A couple of observations. One is that in the "issue focus" column there is a massive contradiction. People want cheaper stuff, but also want to reduce the Federal Debt. Clearly, all attempts to do one will make it so you can't do the other.
Case in point: The Democratic shut-down. What Democrats were wanting was massively more money poured into giving people money to soften healthcare costs. Never did a Democrat advocating this talk about what that policy would do to the National Debt, which currently stands at 38 Trillion. The idea of "taxing the rich more" isn't a bad idea, but there is not enough money there. And to make healthcare socialist (i.e., government run) ignores the incredible number of new medical procedures that are being and have been developed to treat illnesses better......based upon a Capitalist, money-driven idea.
A position of ours, and the major reason we switched from voting for Democrats for 50 years to either sitting out elections or voting Republicans is that there is no real Democratic Party any longer. Instead, it is ruled by Progressives who, if you don't 100% toe the line, will go after you with both fists flying.
Progressives are the same people who look down on Trump voters and Republican voters. They are the ones who constantly criticize white people, men, police officers, baby boomers, and financially successful people.
In short, Progressives are not aligned with our values in terms of respecting the dignity of all people, especially maybe those who you disagree with.
We believe that it is these psychological factors that actually determine elections, not issues as listed in the surveys. People want to belong with other people, and Progressives make it clear that unless you agree with them about how bad you are, then you are not worthy of being in their tribe.
And to date, we have seen NO progressives admit to how awful they are about other people.
So, we are Independents. Liberals. Able to see the validity of issues favored by both sides. And take all peoples' issues seriously.
p.s. and as my wife says, "you know you are a liberal, like us, when everyone hates you."
Here is Y(et another) feature of a Democrat that would make us inclined to vote for that person:
They don't use the phrase "Fight for you." That statement is so trite and ridiculous. What does it even mean? That they will go beat up someone? Call them names?
We want someone who will use the phrase: "I will work to find solutions, given the many varied opinions there are, that take into account all of those opinions"
We don't want more fighting. We want more cooperating.
Isn’t there some deceptive conflation going on regarding the issue referred to as “protecting the rights of the LGBTQ community”? It seems to me that that vast majority of people are fine with preserving the recently won rights of LGBQs; they just don’t wish to yield to every demand of Trans Activists. Here again the T’s are attempting to place themselves under the umbrella of “vanilla” LGBQ issues.
I'm not sure Blueprint's sample size was big enough to test so many variations and some of their conclusions are hard to believe -- professors do almost as vets or working class candidates? candidates who follow the science, evidence and facts (that sounds awfully lib-coded)? candidates who don't support breaking up monopolies (other polls show strong support for breaking up monopolies)?
The Echelon study confirms what I'd expect (and is therefore correct lol!) except that strong pro-life tilt is a head-scratcher, even for GOP-leaners.
Yeah, the Blueprint methodology (at least what little they explicitly offered about it) was a bit eccentric, but I do think a sample of >3K is pretty solid for something like this. And yes, the pro-life support in Echelon's poll was unexpected -- not entirely sure what to make of it.
I take them all with a grain of salt, but I do read them. When the same things keep popping up on many different issue polls I begin to see a trend. If the polls are biased they can word them to get just about any response they want.
Interesting that the most important issue identified in Blueprint is “protecting Social Security and Medicare.” I would expect this from older respondents but not younger respondents, at least as a top priority. I would love to see someone survey the use of “fixing” social security and Medicare so they are sustainable for the long term. “Protecting” means letting social security and Medicare swallow even more of the federal budget, thereby directing an even larger portion of federal resources to the old rather than the young. I believe in having a robust safety net and affordable coverage for seniors, but we have to do that in a sustainable way that allows the federal government, where appropriate, to invest in the youngest Americans.
Polling on “Protecting Social Security and Medicare” that doesn’t include options for how that will be accomplished simply exacerbates the problem. They aren’t threatened because a bunch of cranky libertarians simply think they shouldn’t exist. They are threatened by the simple arithmetic of payments exceeding intake from taxes. Every calculation I’ve seen “the rich” even loosely defined don’t have enough money to cover the difference.
I think "protecting" means protecting from elimination. For many years excess social security funds have been used to pay for huge tax cuts, now that those funds are due, the money that used to be used to fund government from Social Security, has to be used for.... social security, and funding the government has to come from taxes. Gulp.
