tobetrained

@tallslenderguy Well, partisanship has grown so it’s harder to provide blanket support and time can change things (see Obama comment below). But let’s start with US politics on the D side: Hilary Clinton. Although she supported things I’m skeptical about, like Universal Healthcare, she is the only candidate in history – multiple times – to provide potential solutions to the idea with (mostly) functional financing. And she always kept an eye on how to budget for things – which Democrats have forgotten entirely. In general, she worked harder than most as a Senator from NY, where I lived at that time. Bill Clinton too, despite his issues, worked across the isle to develop a robust economy, which can’t be ignored – leaving the annual budget in surplus. Imagine! Others but nowhere near an exhaustive list, but a random Dem/leaning selection: Buttigieg, Golden (very disappointing he's retiring), Peltola, Tester, McCaskill, Bayh (Sr and Jr), Angus King, (throwback) Minge, and the list goes on. On the Republican side it’s more limited due to longer-standing issue-based differences. If I could do one election over it would be 2012 and to vote for Romney over Obama. Romney, at that time, got the central global question of today correct: Putin is the greatest threat to democracy. Obama got that terribly terribly wrong with the ramifications nowhere near over. If you haven’t, go search for their 2012 foreign policy debate, Obama (dismissively to Romney): Putin!? Putin!? – it’s so sad now to see, given actual history. We’d be better off now if Romney had won. And Obama’s second term was such a mess from the Syrian red line, to Russia annexing Crimea without significant response, and the horribly elitist tragedy which was TPP – and I’m for trade deals. Elsewhere, I respect Collins a lot and I’d vote for Murkowski for anything. I always give a listen to Tom Cole and, through listening to him, I started paying attention to Stephanie Bice (both of OK). I listened to Pat Toomey a lot. This is not an exhaustive list either. Outside the US, I listen to Canada’s current PM Carney. He just put out a budget which will reduce their Federal workforce in similar proportion to that Trump has done in the US - and no protests up there, as yet. There are differences on many aspects but top-line number, similar. I was a fan of Macron, but – by all French accounts – he’s become a bit too stuck in his own head. I very much like Attal as well but his future is murky after being thrown under the bus by Macron. I do give a read to Merz, when translated. I’m very interested in the new Dutch centrist government, to be led by Jetten of D66. But it’s way too soon to know how this will play out given their fragmented election result last week. But it was a great day of vote count fun. I appreciate Mexico’s Sheinbaum but not a fan of policies…but not easy for her in that role whatsoever and on so many levels. And last but certainly not least is von der Leyen. She has got that EU hodgepodge working as much as anyone could. Regardless, any leader willing to do the unpopular things while stepping on the toes of ideological purists get my time and vote. I try to avoid those who grandstand or claim political altruism. In this country, usually they're just looking to run for President and trying to create a lane for themselves or just shoring up support for their next election.

No one does. But how do we have a conversation when you start with vitriol, as you did this morning? Consider your second post. We could talk about this: Senate Reps and Dems are both in DC and they're negotiating with a possible vote in next few days to kick start the process. The House passed their CR, there's nothing more for them to do until the Senate acts. Regardless of next steps, the Senate will likely first pass the House CR to save time. In fact, both sides agree, the House doing something now only complicates matters. So, I could then ask you this: What do you mean by your comment?

HA! very informative @PozBearWI. I'm saying nothing Lee Saunders -- the head of AFSCME -- said on October 1. But, ultimately, we can't... to your point. [think before following links] https://www.afscme.org/press/releases/2025/afscmes-saunders-shutting-down-the-government-wont-hide-the-health-care-crisis-that-anti-worker-extremists-started And now both the Federal Workers Union and Air Traffic Controllers Union have demanded as well. But, I'm sure they're all stupid in your book too...?

