The MAJOR difference between Medicare and Private Insurance...

[Redfish]

I don’t see how the EC is still necessary to entice smaller states to join the union. They’re not going anywhere.

Try to give it a little more thought. While it would be difficult, if not impossible, for most of these states to leave the union at this point - the fact that might want to would be a problem. It would undermine national unity and the legitimacy of our democratic process.

the liberals want to do away with the states. They want one big group of people totally controlled by the elites in DC. Thats how stupid they are.

 

[colfax_m]

I don’t see how the EC is still necessary to entice smaller states to join the union. They’re not going anywhere.

Try to give it a little more thought. While it would be difficult, if not impossible, for most of these states to leave the union at this point - the fact that might want to would be a problem. It would undermine national unity and the legitimacy of our democratic process.

It’s a relic of the past. During the signing of the constitution, people didn’t see themselves as Americans. Why would they, it didn’t exist. They saw themselves as Virginians or Georgians. It was lack of national unity that required the EC.

No one, or at least a small minority, views themselves as Virginians or Georgian first. (Okay maybe Texans but as a large state, their representation in the election would increase). We see ourselves as Americans. It is our national unity that removes the need for the EC.

 

[colfax_m]

My point is that swing states have a massively out of proportion control over the election because, and solely because, arbitrary factors from the electoral college.

A politician is rewarded richly by the electoral college for pandering to industries and individuals from these swing states. Big parts of economic policy is driven not by what’s best for the country but what’s best for Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan.

You can respond to these issues or you can just call people names. Your choice.

without the EC they would pander to LA, NY, Miami and Houston. WTF difference would it make? Politicians pander, thats how it works.

They’d campaign to as many people in as many places as they could. A voter in Tennessee carries no more weight than a voter in any of the cities you mentioned. The difference is that a voter’s worth is not determined by their location. Every vote counts the same.

Yes, but they would campaign where there are the most voters. Would you go to Cheyenne Wyoming or NYC if you were looking to maximize your PV?

God forbid they campaign where people actually live.

Are there voters in Cheyenne? Then yes. How many presidential candidates campaign in Cheyenne now? Zero.

don't be so naive, they would only campaign where there were large numbers of potential voters. Because those 4 places could swing the election.

None of us knows how the Cal PV would have come out if Trump had had several rallys in that state. He had rallys in Fla and won Fla, soooooooo

Your criticism is that people wouldn’t campaign in small states is irrelevant because they already don’t campaign in small states. Cities are more diverse than you give them credit for. Without the EC, those Republican voters in California would actually have a reason to turn out. Trump would have a reason to campaign there. Likewise, Democrats would have a reason to campaign in the Deep South and increase the turnout of Democratic voters there, who are currently too small a minority to flip the state’s blue.

It opens up so much potential for better representation. Right now, our electoral system is so skewed and focused on swing states, which are only important because their electorate is so evenly split. That’s an arbitrary distortion and has unnecessary effects on our country.

 

[dblack]

I don’t see how the EC is still necessary to entice smaller states to join the union. They’re not going anywhere.

Try to give it a little more thought. While it would be difficult, if not impossible, for most of these states to leave the union at this point - the fact that might want to would be a problem. It would undermine national unity and the legitimacy of our democratic process.

It’s a relic of the past. During the signing of the constitution, people didn’t see themselves as Americans. Why would they, it didn’t exist. They saw themselves as Virginians or Georgians. It was lack of national unity that required the EC.

And it's the erosion of that unity that created Trump. The Democrats thought they could ignore the rednecks. They were wrong. Now they want to change the EC so they can continue to ignore them, but even if they get their way, and diminish rural influence in the elections, the rednecks will still be there - disgruntled and resistant. That's no way to govern a diverse nation.

No one, or at least a small minority, views themselves as Virginians or Georgian first. (Okay maybe Texans but as a large state, their representation in the election would increase). We see ourselves as Americans. It is our national unity that removes the need for the EC.

And it's our national unity that be pissed down the river by removing the EC.

