tobetrained

@tallslenderguy To regroup, You added the issue of income disparity above. But this is an effect, not a cause. The cause is what I was trying to get to in my last post. Our collective behavior. We make choices everyday about how and where we spend money and time. Over time, those choices have funneled more and more money to fewer and fewer people. I used Amazon as the example, of many. You quoted me, “Governments role in the problem.” and continued yourself, “I think ‘we the people’ have stepped too far away from government.” To be sure, as I wasn’t quite clear form your response, I said ‘role in the problem’ and not the Regean-like “…government is problem.” You state, “but i would rather live in a democratic system than a more dictatorial one where one persuasion calls all the shots.” I’m not sure who in the US feels differently so I'm not sure what you mean. Generally, people on one side of the political isle always feel left out after they lose an election. And that feeling, coupled with the over-reach I referenced (in the other thread) of the President’s party early in their term is why the President’s party typically loses the mid-term House election, it's been by a 10-1 margin since 1980. In terms of participation, I think we’re circling similar things..maybe? In the Amazon example I referenced consumer spending choice as part of the cause of income disparity. That is, with the vast sums we spend with them, companies can pay their employees with incrementally large salaries and wealth (stock options, 401k benefits, etc). We can participate is so many things EVERY DAY with our own choices – that’s participation too. Examples: buy local products or at least just from local/regional stores/chains (reduce income disparity and rebuild local communities) and take fewer air travel trips while also driving less (environmentalism). Most people choose not to bother, even those who claim to care about those issues. So there’s an open question: if we are ”the system” (in the on-going example) shouldn’t the first effort to fix a problem come from ourselves? I’ll leave this part here and let me know if I understood you correctly. I think there’s still more on your point re: participation. I’m not sure I got your point right. And @hntnhole for Pete’s comment, I was referring to him deflecting a question with “leave it to the municipalities.” It’s a new thing I’ve heard recently from multiple Dem politicians and is the same ”leave it to the state” or “State’s rights” Republican deflection. I’m unsure how you interpreted my comment by your reply.

@Pozzible Re: Warren. Maybe. But these are worth a read if you think so. I dug these out, almost "blast from the past" articles, it's been so long. [think before following links] https://www.factcheck.org/2019/06/facts-on-warrens-wealth-tax-plan/ [think before following links] https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2021/3/15/budgetary-effects-of-senator-warren-wealth-tax [think before following links] https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/wealth-tax/ More than any of the details above, none can account for ramifications of the Exit Tax. They assume legality to offer an overall estimate. There's a Constitutionality issue in the U.S. as well as -- more likely -- International Law... but I get that info from a former colleague. No idea on that myself but both are referenced in the top-line assessment online, which also details the 5th Amendment. Moreover, the Penn analysis updated their model with more feedback effects from their original findings. That is linked above. Like any good academic work, it says a lot without actually saying anything! @tallslenderguy and all, as this is an open convo, I ref'd making a decision between penalizing success and incentivizing for better outcomes. I do think Warren's falls into the former. But consider this article on same for NYC. Before you read, as a thought-test, simplify government revenue to personal income tax. What share of revenue should come from the top 1%? [think before following links] https://www.vitalcitynyc.org/articles/even-mamdanis-new-york-needs-millionaires After reading, what happens when those people just leave, or the corporations with those jobs hire elsewhere (incl. remote)? This gets to the fear in Warren's plan represented by the Exit Tax, a key element to make the whole thing work. As with others, these are illustrative discussion points, not designed to weed-dive.

Quite a different thing, to be sure!

@Pozzible can you elaborate. When I wrote that, in my mind, I was trying to state parties in a parliamentary systems are the factions.

First, we aren't a two-party system by requirement but there no real motive for more parties. Our US House is the equivalent body to most parliaments...it's just the speaker isn't President. That dulls the need for more parties to develop. And there are variations on the theme which abound across democracies, both in governing and elections. By factionalism, probably not. Given above, we don't have 5-10 parties in each election gaining seats in the House and splintering when things get tough if there in a governing coalition, bring down the government (in many systems). Re: snap elections. After 2003 Iraq: well we had the 2004 Presidential election with full House election and ~1/3 of Senate (as always). Reps won that by 2.4pp and with 232 seat in House. For COVID, we also had the scheduled Presidential and full House election + 1/3 Senate in 2020 with Dems winning. So, effectively we did have those elections...by happenstance of timing. But the House is more regular, every 2 years -- parliaments are typically 5+ years without dissolution.. We will again in the House next year. And by a 10-1 margin since 1980, the sitting president's party loses the House in the mid-term election. So Dems are sitting pretty on that. That flipping tendency of voters is why both parties try to stuff as much as possible into their first 6-12 months in office (following Presidential elections). Australian Senate election are very interesting. You should look into those...not really directly translatable up here tho.