Well, as a centrist and data-junkie, I love election nights as I now rarely have a horse in the race. In work I did elsewhere, what was fascinating: Dems won at or better than Trump's first term, the 2017 elections for these race (NJ/VA Gov). Dem net approval fell to 0%, approve - disapprove, from +6% in 2017 (avg NJ/VA) Rep net approval improved to -9% from a disaster in 2017 at -24% So, we're at a point where neither party is especially we like nor well hated. It's just most are in opposing camps spitting at each other. The above was exit poll data I got from NBCnews.com as are below. These are post-overnight re-weights for anyone who saw similar on TV or online last night. @hntnhole To answer your Q indirectly, the exits also had two Qs which will answer your clarify: Will Republicans pull back from their behavior relative to immigration? In the NJ/VA exits, 55% said Trump's immigration policies had gone to far with only 14% saying not far enough. Will Democrats pull back from their push on trans when 49% (NJ/VA) said we've gone too far while 24% said not far enough. I'm not opposing or endorsing either. I'm just saying, what do you think will actually happen? We're in two camps, that's it. Both sides think facts are subjective. To end on a positive, at least we're not in a parliamentary where governments collapse. We get out our ideological intramural debates in the primary process, for better or worse, instead of while governing.

@hntnhole you’re conflating two very different things. Biden did NOT step aside from his duties as President which is what you would be describing. He stepped aside from running for another term – an election mid-way through. The US constitution says nothing about how political parties can (or cannot) select their nominee. Consider the 2016 Democratic primary relative to the fluid nature of the democratic process. At the time there was anger toward super delegates in that primary between Clinton and Sanders, by progressives and Bernie Sanders particularly. Their issue was that super delegates were not bound -- by the voters themselves via election results -- at the convention, so they claimed. They called this undemocratic. For Democrats, “regular” delegates are now bound to voters’ selection in the caucuses and primaries – thought this hasn’t always been the case. And is not the uniformly the case currently for Republicans. Over time, more delegates have become bound for a certain number of ballots at the convention. But let’s move on from that history. The Democratic party responded after 2016 by both reducing the number of super delegates and preventing them from voting on the first ballot. This is important for 2024 since, after Biden stepped down, all regular bound delegates became unbound – effectively making all of them super delegates. They could select anyone. And in a process not decided directly by voters (see above 2016 above when that behavior was called undemocratic). Delegates were then guided to pick Harris by the Biden campaign and encouraged to do so by ranking Democrats. Sanders even threatened to challenge but he was quickly told to desist for the sake of party unity. And remember, these weren’t a cross section of Democrats. Nearly all were Biden supporters as no one challenged him (by any considerable measure) in the 2024 Democratic primary. That primary process is part of the broader set of procedures for people to become national convention delegates. By the party’s own standards, due to progressives' demands following 2016, it is undemocratic when delegates -- not voters -- that decide of a candidate. p.s. and @tallslenderguy you can add this to the Sanders list: we can be sure if Sanders would have benefited from super delegates there would have been no changes after 2016. Look back at his anger and push-back against getting rid of caucuses (where he excelled). Caucuses have much smaller participation (100s to 1000s of people) than primary elections (10s of thousands to millions). For reference, see 2016 Nebraska and Washington state binding caucus vs. non-binding primary results as to why he pushed back and consider the number of voters in each. Then look at how he fared in 2020 vs. 2016 in states that switched to primaries: WA, NE, ME, KS, MN, ID before that contest effectively ended.

