to pay health care bills rather than make money off sick people, run by people who actually know about taking care of sick people. My bias is that health insurance should be provided by companies that are not in business to make money for shareholders. Switzerland, France, Germany and the Netherlands all provide health insurance by private non-profit companies (NOT "socialized medicine") at a cost that is less than half of ours, and they get better results.
As far as pharmas, when I was in med school the US government paid for about 85% of pharma research through tax dollars and NIH monies; now the USG pays less than 15% of the bill, and the rest comes from pharma R&D investment - hence the pharma claim that high prices are necessary to recoup the cost of drug development.
Most laws passed by Congress over the past 30 years or so have been enacted in order to line someone's pockets, and this is especially true in health care. Medicare Part D was enacted by Republicans (GWB and friends) to make money for pharmaceutical firms. ACA was enacted as a gift to health insurance companies by Obama and company (Democrats). Defense spending is even worse. Few members of congress really care about the people any more.
I do not know enough about Hepatitis C treatment to determine when treatment "should" be started. The criminal that infected Nichole may have a more advanced case of Hep C at a point where treatment is required and interestingly, criminals in jail/prison are the only people in America who are entitled by law to "free" health care. It is possible that it is true that Nichole is not yet sick enough to warrant treatment - earlier in the disease, the treatment may be riskier than the Hep C, as not everyone progresses to liver failure. And if they do progress, they may then be covered by Medicare/Medicaid, allowing the for-profit insurer to avoid the bill.
Research has definitely shown that timely treatment is less expensive than waiting until the disease has progressed to liver failure and transplant. Harvoni and the one or two other drugs to treat Hep C are usually curative at a 90 - 95% rate. The manufacturers charge the highest price the market will bear in the US, and there is no law to prevent that. Effectively we in the US subsidize the treatment in those other countries that charge $10 instead of $1,000 per pill.
There's a lot more gray than black & white in health care policy. And if you shut down all the insurance companies immediately, then what will you do for health care? Remember that Medicare and Medicaid are actually administered by private health insurance companies who bid for the government contract for that business; the government is in no way prepared to administer health insurance. The VA does administer its own programs from its own budgets - they own the facilities, employ salaried docs and nurses, and contract for a limited drug formulary (they may not be covering Harvoni either, I don't know). But VA health care isn't working out so great right now.
The whole thing is a mess and I do not see any solution in sight.
|
|
|
Post by BoatBabe on Jan 31, 2016 14:17:04 GMT -5
Doc said, "The whole thing is a mess and I do not see any solution in sight."
Well said.
|
|
|
Post by Jane on Jan 31, 2016 16:50:28 GMT -5
I'm just curious and certainly do not wish to create a discussion (knowing how things have gone in the past) as to whom you are supporting of the current mass of potential presidents out there.
As you would surely guess, I'm for Hill. I like Bernie, but I think he is too old and too unrealistic. Clinton is nothing if not realistic.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Jan 31, 2016 21:40:13 GMT -5
I bet I am not the only one who has no idea who I will support come November.
On the "I side with" quiz I best matched with Bernie, but the detailed explanation said I was Libertarian. That doesn't seem to compute.
It's possible the nominees of both parties could be different from those who are running now. If Hilary gets into too much trouble with all the investigations The Man Behind the Curtain might ask her to excuse herself from the race citing "health issues." I believe she may indeed have some serious health problems - the blood clots and stroke episodes. Then a Biden/Warren ticket may arise.
I suspect The Republican Man Behind the Curtain is having fits and working overtime to see that a qualified grown-up is nominated. The only one that seems to me to fit that description is Kasich, though I don't really know his political stances yet. I expect I will be voting in True Blue Washington the State, so my presidential vote won't make any difference.
I think as long as we "Don't make personal remarks" (that is what my mom always told me to do/not do) and remain civilized, I too am curious what folks think, and would hope we could have a reasonable discussion. This is America, we are all entitled to our opinions.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Jan 31, 2016 23:19:21 GMT -5
Interesting thought about Biden riding to the rescue if Clinton becomes too badly damaged. Sounds possible.
On the GOP side, I consider Bush a grown-up too. IMO, any of the governors would be a better president than any of the senators, although Rubio would be tolerable to stop Trump. At least Rubio knows the "illegals" are here to stay and in the long run the party can't afford to write off the Hispanic vote.
The biggest problem with Cruz is the problem with the enraged voter: they think they are entitled to have their way even if they're in the minority in Congress or the country; they have no awareness that sometimes you have to compromise and settle for less than you want in order to get some of what you want.
|
|
|
Post by BoatBabe on Feb 1, 2016 10:02:13 GMT -5
I agree. Governing requires compromise. This is the part I miss about the Good Ol' Boys from the past. At least they crossed party lines, sat down with each other (usually in smoke-filled rooms with glasses of scotch) and hammered out compromises that gave something to everyone. No one got everything they wanted, but everyone benefited. And they shook hands in public.