Almost all the money I made this year is completely tax free. No Social Security, no medicare, no income tax, nada, zip, zero. Of the money I am taxed on I got one more tax break just for being old. I'm not volunteering but I'd think we need to get some religion about funding our government. We pay more in interest on debt than we do for all our guns, planes, and soldiers.
“ For many years excess social security funds have been used to pay for huge tax cuts”
I’m fairly certain that this is factually incorrect.
Back in the 80s when the Boomers realized that the size of their cohort compared to earlier generations meant the math wouldn’t work out Congress worked together to increase the Social Security tax rate to cover more than current outlays. The extra money was invested in T-bills because they are the most secure investment in the world not to “finance tax cuts”. Once the Boomers started retiring we stated tapping into those funds because as predicted payments started exceeding receipts. Those extra funds are expected to run out around 2032. Social Security was designed with its own funding mechanism which started to fall apart as we both started living longer and having fewer children.
When we had tons more coming into SS than going out, we also gave ourselves huge tax cuts. We could have set that SS money aside, but we didn't. There are many ways to make it fully funded now. We could remove the cap, and we'd be funded out past 100 years. Or we could tax all income, like capital gains.
The problem is I'd much rather buy a beach house in Malibu than pay someone else's Social Security, I'm sure many others feel the same. I've heard trout fishing in Chile is outstanding.
I love money. I know how to use a calculator. This stuff isn't rocket science. We have 12 million high income households in the US. Not billionaires but very well to do. At least 6 or 7 million high net worth households. Is someone with 500 million dollars really poor just because they aren't billionaires? Shouldn't someone with 500 million pay as much percent Social Security as the check out lady at 7-11?
We did set that money aside. Rather than shoving it into a mattress or risking it in the stock market, we invested it in T-bills. Which we have been cashing in to cover the shortfalls. Suggesting that because T-bills finance debt this means we sacrificed Social Security for tax cuts is completely disingenuous.
First off unless 7-11 is paying a lot better than I think someone making hundreds of millions is paying more into Social Security than the checkout lady at 7-11. The multi millionaire is paying the same amount as the six figured professional, but both the multi millionaire and the professional will receive the exact same payment when they start to collect. A key part of FDR’s plan was that Social Security would apply equally to everyone and not be welfare.
While I’m certainly open to the argument that we should turn Social Security in to welfare (albeit broadly based) by removing the cap on taxes while keeping it on benefits, the only piece where I’ve seen someone do the math points out that this will only cover half the shortfall.
The issue simply is that “the rich” don’t have enough money to pay for all of the social spending the left wants. If we want a European style welfare state we need to accept European style taxation (25% national sales tax anyone?) along with European style slow economic growth and low to non existent levels of low skilled immigration.
Everyone buys T-bills because they are a stellar investment. We should have done what with the money? Let it lose value to inflation? Placed it in investments with higher risk for the potential of beating inflation?
Yes, you finance tax cuts and the resulting budget deficits by selling T-Bills. And when Reagan fell for the Laughable curve and its often but not always false claims, we had to sell many more T-Bills. Guess what...we created a new buyer for those bills, the Trust Fund.
You don’t have to find buyers for T-bills. They have long provided the best return on investment with zero risk on the planet. What would you have recommended we do with the extra money if not invested it in T-bills?
I believe interest on the debt is the second biggest component of the federal budget now, behind only social security. How are more people not angry about this?
Good points. One piece of data that we found fascinating was this article in WSJ that Social Security and Medicare are not the big drivers of the debt. Instead, it is welfare:
Medicaid is a large number for the Fed's and the states pay a large portion too, along with ACA subsidies.
The whole medical insurance relationship with providers is a large part of the problems and needs another redo, as hard and unpleasant as that would be for all.
The insurance companies have way too much influence in the system and are skimming a huge dollar number for their mostly disruptive efforts.
Medicaid is paid 90% by the federal government. The WSJ has a front page story this morning , on the inability to get appointments. Doctors interviewed complained they are reimbursed so little by the government, their pay won't cover their office overhead, let along for MD time.
Most MDs also complained of a 50% no show rate, because unlike private patients , there is no penalty for failure to show. That means the doctor is not paid, and no one else can use that appointment. It sounds like a nightmare for all involved
We will be fine if we disagree, and welcome your discussion.