Well, I'm glad there were 8 Democratic Senators who are willing to put governing over politicking. Thank you to Kaine, Cortez Masto, Durbin, Hassan, King, Rosen, and Shaheen who joined Fetterman who was there all along. If this goes through, a clean ACA bill with public debate is fully reasonable.

So, I mostly stopped ready/watching US coverage of US politics awhile ago -- most comes from BBC. The this happened today. First is BBC -- which I read and watch -- and via the linked page, I'm adding here the source reporting from The Telegraph -- a source I don't use [think before following links] https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cd9kqz1yyxkt [think before following links] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/03/bbc-report-reveals-bias-donald-trump/ I've seen the edited clip so much I don't remember the original. Shame on me. It doesn't change what actually happened, of course. But you can't fight a liar with lies. Now what CA is doing with redistricting, OK. fair is fair -- all in the rules and balanced, given TX, etc.

This gets us to a very fun topic. It also gets back to one of your original questions to, re: leadership, which may be a good term to describe those who live with "pain only a moral person would feel--doing nothing..." or, in limitation. On the topic you bring up, the St Louis Fed posted a tangential document. [think before following links] https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2025/apr/whats-driving-surge-us-corporate-profits And, to continue beating on the human body as a 'system' analogy, let's go down a diagnosis and prescription road. The biggest drivers of post-COVID profit have been (point-of-purchase) retail and construction... combining for almost 40% of post-COVID growth of corporate profit of The Fed's selection set. There's a ton to talk about but I'm going focus here on retail -- a large part of which is Amazon. But it replicates across industries in digital consolidation which nationalizes products and services (if not globalizes them). In the case of Amazon, the amount of revenue they have sucked up from 1,000s of local stores which then goes to pay their workforce much higher salaries and [wealth] benefits (stock, 401k, etc.) than those local stores could have offered. Amazon is one example within this driver of wealth disparity: consolidation of supply and those suppliers' revenue (and profits) shared by their relatively fewer employees. AI is going to be the next. You can add Google, FB/Instagram, etc. But this brings it back to the bigger question, government's role in the problem. But additionally, how much is our own responsibility of that problem. Companies don't force us to use their products. We live in a free society. But we keep eating the sugar than complain about diabetes. Here's where leadership in government comes in, to one of your original questions. Someone open to a government role but also tries to lead people to make better decisions. Should government programs incentivize people to make better decisions or penalizes success. There's much more to be politically gained in the latter. That's poor leadership. On this specific topic, most Democrats take the latter position while Republicans simply abdicate for fear of government involvement. To switch gears a bit, here on environmentalism, I begrudgingly give Warren some credit in the 2020 primaries. She tried to bring up the amount we drive but it fell on deaf ears. Driving is the sugar -- due to direct and indirect environmental impact as well as lifestyle and its part to play on lower life expectancy (people don't walk/exercise enough in daily life). That last part is so important and missed in our national political discourse, our own role in our own health. This is true not only for the 'systems' analogy we're discussing but the cause and effect in so many other behaviors - health and healthcare, wealth distribution, etc. On health for healthcare's sake: Here's an interesting excerpt from a book I noted to one of your previous posts, this was specifically to lifestyle and food consumption, re higher age-adjusted life expectancy of Mexican and Latin American women coming to the US vs. white non-Hispanic women in the US: “...All studies in fact show that immigrants in general are healthier the day they arrive than after five years’ residence in the United States..." Excerpt From: A Population History of the United States: Second Edition, Herbert S. Klein To solve any problem, where is the balance between personal choice and government programs? Which should take the lead?

I'm not sure any democracy can do 'major' policy well...since and including Athens 500bce. I'm not sure it's any easier in a parliamentary system between governments dissolving, no confidence votes, and ideological factionalization. And, I think, making it harder is kinda the point.

@tallslenderguy Wow... so my entry to that question was on the economic side, grossly practical. The exercise I gave myself was breaking costs down -- and damn did I spend a LOT of time back then. A tip of the iceberg was UHC, slightly included in my answer above. The lecturer, to us all was like, "you fools, here's the answer" briefly written at the start of my last post here. Of course, that was the intent on his part. You took the philosophical route... and it's used there too (like many similar questions). I think there are similar themes. 1) you said as part of your stated "prime directive" was, "...that 'I' can be wrong..." I think philosophical idea fits into the concept in the economic space that, no matter how much you have, you can make both the wrong decisions, and by helping "over here" you can implicitly hurt "over there." For instance, the minimum wage increases over the last decade. It does help those getting the increase (esp. initially), but it's also helped to drive up general prices as people trade up, and it definitely creates a separation of those who can't work (temp or perm) reducing the help from other government programs provide (i.e., $0->$8 is a lot less than $0->$15), etc. Whether you agree with the specific, the connecting idea is that every decision is a trade-off and you can never know the consequences. 2) you said, "grace in the process of decision making" this gets to the actual answer of the question, I think. In that, using a level grace is to accept emotional pain. And, given the answer to the experiment, it's only pain a moral person would feel -- doing nothing. Curious as to your thoughts after reading the answer.