I, like Doc, don't have a clue who I will vote for. I don't get vested in the process until after I find out who the candidates really are. That was an interesting Joe/Elizabeth scenario. Hmmmmmm . . .
|
|
|
Post by Jane on Feb 1, 2016 13:45:15 GMT -5
Bloomberg is also making noises about running--especially if the lamentable occurs and the Donald is nominated. However, it is likely that Bloomberg might take more votes away from Hillary as he is liberal on social issues.
I predict Clinton/Castro (Julian, not Fidel) and Rubio/a woman.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Feb 1, 2016 22:21:19 GMT -5
You are very brave Jane to make a prediction. It is always a roll of the dice to predict the candidates and the winner, but especially this year with almost a dozen Republicans and the odd combination of Democratic candidates.
//On the GOP side, I consider Bush a grown-up too. IMO, any of the governors would be a better president than any of the senators//
I second that Joe insofar as my personal assessment of Jeb as a candidate. Most of my friends and family who live in Florida - Democrat or Republican - thought Bush was a very good governor. But his campaign has seemed very anemic and he seems to me that he doesn't really want to win. Reminds of George H W Bush in his 1992 campaign - he just didn't seem to want to win. After the election it turned out he had a thyroid condition called apathetic hyperthyroidism, and I thought maybe that was why he seemed unenthusiastic. Being president is a tough job that should go only to someone who really wants it.
And I also believe governors are usually better candidates as they have actual real-life government and management experience. Senators tend to be prima donnas who have no greater management experience than running their own senate offices - which they usually delegate to the Chief of Staff anyway. At the federal level senators seem to be clueless about compromise while governors compromise every day since they have to balance the budget and get the job done.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Feb 3, 2016 15:17:22 GMT -5
I'm offering fitful assistance in the snow-shoveling department, so don't have time to mull over governor vs. senator right now.
But with apologies, I think that's become one of those givens we no longer examine closely. All presidents come with a staff that has a lot to do with the nuts and bolts of management. So much depends on the crises that develop - Carter was a governor who inherited the disastrous inflation of the Vietnam War and then got pole-axed by Iran's hostage-taking. I think he did a good job in a dreadful situation. Reagan is so hard to gauge, though he's credited with much more than he himself actually accomplished, and much of what he did was (to my mind, Joe) criminal. Eisenhower? Kennedy? Nixon? GHW Bush? There's a lot to chew over before deciding that governors make the best presidents. And that's just the past 60 years.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Feb 4, 2016 0:09:21 GMT -5
Agreed, I don't know if the former governors make better presidents than senators. I think they are perceived as better candidates than senators, and they have a better track record as far as winning. Once in office, much depends on random world events and leadership ability.
It seems one of the difficulties of being a great president is the need to be a great leader, a great manager, and a great politician; management and leadership require different skill sets, often mutually exclusive. Then the factors of luck and political skills enter in...
|
|
|
Post by joew on Feb 5, 2016 0:56:05 GMT -5
I wouldn't say that governors are always better choices for POTUS than senators, although I think the executive experience is valuable. But I do think that in the Republican field at this point, the governors would be better for the job that the senators or the non-politicians. Regrettably, theirs chances for getting the nomination appear slim.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Feb 5, 2016 15:07:22 GMT -5
I work in medicine so I rarely say "always" or "never." But one reason governors often make better candidates is they do not have the voting track record of a Senator or House member. One vote can easily be turned into a major talking point by the opponent. Or a House member can vote 57 times to overturn Obamacare, knowing the vote is meaningless since the Senate will veto. But they voted against it!
A governor's track record pertains to one state - not 50. And they can more readily point to specific positive achievements. Where there is negative history (bridges falling down, low educational attainment) it is easier to put the blame on some factor over which the guv has no control.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Feb 5, 2016 18:53:46 GMT -5
Ah, yes, if we're talking candidate vs. ultimate winner, probably governors get off a bit easier. But it can work both ways. In the Dem race, poor Martin O'Malley never got the attention he deserved for having been a pretty innovative and effective governor. The media simply wouldn't let him in as a viable candidate. I know I'm getting off-topic, but the influence of the media in determining who makes it is growing more and more frightening to me. What they did to Howard Dean - a governor with solid credentials - over the Scream was unforgivable. No context, a seconds-long tape that ran over and over on the news till he was destroyed. Now they've given Trump and Cruz so much attention that reasonable candidates are barely covered.
So, of the governors, Joe, which is your favorite?
|
|
|
Post by booklady on Feb 5, 2016 19:25:36 GMT -5
I bet I am not the only one who has no idea who I will support come November. I suspect The Republican Man Behind the Curtain is having fits and working overtime to see that a qualified grown-up is nominated. The only one that seems to me to fit that description is Kasich, though I don't really know his political stances yet. I expect I will be voting in True Blue Washington the State, so my presidential vote won't make any difference. I agree with this part of your post, Doc. If I had to vote today, I'd vote for Kasich. I feel like he is the most pragmatic of them all, with experience in governing, lawmaking, and policy development and implementation, and might be able to negotiate compromises and Get Some Things Gone. Also, he seems Not Crazy or extreme. And I'll be voting in Massachusetts, where my vote won't make any difference, either. I absolutely loved Bernie's "America" ad and found it entrancing, but when I imagine his policies carried out all I can picture is the scene in Dr. Zhivago when Zhivago returns home from the war and finds Tonja's big house commandeered, divided up, and "shared" by the comrades.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Feb 5, 2016 21:19:46 GMT -5
The media do have a major influence, but I think there was reticence to support Clinton as "the chosen," and she had tons of money behind her, including the big money from Wall Street and defense.