Medical insurance companies are great, in our views. And are why we are alive. They are competing with each other, which means the winner will be the companies that do the best for us.
What the problem with healthcare shows is NOT that there are bad actors. What it shows is that we get more and more medications and procedures to prolong our lives, and THAT costs money. We live so much longer than we did in our grandparents' age.
Medical care is, at its core, expensive, and becoming more expensive as we find new ways to prolong our lives. It's a sign of success...not a sign of failure on anyone's part.
I can agree health insurance companies are vital to our system, and they can be bad actors at times. Many hospitals and large health systems are also bad actors, while also providing lifesaving care and innovation. Insurance companies and health systems like the status quo--which leaves health care overpriced in many cases and unaffordable for many Americans--and fight tooth and nail in Washington DC to maintain the status quo. Site neutral payments would save the federal taxpayer billions of dollars and both parties have been trying to implement it for ten years and counting, but the hospitals keep lobbying to maintain their ability to charge more for a service no matter where it is provided. Insurance companies and health systems are both lobbying hard to maintain the Covid era ACA enhanced subsidies (at a cost of $35 billion per YEAR) because it is more money in their pockets. The system is broken, and needs some free market nudging.
I think hospitals pretty much charge whatever they want now.
George Will wrote a great piece when Obamacare passed, predicting exactly what has happened. Runaway medical care costs, that now absorb nearly 20% of GDP.
Will noted at the time roughly 20-25 million Americans had preexisting conditions that prevented them from obtaining affordable insurance. Will calculated we could have handed them all free Federal Medical Credit Cards, good at any doctor, capped only at the highest spending level of any existing US insurance policy, and saved ourselves billions, that have morphed into trillions.
In the US, we mandate a floor for car safety. Every car must meet a minimum safety level, but we do not demand every driver only travel by Rolls Royce, Range Rover or Mercedes, who make the the largest and heaviest cars, with generally the best safety records.
Obamacare deemed only prepaid Rolls Royce medical care acceptable. Suddenly every American was required to pay for mental health care coverage, even though most would never use it. They were required to pay for an annual physical, even though for young people, they provided no value. His list went on and on.
After Obamacare, which Will correctly predicted would spread to all policies, medical insurance would no longer be limited to large unaffordable medical bills, but every conceivable medical process, utilized or not, from birth to death, after the deductible. It was akin to car insurance covering regular wear and tear on tires, or your home owners policy, providing new carpet and a new sofa each year.
When I think of free market nudging I don't mean no regulation, I mean regulation that lets the free market work. For instance, price transparency with hefty fines for noncompliance--this applies to hospitals and other providers, but also insurance companies who are supposed to publish certain negotiated rates. Of course, this does no good if people are not incentivized to shop for the best prices for non-emergency care. Government intervention to enable the free market to work also applies to both horizontal and vertical integration in health care markets. Health systems buy up physician practices then charge a facility fee for the same service patients received when the physician was independent. Some more vigorous antitrust enforcement when health systems try to consolidate in certain cities. There is a lot states and the federal government can do to let health care markets work better to bring down prices.
Social Security is currently fully self funded. The tax was increased back in the 80s so that it started running surpluses which were invested in T-bills. I forget exactly when we went from surpluses to deficits, but the proceeds from those surpluses are set to run out around 2032. That’s when the problem will start and absent a change from Congress all recipients are looking at a roughly 23% cut.
The problem is now. It is solved by jacking up social security taxes by a tenth or so of a percentage point a year, until it has been increased by a percent or a bit more, at which point the trust fund is stable. Then you take Social Security out of the budget. After all, it was put into the budget to hide LPJ's massive deficits (he was not the only guilty party), not for any sensible reason.
The old and the young are not too different groups of people. Everybody who is young now will be old eventually, unless they die young. And if someone is bleeding to death in the gutter at age 35, their first thought is not going to be"damn, I wasted all that money on Social Security payments".
This profile sounds a lot like Jared Golden, who just withdrew from re-election. He was representing the majority of his district, but out of step with party discipline and receiving death threats. Is that what a candidate who resembles the preferred voter profile can expect?
Is a Democrat who fulfills these traits/stances still a Democrat?
And then the biggest question of all, would they be trusted, or as Clyburn said about Kamala and her 180 on so many issues, because she is trying to get elected?