Political statements are fine. But please do your research too. [think before following links] https://bipartisanpolicy.org/issue-brief/enhanced-premium-tax-credits-who-benefits-how-much-and-what-happens-next/ Here's an excerpt "...Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, Congress passed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA), which temporarily expanded the populations eligible for these tax credits and the amount of financial assistance provided for two years. Under the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA), Congress extended these so-called enhanced PTCs (also known as enhanced Advance Premium Tax Credits, or eAPTCs) through December 31, 2025. Congress now faces a set of difficult choices with significant implications for the federal deficit, the number of insured Americans, and the financial burden insurance imposes on consumers." Democrats, under Biden, had years to hold public debate and FUND this program -- Biden and Democrats failed to do this. It has been unfunded and paid for by incremental debt. That was acceptable as a short-term response to a crisis. The program was designed to limit/minimize damage from short-term price spikes due to (potentially) great medical care demands from a pandemic. No direct crisis-response program should continue forever, especially when unfunded. Instead, Democrats have used it -- and people's health -- as a political football to pressure extensions WITHOUT funding, hoping to win elections. They then doubled-down by shutting the government down, hurting even more people in the process.

What is this you're referring to? The subsidies expiring, by definition, were intended to expire. They were not exacted by law on a permanent basis. Therefore, nothing was yanked. SNAP, if that's what you're referring to, is not expiring but part of the shutdown effects created by Dems.

Possibly. But she could have realized the well documented threat, by Dems view, re: Project 2025 and others, to conceive the reality of the day. There was no secrets as to many Rep plans. She could have said, "I recognize I'm being handed this opportunity in a manner that is not democratic. But the danger is too real and Biden should have stepped down earlier. I make this promise to the American people, if elected I will only sit for a single term as elections matter, democracy matters." When she's doing this tour to kick-start another possible run, she could start by saying, "I lost. I screwed up..." Instead, she finds others to blame including her own campaign -- which she didn't understand (see above) nor make changes to it. I'll leave it to conservatives and Republicans to articulate the issues they have with Democrats from their perspective.

@tallslenderguy re: Harris and Bernie My issue with Harris is on the substance, generally, of what she says. Like with the example of "what to do" about the problem of her campaign. It didn't make sense, she didn't understand the operations of her own campaign and staff roles. I have no problem with how politicians positioning themselves or their ideas. I do take issues with the ideas. I'm not a supporter of Johnson nor Republicans, so I can't really comment from that direction. On Bernie Sanders. I will limit myself to these lies and positions: In 2016, he said he would become a Democrat. Hmmm. In 1st debate with HRC in 2015, among his first responses was to blast the primary/general election system -- since it didn't specifically work for him -- and support a European parliamentary system. I believe his quote was about, "...like they have in Europe..." He doesn't want to lead but be the loudest opposition and in such systems a politician can gain glorious attention for doing nothing -- see: Melenchon. He wants to present easy solutions without developing them into a plan nor live with the consequences. He promised in 2016 to present his UHC healthcare plan and costs, and didn't then but he picked apart HRC for hers, as she actually put one together. When he finally did, in the 2019 Primary, it cost nearly our full national budget, according to the CBO. He's a purist and will rationalize anything on his purity-of-purpose. Example: he voted against Comprehensive Immigration Reform in 2007 on one small issue. That massive bi-partisan bill included the DREAM Act in full and many other items. Anyone concerned about deportations today should be protesting on his doorstep too due to his failure of leadership and responsibility! He claims, like Trump, to be for the little guy. His wife and political advisor -- so fair game -- has ideas which bankrupt an organization. And so does his. This has nothing to do with the criminal issue which didn't move forward but the facts which closed the University due to her negligence of duty and both logical and ideological absurdity, and the ideas which he takes as input to his own. [think before following links] [think before following links] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/feds-decline-bring-charges-against-bernie-sanders-wife-land-deal-n935856 I'll stop. Now I'm frustrated. It's time for Halloween candy self-medication. He's among the reasons I left the Democrats. With him involved, there's no rational future for them.