 

[Redfish]

without the EC they would pander to LA, NY, Miami and Houston. WTF difference would it make? Politicians pander, thats how it works.

They’d campaign to as many people in as many places as they could. A voter in Tennessee carries no more weight than a voter in any of the cities you mentioned. The difference is that a voter’s worth is not determined by their location. Every vote counts the same.

Yes, but they would campaign where there are the most voters. Would you go to Cheyenne Wyoming or NYC if you were looking to maximize your PV?

God forbid they campaign where people actually live.

Are there voters in Cheyenne? Then yes. How many presidential candidates campaign in Cheyenne now? Zero.

don't be so naive, they would only campaign where there were large numbers of potential voters. Because those 4 places could swing the election.

None of us knows how the Cal PV would have come out if Trump had had several rallys in that state. He had rallys in Fla and won Fla, soooooooo

Your criticism is that people wouldn’t campaign in small states is irrelevant because they already don’t campaign in small states. Cities are more diverse than you give them credit for. Without the EC, those Republican voters in California would actually have a reason to turn out. Trump would have a reason to campaign there. Likewise, Democrats would have a reason to campaign in the Deep South and increase the turnout of Democratic voters there, who are currently too small a minority to flip the state’s blue.

It opens up so much potential for better representation. Right now, our electoral system is so skewed and focused on swing states, which are only important because their electorate is so evenly split. That’s an arbitrary distortion and has unnecessary effects on our country.

It will focus on the swing states no matter which system we use. With the EC at least the people in the less populated states have a voice.

I get it that you want to do away with the states and make us all one large mass of people subject to the rule of the DC elites, but that is exactly why the founders set up the EC and also why they included the second amendment.

 

[colfax_m]

They’d campaign to as many people in as many places as they could. A voter in Tennessee carries no more weight than a voter in any of the cities you mentioned. The difference is that a voter’s worth is not determined by their location. Every vote counts the same.

Yes, but they would campaign where there are the most voters. Would you go to Cheyenne Wyoming or NYC if you were looking to maximize your PV?

God forbid they campaign where people actually live.

Are there voters in Cheyenne? Then yes. How many presidential candidates campaign in Cheyenne now? Zero.

don't be so naive, they would only campaign where there were large numbers of potential voters. Because those 4 places could swing the election.

None of us knows how the Cal PV would have come out if Trump had had several rallys in that state. He had rallys in Fla and won Fla, soooooooo

Your criticism is that people wouldn’t campaign in small states is irrelevant because they already don’t campaign in small states. Cities are more diverse than you give them credit for. Without the EC, those Republican voters in California would actually have a reason to turn out. Trump would have a reason to campaign there. Likewise, Democrats would have a reason to campaign in the Deep South and increase the turnout of Democratic voters there, who are currently too small a minority to flip the state’s blue.

It opens up so much potential for better representation. Right now, our electoral system is so skewed and focused on swing states, which are only important because their electorate is so evenly split. That’s an arbitrary distortion and has unnecessary effects on our country.

It will focus on the swing states no matter which system we use. With the EC at least the people in the less populated states have a voice.

I get it that you want to do away with the states and make us all one large mass of people subject to the rule of the DC elites, but that is exactly why the founders set up the EC and also why they included the second amendment.

Without the EC and with a popular vote, there is no such thing as a swing state. Just people.

 

[colfax_m]

I don’t see how the EC is still necessary to entice smaller states to join the union. They’re not going anywhere.

Try to give it a little more thought. While it would be difficult, if not impossible, for most of these states to leave the union at this point - the fact that might want to would be a problem. It would undermine national unity and the legitimacy of our democratic process.

It’s a relic of the past. During the signing of the constitution, people didn’t see themselves as Americans. Why would they, it didn’t exist. They saw themselves as Virginians or Georgians. It was lack of national unity that required the EC.

And it's the erosion of that unity that created Trump. The Democrats thought they could ignore the rednecks. They were wrong. Now they want to change the EC so they can continue to ignore them, but even if they get their way, and diminish rural influence in the elections, the rednecks will still be there - disgruntled and resistant. That's no way to govern a diverse nation.