Until the Dems clean house on the current "fight" group of dinosaurs, I'd be hard pressed to vote for any Dem.
In the early 1980’s when Reagans bill tax bill was passed with the bipartisan support of House Speaker Tip O’Neil (D) and Present Reagan top income tax rates dropped from a maximum of 70% to 28% and income subject to tax increased as many deductions were elimated.
Part of that deal was to rework the calculations on funding Social Security; increase age for full benefits and increase amount of income subject to SS tax. SS solvency increased by enough years to fund the boomers retirement.
Twenty years later when President Bush tried to adjust the numbers again to extend SS solvency, there was no House Speaker on board to help.
Instead the president and Republicans were the target of Democrats outrage optimized by Paul Ryan being accused of wanting to push Granny off the cliff.
Here we are today twenty years later. The Social Security trust fund is estimated to run out of money when I turn 83 years old. I wish the numbers had been adjusted 20 years ago.
We could go back to the original FDR plan to start paying SS just a little after Americans life expectancy of 58 for men and 62 for women.
The part always missing in this discussion is SS was originally meant for those who didn't have enough to live on after retirement, the needy. Those who didn't need it were added to gain votes down then line. Paying SS to those who don't need it is insane. Does someone making $1million a year need SS? If we means tested SS, it might turn out, less revenue is needed to fund SS for the truly needy and those who then wouldn't get it would also pay in less because less was needed. Dems are always going after the rich. but in this one case, they don't. Why is that?
From search assistant:
The Social Security Act, signed into law on August 14, 1935, was primarily designed to provide financial support for:
Retired Workers: The initial focus was on providing old-age benefits to workers who reached retirement age.
Unemployed Individuals: It included provisions for unemployment insurance to assist those who lost their jobs.
Dependent Families: The Act aimed to support families with dependent children and provide aid to mothers.
Historical Context
The program emerged during the Great Depression, a time when poverty rates among senior citizens exceeded 50%. The goal was to protect the elderly from falling into poverty and to offer a safety net for workers facing unemployment.
Evolution of Benefits
Over time, the Social Security program expanded to include:
Survivors Benefits: Added in 1939 to support families of deceased workers.
Disability Benefits: Introduced in 1956 to assist those unable to work due to disabilities.
This evolution reflects a growing recognition of the need for broader social insurance protections beyond just retirement.
According to A I, in 1940 there were about 159 workers for every beneficiary. In 2024, about 2.7 workers pay into the system for every worker collecting. It has always been designed as a benefit for contributions paid in over one’s working years, not a welfare benefit. With that big pot of money in the beginning, what politician could resist making new friends by giving away more money? Perhaps survivors benefits and/or disability benefits should be pulled out and set up as a welfare benefit.
At the very least everyone should support the presidents several initiates to eliminate improper Social Security payments. “The Office of the inspector General reports that improper payments cost the program about $3.4 billion dollars per year on average for the past four years.” Fraud is a small fraction of improper payments, the larger cause is continued payments to recipients who are deceased.” According to AI
Please supply any official documentation that supports your claim it wasn't meant as a welfare benefit. And then why you believe a millionaire should receive SS?
That's some appreciated polling, especially from Blueprint which as I remember is funded by some altruistic billionaire. I have to wonder though, if that polling is meant to inform the public or to inform the other billionaires who fund campaigns. In either case if the info is used, it's all good. As DB up above said, truly independent voters pick the winners in November.
That's a rather weird conjunction in the first part of that survey. "prioritizing, working class struggles" and "doesn't talk about culture war issues" are two different issues. There's no reason why one can't support both. They each should've had a separate question.
The republicans are the ones who talk the most about cultural war issues. Most actual Democratic candidates mention them very briefly, if at all.
Another terrific article from TLP.
A couple of observations. One is that in the "issue focus" column there is a massive contradiction. People want cheaper stuff, but also want to reduce the Federal Debt. Clearly, all attempts to do one will make it so you can't do the other.
Case in point: The Democratic shut-down. What Democrats were wanting was massively more money poured into giving people money to soften healthcare costs. Never did a Democrat advocating this talk about what that policy would do to the National Debt, which currently stands at 38 Trillion. The idea of "taxing the rich more" isn't a bad idea, but there is not enough money there. And to make healthcare socialist (i.e., government run) ignores the incredible number of new medical procedures that are being and have been developed to treat illnesses better......based upon a Capitalist, money-driven idea.