Bernie Sanders is appealing simply because he seems honest, which is why he too has raised a lot of money, with each donation averaging $27 - not Wall Street billionaires. I sense that he is campaigning on honesty and his personal opinions and "everybody knows" free college for everyone and income equality for all will not really be voted and implemented any time soon.
Martin O'Malley just doesn't have the billions or the charismatic appeal of honesty.
Sadly, whoever is elected will shortly be brought inside the beltway, drink the Koolaid, and will be the same as every other recent president, other than their Supreme Court nominees.
|
|
|
Post by BoatBabe on Feb 5, 2016 23:25:38 GMT -5
Also sadly, the task of finding someone to vote for is far more difficult than knowing who one must vote against.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Feb 6, 2016 0:46:15 GMT -5
… So, of the governors, Joe, which is your favorite? Bush is my favorite, largely on the strength of his having been reasonable on immigration. Kasich impressed me a lot in the first debate, and I'm sure he'd also be very good. If either were nominated, I think he'd have a good chance of winning, given the negatives Clinton or Sanders would have.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Feb 7, 2016 11:23:57 GMT -5
I hear you all and am pretty muddled. I've been feeling as if we're on the brink of something terrible, and I see no leader to set my hopes on. But then today came the news of N. Korea ![P-)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/pirate.png) and I decided it won't really matter anyway. The answer will have to be what it always is - chocolate.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Feb 7, 2016 23:10:51 GMT -5
If a crazy president is elected instead of a grown-up I suspect nothing much will happen because Congress is already dysfunctional. The President can't legislate though s/he can take some Executive Actions or Orders or whatever the correct terminology.
How far down will the spiral go before we insist on real government?
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Feb 8, 2016 1:15:19 GMT -5
I don't think it will happen until we repeal Citizens United and reform campaign finance across the board. Without reform, we'll continue to have government working for private interests rather than for the electorate.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Feb 8, 2016 12:55:52 GMT -5
Seems to me that the lobbyists and special interests have been the ones with influence for decades. NRA is just the most egregious example. But my stock response has always been that no matter how much money a campaign has, candidates only win if they can persuade ordinary citizens to vote for them.
|
|
|
Post by booklady on Feb 8, 2016 14:42:43 GMT -5
Seems to me that the lobbyists and special interests have been the ones with influence for decades. NRA is just the most egregious example. But my stock response has always been that no matter how much money a campaign has, candidates only win if they can persuade ordinary citizens to vote for them. And then they spend their time in office trying to get reelected, which means raising money, which means appealing to someone other than "ordinary citizens."
|
|
|
Post by joew on Feb 8, 2016 19:12:56 GMT -5
Seems to me that the lobbyists and special interests have been the ones with influence for decades. NRA is just the most egregious example. But my stock response has always been that no matter how much money a campaign has, candidates only win if they can persuade ordinary citizens to vote for them. And then they spend their time in office trying to get reelected, which means raising money, which means appealing to someone other than "ordinary citizens." They need the lobbyists and special interests for the money, but they still need the voters for reelection.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Feb 9, 2016 14:14:29 GMT -5
Isn't that something of a tautology, Joe? They need the money to buy the ads - on every medium, including online - to get the voters. Swiftboating.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Feb 9, 2016 19:50:45 GMT -5
My point is, you can spend all the money you can get, but if the voters don't vote for you, it doesn't matter. Having piles of money from PACS and special interests doesn't guarantee victory. You need a lot of money to be noticed, of course, but in the end, it's the voters who decide the election, not the PACs.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Feb 10, 2016 12:19:16 GMT -5
I guess Jeb Bush is a case in point. I don't know anything about how he's used his huge treasury, but apparently it's been ineffective. He may come up with some kickass ads later, but so far his money hasn't accomplished much. I also haven't heard about his organization - paid staff setting up rallies and forums, making friends of local party members, laying the ground for GOTV efforts. So I agree that money won't work if not spent well, and your ads won't work without expert marketing savvy, but maybe I'd put it this way - you can't get the voters without money.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Nov 7, 2016 23:28:04 GMT -5
I hope this doesn't start a war, but I thought I'd mention that once it was clear that Trump would get the GOP nomination, I had been planning to vote for the Constitution Party candidates, Castle and Bradley. I preferred their platform to any of the other minor parties'. Then over the summer I learned of the American Solidarity Party, which seeks to be comparable to European Christian Democratic parties, and I liked what I saw in their platform even better than the Constitution's. So tomorrow I'm planning to write in Maturen and Muñoz. (If there were a real possibility that Trump would win Massachusetts, I'd have to vote for Clinton.)
|
|