@hntnhole I'll let @Philatanus respond if he wishes to your specific question. But can I poke you on that, from the other side: where do you stop? how do you fund? How do you reduce waste or unnecessary care? A part of the high costs to medical insurance and care in the US is the volume of patient demand against a backdrop of limit care providers (supply). Government support and assistance programs make that care even more expensive by blindly supporting even more care. See: long wait times in countries with UHC, and even here. How do you balance the reality of finite care against patient load for providers? Without a mechanism, costs just spiral*. As a remember, ACA plans would be much lower -- almost to the price level of plans with the now-ended subsidy -- had Democrats not greatly expanded the definition of "basic care." Even the definition of "disability" has been grossly expanded in recent years. Maybe if we get back to a more reasonable definition of "basic care" there can be a better way forward. We pay for this in the end, either to providers/insurers or to the government via taxes. And now these programs are fully funded by new debt as our annual budget is/has been in deficit, which added interest on top of the cost itself. * I don't know the details, but the South Korean system has UHC but cover no more than 50% and a more strict definition of basic care than ours. This limits cost and unnecessary care due to less demand per person. I don't know the details of that nor supplemental insurance market there. Democratic politicians balk endlessly at that.

@tallslenderguy I tried, I really really tried to watch. Twice, actually. I just can't do it. This is in no way a complaint about you posting it, just commentary on her. There's a complaint-first nature to Democrats. Early on, her response to 107 days, she complains about the task at hand. But doesn't acknowledge avoiding a bruising primary, billions of $ in support, or a limited time frame with the press for them to dig out dirt and contradictions. Maybe elsewhere she does? Part of my issue with her as leader is demonstrated in the convo during the 10-min mark. She doesn't understand people or roles in her own organization (campaign). She probably had 50 people doing voter/people research... which was what she was demanding in the Stewart convo. That research work, combined with her campaign analytics team, would send people out to strong Dem precincts and blocks. Those people, GOTV crews, are there to execute plans -- she was complaining these execution teams were not doing the upstream research work. The important thing here isn't the good insights those GOTV people could possibly find out - but their limitations and slowdown of the execution process: Limitation. The GOTV crew reaches only a small and intentionally biased group of people... very likely Dem voters, based on the geo-selection of the analytics team informed by the research team. It was her own research team who would be trying to understand everybody and distill the salient points. She should have probably talked with them. Slowdown. The GOTV crews are incentivized by volume of door-knocks. They don't interpret. If they did, it slows them down. And, importantly, there are others -- as noted above -- doing the interpretive work. It would be like asking the people on an assembly floor to understand what buyers want in a car. The manufacturer has 100s of people doing that very thing, consumer research. The floor is about execution -- and they can't change the assembly line. If she can't even understand how her own campaign works, how could she possibly understand the Federal government? Also, when I hear someone use the phrases "my voice," "my story," "my journey," something in me breaks. My bitch-claws come out and they want to scratch! 😃

@Pozzible ah got it. And, likely it was regarding accession of Finland and Sweden, their move to NATO being in response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. And, yes, all the fast-tracking stuff talked about then was implemented -- and it still took a year!. But even with their fast-tracking, Orban was blocking them simply as Putin's NATO puppet (and, more recently, you can add Fico and likely Pavel to the list). Ergodan used that block to negotiate for US-made military jets and for Sweden's (unofficial) support for the PKK. Interesting, Ergodan is in some form of peace process with PKK now...which I've read little rationale as to why but haven't followed too closely.

@hntnhole FYI: good article today from BBC on Trump admin's financial support to Argentina. Summary: work-in-progress despite their spin. And a fair question should be asked of Trump and Bessent, so TARP wasn't a "bailout" then? [think before following links] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g3mdvle78o

@tallslenderguy Pete gives a good and dense interview. I don't know if he really commits to anything, which shouldn't be a problem as he's "not running." 😀 I heard him do it here, and another person from the left... like a tactic Reps use, he said / deflected, "leave it to municipalities, etc" or something similar. This is like Reps saying, "leave it to the states" or "states' rights." I think this is a Dem tactic as they run so many of the our cities. But, like states' rights w Reps, they never say what they will do if those smaller geographies do something they don't like or don't do something they want.