A position of ours, and the major reason we switched from voting for Democrats for 50 years to either sitting out elections or voting Republicans is that there is no real Democratic Party any longer. Instead, it is ruled by Progressives who, if you don't 100% toe the line, will go after you with both fists flying.
Progressives are the same people who look down on Trump voters and Republican voters. They are the ones who constantly criticize white people, men, police officers, baby boomers, and financially successful people.
In short, Progressives are not aligned with our values in terms of respecting the dignity of all people, especially maybe those who you disagree with.
We believe that it is these psychological factors that actually determine elections, not issues as listed in the surveys. People want to belong with other people, and Progressives make it clear that unless you agree with them about how bad you are, then you are not worthy of being in their tribe.
And to date, we have seen NO progressives admit to how awful they are about other people.
So, we are Independents. Liberals. Able to see the validity of issues favored by both sides. And take all peoples' issues seriously.
p.s. and as my wife says, "you know you are a liberal, like us, when everyone hates you."
We want a Democrat who respects everyone. Period.
Indeed.
Solid, or certain Democratic voters pick the primary winners, and truly independent voters pick the winners in November.
Those numbers would be nice to see.
Here is Y(et another) feature of a Democrat that would make us inclined to vote for that person:
They don't use the phrase "Fight for you." That statement is so trite and ridiculous. What does it even mean? That they will go beat up someone? Call them names?
We want someone who will use the phrase: "I will work to find solutions, given the many varied opinions there are, that take into account all of those opinions"
We don't want more fighting. We want more cooperating.
Isn’t there some deceptive conflation going on regarding the issue referred to as “protecting the rights of the LGBTQ community”? It seems to me that that vast majority of people are fine with preserving the recently won rights of LGBQs; they just don’t wish to yield to every demand of Trans Activists. Here again the T’s are attempting to place themselves under the umbrella of “vanilla” LGBQ issues.
I'm not sure Blueprint's sample size was big enough to test so many variations and some of their conclusions are hard to believe -- professors do almost as vets or working class candidates? candidates who follow the science, evidence and facts (that sounds awfully lib-coded)? candidates who don't support breaking up monopolies (other polls show strong support for breaking up monopolies)?
The Echelon study confirms what I'd expect (and is therefore correct lol!) except that strong pro-life tilt is a head-scratcher, even for GOP-leaners.
Yeah, the Blueprint methodology (at least what little they explicitly offered about it) was a bit eccentric, but I do think a sample of >3K is pretty solid for something like this. And yes, the pro-life support in Echelon's poll was unexpected -- not entirely sure what to make of it.
I take them all with a grain of salt, but I do read them. When the same things keep popping up on many different issue polls I begin to see a trend. If the polls are biased they can word them to get just about any response they want.
Interesting that the most important issue identified in Blueprint is “protecting Social Security and Medicare.” I would expect this from older respondents but not younger respondents, at least as a top priority. I would love to see someone survey the use of “fixing” social security and Medicare so they are sustainable for the long term. “Protecting” means letting social security and Medicare swallow even more of the federal budget, thereby directing an even larger portion of federal resources to the old rather than the young. I believe in having a robust safety net and affordable coverage for seniors, but we have to do that in a sustainable way that allows the federal government, where appropriate, to invest in the youngest Americans.
Polling on “Protecting Social Security and Medicare” that doesn’t include options for how that will be accomplished simply exacerbates the problem. They aren’t threatened because a bunch of cranky libertarians simply think they shouldn’t exist. They are threatened by the simple arithmetic of payments exceeding intake from taxes. Every calculation I’ve seen “the rich” even loosely defined don’t have enough money to cover the difference.
Well said.
I think "protecting" means protecting from elimination. For many years excess social security funds have been used to pay for huge tax cuts, now that those funds are due, the money that used to be used to fund government from Social Security, has to be used for.... social security, and funding the government has to come from taxes. Gulp.
Almost all the money I made this year is completely tax free. No Social Security, no medicare, no income tax, nada, zip, zero. Of the money I am taxed on I got one more tax break just for being old. I'm not volunteering but I'd think we need to get some religion about funding our government. We pay more in interest on debt than we do for all our guns, planes, and soldiers.