No one, or at least a small minority, views themselves as Virginians or Georgian first. (Okay maybe Texans but as a large state, their representation in the election would increase). We see ourselves as Americans. It is our national unity that removes the need for the EC.

And it's our national unity that be pissed down the river by removing the EC.

Disunity is exacerbated by the EC. You think in terms of red states and blue states. Why wouldn’t you? It’s a useful construct to think about our election. We are supposedly so different just because our partisan makeup is different? No. I reject that.

Lack of unity gave us Trump. The EC gave us Trump. Think about it. These come from the same place.

 

[dblack]

I don’t see how the EC is still necessary to entice smaller states to join the union. They’re not going anywhere.

Try to give it a little more thought. While it would be difficult, if not impossible, for most of these states to leave the union at this point - the fact that might want to would be a problem. It would undermine national unity and the legitimacy of our democratic process.

It’s a relic of the past. During the signing of the constitution, people didn’t see themselves as Americans. Why would they, it didn’t exist. They saw themselves as Virginians or Georgians. It was lack of national unity that required the EC.

And it's the erosion of that unity that created Trump. The Democrats thought they could ignore the rednecks. They were wrong. Now they want to change the EC so they can continue to ignore them, but even if they get their way, and diminish rural influence in the elections, the rednecks will still be there - disgruntled and resistant. That's no way to govern a diverse nation.

No one, or at least a small minority, views themselves as Virginians or Georgian first. (Okay maybe Texans but as a large state, their representation in the election would increase). We see ourselves as Americans. It is our national unity that removes the need for the EC.

And it's our national unity that be pissed down the river by removing the EC.

Disunity is exacerbated by the EC. You think in terms of red states and blue states. Why wouldn’t you?

I actually don't. That's the irony of all this. When I was young, the voters in question were all solidly Democrat. The EC used to be a boon to Democrats, and they supported it for that reason. Now that it's not, they're against it.

Lack of unity gave us Trump. The EC gave us Trump. Think about it. These come from the same place.

The EC giving us Trump because Democrats thought they could get away with ignoring and shaming the rednecks. The EC properly punished them for their hubris. Will they learn their lesson? It seems doubtful.

 

[colfax_m]

I don’t see how the EC is still necessary to entice smaller states to join the union. They’re not going anywhere.

Try to give it a little more thought. While it would be difficult, if not impossible, for most of these states to leave the union at this point - the fact that might want to would be a problem. It would undermine national unity and the legitimacy of our democratic process.

It’s a relic of the past. During the signing of the constitution, people didn’t see themselves as Americans. Why would they, it didn’t exist. They saw themselves as Virginians or Georgians. It was lack of national unity that required the EC.

And it's the erosion of that unity that created Trump. The Democrats thought they could ignore the rednecks. They were wrong. Now they want to change the EC so they can continue to ignore them, but even if they get their way, and diminish rural influence in the elections, the rednecks will still be there - disgruntled and resistant. That's no way to govern a diverse nation.

No one, or at least a small minority, views themselves as Virginians or Georgian first. (Okay maybe Texans but as a large state, their representation in the election would increase). We see ourselves as Americans. It is our national unity that removes the need for the EC.

And it's our national unity that be pissed down the river by removing the EC.

Disunity is exacerbated by the EC. You think in terms of red states and blue states. Why wouldn’t you?

I actually don't. That's the irony of all this. When I was young, the voters in question were all solidly Democrat. The EC used to be a boon to Democrats, and they supported it for that reason. Now that it's not, they're against it.

Lack of unity gave us Trump. The EC gave us Trump. Think about it. These come from the same place.

The EC giving us Trump because Democrats thought they could get away with ignoring and shaming the rednecks. The EC properly punished them for their hubris. Will they learn their lesson? It seems doubtful.

When was the EC a boom to Dems? No Democrat has lost the popular vote and won the EC.