@tallslenderguy So to start with an answer to your Qs, first consider the above thought experiment -- typical in philosophy, economic, and political science. What did you do in thinking about that? The only (simple) answer is to do absolutely NOTHING with the offered gold but stick in room/box and tell no one. Answer: Even at that high volume of $, you can never help everybody. Let's say you cash it in and dole it out to people and groups you think are worthwhile, there will always be others you've missed or can't get to. But you've now flooded the gold market and devalued it. You get back to a fraction of the original (supply/demand -- markets, not capitalism). That then undermines all world currencies, which begin to collapse, as they're foundation is stores of gold. That, then, triggers global 'systems collapse' (search on that phrase). Society is 'a system' and systems need to be as self-sustaining as possible either independently or in groups. The human body is a great example of inter-related systems to provide an analogy...simply: it's better not to need a ventilator to breathe than to need one. Most times, government programs are the ventilator. UHC is a great example but let's only consider one of many aspects for sanity. And, with it, only the 48 contiguous states. A construct to understand one issue with UHC is population density via OMB/Census Bureau defined Urban Areas ("Places" with minimum 5k+ population or 2k+ Household; I'm using caps here to imply a defined term). 80% of our population live in Urban Areas but those cover only 3% of our land area. It's easier to provide UHC (or ANY service) in densely populated places...but a government program can't be selective. So everyone would be required to pay the same by increased personal taxes and/or increased consumer prices as corporate taxes get passed along. But rural populations always get less -- and that's OK if they're not required to pay for services they can't really use. And this is where partisans, Democrats here but both sides across issues, stop considering other people. The 20% outside Urban Areas makes up ~30%+ of Republican voters. What's in it for them? And the cutoff of 5k people is a arbitrary thing. It's not like a city of 7,500 people is a glowing megalopolis. But I don't want to answer your Qs purely from a UHC perspective. It's just illustrative. Government isn't a system, people are systems and the society we put together. Government programs are ventilators. They try to fix a problem but, like a ventilator, it shouldn't be permanent. At minimum government programs should not create more problems, like increased debt. I won't get into that here. But, as a centrist, I will consider any program -- even a program I dislike -- if it's paid for. I will ignore any program which is not, even if I like it. It's hard to consider Democrats viable after their spending plans in the 2020 primary -- where multiple candidates funded multiple proposals from the same increased revenue stream, mainly on the progressive wing. And the few times they were called out for it, the reply: "it's not the plan, it's the idea." No. I can sit here and say no one should have to work so they can play all day long! That idea is great. But it's bogus. But consider your Q, simplified here, "what should a government provide." That's sorta a Democratic perspective -- "what can government do?" I look at that this way: "How can government help the most yet be involved the least?" I'm looking for a balance. Think ACA. It's about paying for private healthcare. It's not government-run or facilitated healthcare. Principally, that's balance. Opposite side example, to demonstrate this from convos with conservative/libertarian friends, I argue: "Financial market regulation is an absolute necessity due to greed and market manipulation." But those convos don't happen on this site! I'd say it there if they occurred. But this is way too long. I'll leave it there but happy to have a conversation about issues, topics, etc around it, or anything.

@Pozzible I think you've down a different road. You can see the exit polls here for VA and navigate to NJ too: [think before following links] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2025-elections/virginia-governor-results These are regular studies of voters done by a Edison Research, paid for and reported by all major media. I think NY Times and FOX News team up for a different service...that may be Presidential elections only. Given the depth of questions and limited time, they asked / reported only two political questions this year -- one supported by each party as noted above. Again, you can see the results there on the site. Additionally and on those topics, I'm not sure how many Republican governors or state legislatures led by same have passed pro-gay rights bills let alone trans. Equally, I'm not sure how many Democratic governors or Dem-lead state legislatures have passed law restricting migration. The point of their work, as reported by media companies, is how divided we are. I'm not sure where you're going with your response.

@tallslenderguy Conversations are never a problem. I had been responding to you videos for same reason and purpose. Equally, there a lot to unpack in your Qs. Let me figure out to write a compact reply but touch on as much as I can. But, here's a really interest thought experiment which demonstrates the basis for the above response, I've updated the $ to approx. current prices: Let's say you were given $100 trillion in gold (4x current tradable volume). You can't keep it for yourself or those you know. What would you do with it? But don't cheat and use AI! 😃

@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.