“ For many years excess social security funds have been used to pay for huge tax cuts”
I’m fairly certain that this is factually incorrect.
Back in the 80s when the Boomers realized that the size of their cohort compared to earlier generations meant the math wouldn’t work out Congress worked together to increase the Social Security tax rate to cover more than current outlays. The extra money was invested in T-bills because they are the most secure investment in the world not to “finance tax cuts”. Once the Boomers started retiring we stated tapping into those funds because as predicted payments started exceeding receipts. Those extra funds are expected to run out around 2032. Social Security was designed with its own funding mechanism which started to fall apart as we both started living longer and having fewer children.
When we had tons more coming into SS than going out, we also gave ourselves huge tax cuts. We could have set that SS money aside, but we didn't. There are many ways to make it fully funded now. We could remove the cap, and we'd be funded out past 100 years. Or we could tax all income, like capital gains.
The problem is I'd much rather buy a beach house in Malibu than pay someone else's Social Security, I'm sure many others feel the same. I've heard trout fishing in Chile is outstanding.
I love money. I know how to use a calculator. This stuff isn't rocket science. We have 12 million high income households in the US. Not billionaires but very well to do. At least 6 or 7 million high net worth households. Is someone with 500 million dollars really poor just because they aren't billionaires? Shouldn't someone with 500 million pay as much percent Social Security as the check out lady at 7-11?
We did set that money aside. Rather than shoving it into a mattress or risking it in the stock market, we invested it in T-bills. Which we have been cashing in to cover the shortfalls. Suggesting that because T-bills finance debt this means we sacrificed Social Security for tax cuts is completely disingenuous.
First off unless 7-11 is paying a lot better than I think someone making hundreds of millions is paying more into Social Security than the checkout lady at 7-11. The multi millionaire is paying the same amount as the six figured professional, but both the multi millionaire and the professional will receive the exact same payment when they start to collect. A key part of FDR’s plan was that Social Security would apply equally to everyone and not be welfare.
While I’m certainly open to the argument that we should turn Social Security in to welfare (albeit broadly based) by removing the cap on taxes while keeping it on benefits, the only piece where I’ve seen someone do the math points out that this will only cover half the shortfall.
https://www.city-journal.org/article/raising-the-tax-cap-cannot-save-social-security
The issue simply is that “the rich” don’t have enough money to pay for all of the social spending the left wants. If we want a European style welfare state we need to accept European style taxation (25% national sales tax anyone?) along with European style slow economic growth and low to non existent levels of low skilled immigration.
T bills are what the Chinese buy, it's our government borrowing money. So we borrow money from SS and use that money to give huge tax breaks.
Please.
Everyone buys T-bills because they are a stellar investment. We should have done what with the money? Let it lose value to inflation? Placed it in investments with higher risk for the potential of beating inflation?
Exactly. "Huge tax cuts" is the cry whenever there are budget discussions.
Yes, you finance tax cuts and the resulting budget deficits by selling T-Bills. And when Reagan fell for the Laughable curve and its often but not always false claims, we had to sell many more T-Bills. Guess what...we created a new buyer for those bills, the Trust Fund.
You don’t have to find buyers for T-bills. They have long provided the best return on investment with zero risk on the planet. What would you have recommended we do with the extra money if not invested it in T-bills?
I believe interest on the debt is the second biggest component of the federal budget now, behind only social security. How are more people not angry about this?
Mary Beth.
Good points. One piece of data that we found fascinating was this article in WSJ that Social Security and Medicare are not the big drivers of the debt. Instead, it is welfare:
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/welfare-is-whats-eating-the-budget-10c9d093?mod=e2two
Medicaid is a large number for the Fed's and the states pay a large portion too, along with ACA subsidies.
The whole medical insurance relationship with providers is a large part of the problems and needs another redo, as hard and unpleasant as that would be for all.
The insurance companies have way too much influence in the system and are skimming a huge dollar number for their mostly disruptive efforts.
Medicaid is paid 90% by the federal government. The WSJ has a front page story this morning , on the inability to get appointments. Doctors interviewed complained they are reimbursed so little by the government, their pay won't cover their office overhead, let along for MD time.
Most MDs also complained of a 50% no show rate, because unlike private patients , there is no penalty for failure to show. That means the doctor is not paid, and no one else can use that appointment. It sounds like a nightmare for all involved
We will be fine if we disagree, and welcome your discussion.