@Pozzible How would you do this? (above snippet from your post) I'm all for it, but... Hungary (Orban), Slovakia (Fico) and now possibly Czechia (due to likely Pavel lead) would veto outright. I'm ignoring others, like Turkey, who would just use a veto for negotiation leverage on other issues. Would you use current boundaries for UKR, 2022 boundaries (with Donbas, etc), or 2014 (all that + Crimea)? Russia has rejected the latter two for sure. The second point above is among biggest issues for peace terms or cessation of hostilities. Countries in active conflict can't join NATO. If they could, in this case, we'd be at war with Russia on day one. And to get there, terms, brings us to the other big issue: security guarantees. Russia has rejected US-only guarantees let alone NATO collective defense. Again, I'm all for it - UKR in NATO. But I don't see a real way to fast-track. In potential conflict, you isolate the enemy first. For the Russia-China-Iran axis then: the 2024 Syria overthrow and it's impact to Russia across MENA, the 2023-25 response to Iran and its Middle East militant factions - ultimately led by Israel for it's own purposes with our tacit support, and now Venezuela, as a key ally to that axis, all fall within that remit. If that latter is accomplished, Russia is trivialized across the Atlantic+Med region. And, let's say Venezuela is all about oil: fine, good, go for it. We can economically strike them in their main financial generator by flooding the oil market and impacting / lowering price (tho, this is unlikely to happen). We even benefit our own economy through downward inflationary pressure (people don't stop driving). And, if we support the Venezuelan opposition -- which both Biden and Trump admins have stated -- then we make an ally. Allies are good, esp. those who promote democracy. Then we have better leverage to negotiate with Russia on Ukraine. The Europeans need to step up their own self-defense and direct support for UKR -- we absolutely should help, backseat role. And they are finally and belatedly starting to do that. This is what gives us time for the prior stuff. And, all that before we even get to China and the Pacific. Where are the Europeans on this part?

re: "no fight, no teeth" and Colbert's audience response: Isn't that what the shutdown is about? Democrats wanting to fight and stand up to Trump?... a base rally regardless of its impact or those hurt by it. I agree on Trump's audience... I would further that, it's the same road Democrats are on as Reps were 12-15 years ago. Then Reps had been outta power presidential since the 80s expect for 2000-2008 (which ended badly for them) and were on the cusp of another Clinton running for the WH post-Obama.... and felt lost. They made themselves more and more extremist and opened themselves up to someone like Trump, a sort of pied piper character. I kinda seen Dems on that very same extremist road. Colbert's audience response was completely within expectation of that and Dems today. Though I, too, wish it wasn't...hopefully not putting words in your mouth there.

got it. the video title does beg the question, is there a better system than the two-party system? Or, alternatively, are all systems equally bad?

blush

@tallslenderguy I watched that first interview multiple times since you posted this. I could not understand any of her points. I read this article today. I'm glad to see I'm not alone. Did you find something worthwhile? [think before following links] https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/29/karine-jean-pierre-book-backlash-00626014 And, the less I say about Bernie on this site the better, most likely. 😀