Medical insurance companies are great, in our views. And are why we are alive. They are competing with each other, which means the winner will be the companies that do the best for us.
What the problem with healthcare shows is NOT that there are bad actors. What it shows is that we get more and more medications and procedures to prolong our lives, and THAT costs money. We live so much longer than we did in our grandparents' age.
Medical care is, at its core, expensive, and becoming more expensive as we find new ways to prolong our lives. It's a sign of success...not a sign of failure on anyone's part.
I can agree health insurance companies are vital to our system, and they can be bad actors at times. Many hospitals and large health systems are also bad actors, while also providing lifesaving care and innovation. Insurance companies and health systems like the status quo--which leaves health care overpriced in many cases and unaffordable for many Americans--and fight tooth and nail in Washington DC to maintain the status quo. Site neutral payments would save the federal taxpayer billions of dollars and both parties have been trying to implement it for ten years and counting, but the hospitals keep lobbying to maintain their ability to charge more for a service no matter where it is provided. Insurance companies and health systems are both lobbying hard to maintain the Covid era ACA enhanced subsidies (at a cost of $35 billion per YEAR) because it is more money in their pockets. The system is broken, and needs some free market nudging.
In a free market insurers would be free to not cover people with pre existing conditions, right? Hospitals would be free to charge whatever they want.
I think hospitals pretty much charge whatever they want now.
George Will wrote a great piece when Obamacare passed, predicting exactly what has happened. Runaway medical care costs, that now absorb nearly 20% of GDP.
Will noted at the time roughly 20-25 million Americans had preexisting conditions that prevented them from obtaining affordable insurance. Will calculated we could have handed them all free Federal Medical Credit Cards, good at any doctor, capped only at the highest spending level of any existing US insurance policy, and saved ourselves billions, that have morphed into trillions.
In the US, we mandate a floor for car safety. Every car must meet a minimum safety level, but we do not demand every driver only travel by Rolls Royce, Range Rover or Mercedes, who make the the largest and heaviest cars, with generally the best safety records.
Obamacare deemed only prepaid Rolls Royce medical care acceptable. Suddenly every American was required to pay for mental health care coverage, even though most would never use it. They were required to pay for an annual physical, even though for young people, they provided no value. His list went on and on.
After Obamacare, which Will correctly predicted would spread to all policies, medical insurance would no longer be limited to large unaffordable medical bills, but every conceivable medical process, utilized or not, from birth to death, after the deductible. It was akin to car insurance covering regular wear and tear on tires, or your home owners policy, providing new carpet and a new sofa each year.
When I think of free market nudging I don't mean no regulation, I mean regulation that lets the free market work. For instance, price transparency with hefty fines for noncompliance--this applies to hospitals and other providers, but also insurance companies who are supposed to publish certain negotiated rates. Of course, this does no good if people are not incentivized to shop for the best prices for non-emergency care. Government intervention to enable the free market to work also applies to both horizontal and vertical integration in health care markets. Health systems buy up physician practices then charge a facility fee for the same service patients received when the physician was independent. Some more vigorous antitrust enforcement when health systems try to consolidate in certain cities. There is a lot states and the federal government can do to let health care markets work better to bring down prices.
Social Security is currently fully self funded. The tax was increased back in the 80s so that it started running surpluses which were invested in T-bills. I forget exactly when we went from surpluses to deficits, but the proceeds from those surpluses are set to run out around 2032. That’s when the problem will start and absent a change from Congress all recipients are looking at a roughly 23% cut.
The problem is now. It is solved by jacking up social security taxes by a tenth or so of a percentage point a year, until it has been increased by a percent or a bit more, at which point the trust fund is stable. Then you take Social Security out of the budget. After all, it was put into the budget to hide LPJ's massive deficits (he was not the only guilty party), not for any sensible reason.
The old and the young are not too different groups of people. Everybody who is young now will be old eventually, unless they die young. And if someone is bleeding to death in the gutter at age 35, their first thought is not going to be"damn, I wasted all that money on Social Security payments".
This profile sounds a lot like Jared Golden, who just withdrew from re-election. He was representing the majority of his district, but out of step with party discipline and receiving death threats. Is that what a candidate who resembles the preferred voter profile can expect?
Is a Democrat who fulfills these traits/stances still a Democrat?
And then the biggest question of all, would they be trusted, or as Clyburn said about Kamala and her 180 on so many issues, because she is trying to get elected?
Until the Dems clean house on the current "fight" group of dinosaurs, I'd be hard pressed to vote for any Dem.
In the early 1980’s when Reagans bill tax bill was passed with the bipartisan support of House Speaker Tip O’Neil (D) and Present Reagan top income tax rates dropped from a maximum of 70% to 28% and income subject to tax increased as many deductions were elimated.
Part of that deal was to rework the calculations on funding Social Security; increase age for full benefits and increase amount of income subject to SS tax. SS solvency increased by enough years to fund the boomers retirement.
Twenty years later when President Bush tried to adjust the numbers again to extend SS solvency, there was no House Speaker on board to help.
Instead the president and Republicans were the target of Democrats outrage optimized by Paul Ryan being accused of wanting to push Granny off the cliff.
Here we are today twenty years later. The Social Security trust fund is estimated to run out of money when I turn 83 years old. I wish the numbers had been adjusted 20 years ago.
We could go back to the original FDR plan to start paying SS just a little after Americans life expectancy of 58 for men and 62 for women.
In 2025 life expectancy is about 79.6 years.
https://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html
The part always missing in this discussion is SS was originally meant for those who didn't have enough to live on after retirement, the needy. Those who didn't need it were added to gain votes down then line. Paying SS to those who don't need it is insane. Does someone making $1million a year need SS? If we means tested SS, it might turn out, less revenue is needed to fund SS for the truly needy and those who then wouldn't get it would also pay in less because less was needed. Dems are always going after the rich. but in this one case, they don't. Why is that?
From search assistant:
The Social Security Act, signed into law on August 14, 1935, was primarily designed to provide financial support for:
Retired Workers: The initial focus was on providing old-age benefits to workers who reached retirement age.
Unemployed Individuals: It included provisions for unemployment insurance to assist those who lost their jobs.
Dependent Families: The Act aimed to support families with dependent children and provide aid to mothers.
Historical Context
The program emerged during the Great Depression, a time when poverty rates among senior citizens exceeded 50%. The goal was to protect the elderly from falling into poverty and to offer a safety net for workers facing unemployment.
Evolution of Benefits
Over time, the Social Security program expanded to include:
Survivors Benefits: Added in 1939 to support families of deceased workers.
Disability Benefits: Introduced in 1956 to assist those unable to work due to disabilities.
This evolution reflects a growing recognition of the need for broader social insurance protections beyond just retirement.
According to A I, in 1940 there were about 159 workers for every beneficiary. In 2024, about 2.7 workers pay into the system for every worker collecting. It has always been designed as a benefit for contributions paid in over one’s working years, not a welfare benefit. With that big pot of money in the beginning, what politician could resist making new friends by giving away more money? Perhaps survivors benefits and/or disability benefits should be pulled out and set up as a welfare benefit.
At the very least everyone should support the presidents several initiates to eliminate improper Social Security payments. “The Office of the inspector General reports that improper payments cost the program about $3.4 billion dollars per year on average for the past four years.” Fraud is a small fraction of improper payments, the larger cause is continued payments to recipients who are deceased.” According to AI
Please supply any official documentation that supports your claim it wasn't meant as a welfare benefit. And then why you believe a millionaire should receive SS?
I stand corrected, it was set up with one program insurance and others welfare.
“…the SocialSecurity Act (the Act) of 1935. This Act provided for unemployment insurance, old-age insurance, and means-tested
welfare programs. “
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v66n1/v66n1p1.pdf
That's some appreciated polling, especially from Blueprint which as I remember is funded by some altruistic billionaire. I have to wonder though, if that polling is meant to inform the public or to inform the other billionaires who fund campaigns. In either case if the info is used, it's all good. As DB up above said, truly independent voters pick the winners in November.
I just want more Marie Gluzenkamp Perezes and John Fettermans.
That's a rather weird conjunction in the first part of that survey. "prioritizing, working class struggles" and "doesn't talk about culture war issues" are two different issues. There's no reason why one can't support both. They each should've had a separate question.
The republicans are the ones who talk the most about cultural war issues. Most actual Democratic candidates mention them very briefly, if at all.