@hntnhole I think it's important to separate geographic proximity from political motives or outcomes. Venezuela itself is more aligned to last December's Syrian uprising which ousted Bashar al-Assad. That was supported by Turkey which gave the then opposition (and now current government) the comfort and support to move. And, given Turkey's support, we would have been informed to some degree but it's very unclear how much. In the context of the Russia-China-Iran axis, al-Assad was supported directly by both Iran and Russia. With him gone, Russia has lost their only military base in the Med region, at least temporarily. Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela are the only real allies of that axis in the Western hemisphere. The broader issue of targeting "drug boats" -- Pacific, Caribbean, elsewhere -- is merely the smoke screen. While some of it may be true, we're cutting off Maduro's well trodden escape routes re: boats near Venezuela -- likely with internal Venezuelan military support and intelligence (although this is conjecture). Otherwise, without that back-channel, our military would not be moving or suggesting these moves. It's also in Maduro's interest to embarrass The US/Trump, and they haven't even bothered trying to fake civilian deaths (as far as I know) as part of this -- e.g. the repercussions of a boat strike. He's more concerned with internal matters -- and figuring out who it is in the military/elsewhere that may try to oust him. The difference between Venezuela and Argentina is Maduro is of the militant far-left Socialist ideology, and Biden had a reward out for his capture. Milei is of the opposite political outlook and came to power via fair elections and not a coup. Specific to Argentina: here's a "bid deal" picture of Argentina and why elections have turned out as they have recently, anti-leftist: "Inflation Rate in Argentina decreased to 31.80 percent in September from 33.60 percent in August of 2025. Inflation Rate in Argentina averaged 189.08 percent from 1944 until 2025, reaching an all time high of 20262.80 percent in March of 1990 and a record low of -7.00 percent in February of 1954. source: Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos (INDEC)" from site: [think before following links] [think before following links] https://tradingeconomics.com/argentina/inflation-cpi The far-left Peronist's lost all sight of fiscal restraint let alone responsibility, leading to above economic as well as political reactions. If they had been more responsible, or at least not reckless, Milei would never have been able to gain the support he did. Argentina is the definition as to why "government can't do everything all the time." Peronists would just make empty promises to do everything and then fail to deliver almost anything. And, Milei's policies are working, to some degree: [think before following links] [think before following links] https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/argentina-inflation-cools-may-lowest-over-five-years-2025-06-12/ As for Trump, he's an Oligarch and he -- personally -- is his own ideology. So yes, unless he feels he's getting something, he's uninterested. I would suggest, though, the same is true for political parties or movements. The progressive left is an example with the shutdown, as stated in Trump Promises convo and won't re-hash here. But those Federal workers are pushing back, here are a couple links on that as Dem support struggles with pressure from major unions as they no longer want to be collateral damage: [think before following links] [think before following links] https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/27/democrats-face-moment-of-truth-as-shutdown-coalition-frays-00624346 [think before following links] [think before following links] https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/10/28/congress/controllers-union-doesnt-go-as-far-as-afge-in-shutdown-plea-00624445 I can't speak to your comment of Milei being a dictator without more detail. He came to power in fair and open elections. His party won again on Sunday, further strengthening their position. I try not to use terms like dictator just because I don't like the policies of a person or their party. Equally, I didn't like it when Republicans called Obama a dictator or that he was attempting to be a king.

@hntnhole here's a pretty all-around article from BBC. Opinion of their quoted experts is he's making it clear to internal / domestic groups -- e.g., elements of their army -- that we are their to support and not lead their effort to oust a dictator. [think before following links] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gp2lxz75eo After that, it's unclear next steps. We -- both Biden and Trump admins -- have stated support for the opposition groups who -- by all known measures easily won the last election before Maduro stole it. [think before following links] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Venezuelan_presidential_election This is driven closing down the tentacles of the Russia-China-Iran axis (and, Hamas' move in 2023 was ultimate with that support too). In run up to Ukraine invasion, their allies and friends in our region -- Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela -- pushed out many dissidents and others who then became part of the 2022 immigrant surge as a means of distraction from Ukraine -- as always, that partially worked. See CBS News article from that time: [think before following links] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cuba-venezuela-nicaragua-migrants-processed-record-us-border-2022/ I'm sure oil is also part of it. But let's say their massive stores are quickly brought online (very unlikely). That depresses the price. Trump's push for domestic exploration and development slows as companies will limit said development due to much lower profits from lower prices -- so it actually would hurt his domestic agenda. Same lower prices though impact everyone, from Russia to our (frenemies) OPEC, as it all goes onto the open market. I think the latter is the bigger long-term goal.

Can we all just agree, donuts should be a food group? It's a Big Vegetable conspiracy to prevent proper classification! Write to your Senators! Somewhere in this convo, in the pages above, someone referenced that corporation don't pay their fair share -- in regard to income taxes. That's likely true but not the whole truth. It's important to remember they pay roughly 80% of private health insurance and effectively "pay" for regulation, like employee benefits in lost time -- i.e., non-monetary costs. Here is a quick and abbreviate view of 2024. Actual Federal Tax Revenue ($4.9 tril) and estimated/actual costs for selected regulated benefits ($2.1 trillion in costs) offered by corporations -- an addition of real and non-monetary costs. These are far from all the costs nor, clearly, a summary for all regulations. Paid by Individuals: $3.5 trillion or 49% of included items $2.4t federal income taxes $850b in federal payroll taxes (50% of total for employee Social Insurance) $197b paid to private insurers for employee healthcare (21% of this insurance type) Paid by Corporations: $3.3 trillion or 47% $530 federal income tax $850b for employee federal payroll taxes (50% of total for employee Social Insurance) $728b paid to private insurers for employee healthcare (79% of this insurance type) 1.1t in a non-monetary cost of lost productivity for time off benefits (vacation, sick, holiday, etc.) * $75b in a non-monetary cost of lost productivity for parental leave benefits ** Other: $0.3 trillion or 4% for other federal tax revenues My point: we generally talk about benefits, etc -- like time off -- but, as a society, we never talk about their costs to employers. The more costs corporations have, the less likely they keep positions in the US. Just food for thought for when we consider who is going to pay for all this stuff, UHC, etc. Even Bernie could only come up with a plan that would cost $4 trillion+ per year minimum, according to CBO, in 2020 -- more than the then total US federal tax revenue ($3.5 trillion, 2019). * wide estimates available ($900b to $1.35t) ** wide estimates available ($50b to $120b)

@Pozzible I didn't know how that worked, DM. I tried deleting a different message -- as there seems to be a limit on number of messages -- then everything went away. Right, no country will drop UHC as it is political suicide: see current US shutdown! Which is why certain programs shouldn't be added in the first place !! haha. --- Current Trends in Private Health Insurance in Europe Rising Demand: The demand for private health insurance is increasing due to constrained public healthcare systems and long waiting times. Patients are seeking quicker access to medical services, leading to a shift towards private options. Market Growth: The European health insurance market was valued at approximately €283.1 billion in 2023 and is projected to grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 6.31%, reaching around €405.3 billion by 2029. This growth is driven by an aging population and the increasing complexity of healthcare needs. Coverage Variability: Health insurance structures vary significantly across Europe. Some countries have socialized systems, while others offer a mix of public and private insurance. In many nations, health insurance is mandatory, requiring contributions to national funds, while in others, it is voluntary. Technological Integration: The integration of technology in healthcare is transforming service delivery. Digital health solutions, telehealth, and health management platforms are becoming more prevalent. These innovations aim to improve efficiency and patient outcomes, shifting the focus from reactive treatment to proactive health management. Health Protection Gap: There is a growing recognition of the health protection gap, where many individuals lack adequate coverage for medical expenses. Insurers are focusing on bridging this gap by offering more comprehensive policies that include critical illness and disability coverage. source: researchandmarkets.com Increase in Private Health Insurance Among Europeans Reasons for the Shift Long Waiting Times: Many public healthcare systems in Europe face significant delays, prompting individuals to seek quicker access through private insurance. Quality of Care: Patients often prefer private healthcare for perceived better quality and more personalized services. Financial Pressure: Rising out-of-pocket costs in public systems lead some to opt for private insurance to mitigate financial risks. Key Statistics Year % Population with Private Insurance; Notable Trends Point 2023 ~30% (some level, not necessarily full coverage); Increased interest in private options post-pandemic 2025 ~35%+ (some level, not necessarily full coverage); Continued dissatisfaction with public services This trend indicates a significant shift in healthcare preferences among Europeans, with many opting for private health insurance to ensure timely and quality medical care. source: lek.com [think before following links] https://www.lek.com/insights/hea/eu/ar/private-healthcare-demand-europe-rising-demand-and-changing-preferences Those % seemed very high. It's from survey data in the context "had you done this" and not a tally of actual agreements. example: yesterday 70% of people watched TV or streamed video, but the rate at any one moment would be like 25%. I did read UK's private market was 8% (latest) and expected to pass 10% soon, for instance -- yet, below, ~45% in the UK have used private insurance at some point in time (first column below). --- YIKES: a market-driven decision -- people deciding for themselves. I think this suggests, long-term, we will all move to a mixed system. Government to require or provide super basic care with incremental private options -- either full or select coverage (e.g., someone may opt not to get eye care coverage).

@tallslenderguy and co, on the Ukraine topic from way back in page 1, this continues what I had suggested was the latest round in that discussion, our pressuring Europe to stop buying Russian energy (which helps fund their war effort). This being the second stick-approach with Europe. (first being for them to get to NATO defense agreements of 2% GDP, which now many are; and they've been increased to 5% GDP by 2030) [think before following links] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c17p54edxljo

@Pozzible in reverse of your posts: re undocumented workers/taxes. That was directed to another with the @ . I can talk to others, you know! I was following up on a mini-simultaneous convo on topic throughout this one. Re: Nurses chart. Well, you need to adjust for cost of living or per capita incomes. In the UK, poverty can defined in a number of ways. The government links to the following charity. Government site [think before following links] [think before following links] [think before following links] https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn07096/ Joseph Rowntree Foundation - a nonpartisan poverty charity [think before following links] [think before following links] [think before following links] https://www.jrf.org.uk/uk-poverty-2025-the-essential-guide-to-understanding-poverty-in-the-uk That foundation has a calculator [think before following links] [think before following links] [think before following links] https://www.minimumincome.org.uk/results/ This says, for a single person without kids, UK poverty is about 30.5k/yr GBP. Here is the pay guide from the nurses job board Nurses.co.uk: [think before following links] [think before following links] [think before following links] https://www.nurses.co.uk/nursing-pay-guide They report, the starting point for qualified nurses (stated as "band 5") is 31.0k/yr GBP -- effectively poverty. They also state the average nurse salary is around 39k/yr GBP. This is poor, by multiple definitions. They're not the worst across care providers. Here the Commonweath Fund -- which I believe you mentioned as defining the US as worst of developed countries. It definitely is used by progressives. [think before following links] [think before following links] [think before following links] https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2024/sep/mirror-mirror-2024 In the chart below is their overall score and rank (shaded gold). I then added two variables to expand the data: Nurses' average salary, adjusted for per capita income Primary Care Physicians' average salary, adjusted for per capita income The US moves to 4th overall (see column, "New") while Germany drops to 10th and considerably by the Commonwealth Fund's metric definitions (from -0.15 to -0.45): to that end, that's why I tried to quickly get info on Germany in my post yesterday. You're correction I can see when asking for the data in a one-off question. so, let's correct the record to that from the 50% to 75%, german docs still practicing domestically after 10 years. Tho, I still get the 50% figure when asking for increments, from 1- 3-, 5-, and 10-year increments in one or a series of AI questions. But I don't want spend more time looking into it! It really wasn't that relevant from my point: In the universal care systems, costs are controlled by low nurse and doctor pay, and they're regulated which limits worker economic freedom. Interestingly, and this gets to the German doc convo a bit too, both US and Switzerland jump with incomes. The source your AI used, @Pozzible, notes German doctors leaving predominately come to the US and Switzerland due to better salaries and advanced technologies, among countries in Asia for same, ~30% of those who leave Germany. Here's a specific link to the issues in the German healthcare system due to low wages: [think before following links] [think before following links] [think before following links] https://schengenvisainfo.com/news/germanys-healthcare-staff-shortage-crisis-to-further-deepen-without-foreign-doctors/