Don’t get all high and mighty about Dems ignoring “rednecks”. I’ve been told for decades that Democrats aren’t even “real Americans”. The red state and blue state EC construct is driving this divide.

 

[dblack]

Try to give it a little more thought. While it would be difficult, if not impossible, for most of these states to leave the union at this point - the fact that might want to would be a problem. It would undermine national unity and the legitimacy of our democratic process.

It’s a relic of the past. During the signing of the constitution, people didn’t see themselves as Americans. Why would they, it didn’t exist. They saw themselves as Virginians or Georgians. It was lack of national unity that required the EC.

And it's the erosion of that unity that created Trump. The Democrats thought they could ignore the rednecks. They were wrong. Now they want to change the EC so they can continue to ignore them, but even if they get their way, and diminish rural influence in the elections, the rednecks will still be there - disgruntled and resistant. That's no way to govern a diverse nation.

No one, or at least a small minority, views themselves as Virginians or Georgian first. (Okay maybe Texans but as a large state, their representation in the election would increase). We see ourselves as Americans. It is our national unity that removes the need for the EC.

And it's our national unity that be pissed down the river by removing the EC.

Disunity is exacerbated by the EC. You think in terms of red states and blue states. Why wouldn’t you?

I actually don't. That's the irony of all this. When I was young, the voters in question were all solidly Democrat. The EC used to be a boon to Democrats, and they supported it for that reason. Now that it's not, they're against it.

Lack of unity gave us Trump. The EC gave us Trump. Think about it. These come from the same place.

The EC giving us Trump because Democrats thought they could get away with ignoring and shaming the rednecks. The EC properly punished them for their hubris. Will they learn their lesson? It seems doubtful.

When was the EC a boom to Dems? No Democrat has lost the popular vote and won the EC.

Don’t get all high and mighty about Dems ignoring “rednecks”. I’ve been told for decades that Democrats aren’t even “real Americans”. The red state and blue state EC construct is driving this divide.

Red state/blue state is not an EC construct. The two-party nonsense is a product of plurality, winner-take-all voting. That's a separate issue altogether and we DO need to change that. It's also a result over ambiguities and disagreements over the Constitution, and that needs to be resolved as well.

Our democracy is malfunctioning, to be sure. But EC isn't the culprit.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

But they do! That is where you are wrong.

If Hillary had campaigned in PA, MI, and WI, we would not likely be having this conversation.

Sure buddy. Trump how many campaign rallies in Washington?

He held two in 2016. You were saying?

Two! Out of over 300. He spent one day there. You’re proving my point.

If your point was that you are a clueless, partisan, left-wing hack that never understood the Constitution, you would be right.

My point is that swing states have a massively out of proportion control over the election because, and solely because, arbitrary factors from the electoral college.

A politician is rewarded richly by the electoral college for pandering to industries and individuals from these swing states. Big parts of economic policy is driven not by what’s best for the country but what’s best for Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan.

You can respond to these issues or you can just call people names. Your choice.

Where did I call names? I accurately described you.

The result would be the same if it was a popular vote, but unmanageable on that scale. Apparently reality eludes you.

 

[colfax_m]

Sure buddy. Trump how many campaign rallies in Washington?

He held two in 2016. You were saying?

Two! Out of over 300. He spent one day there. You’re proving my point.

If your point was that you are a clueless, partisan, left-wing hack that never understood the Constitution, you would be right.

My point is that swing states have a massively out of proportion control over the election because, and solely because, arbitrary factors from the electoral college.

A politician is rewarded richly by the electoral college for pandering to industries and individuals from these swing states. Big parts of economic policy is driven not by what’s best for the country but what’s best for Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan.

You can respond to these issues or you can just call people names. Your choice.

Where did I call names? I accurately described you.

The result would be the same if it was a popular vote, but unmanageable on that scale. Apparently reality eludes you.

Total nonsense. The Republican fetish for manufacturing and coal industry is driven by swing state politics. The EC distorts our country’s priorities and arbitrarily elevates the needs of some Americans over others.

 

[Flash]

The Medicare / Medicare Supplement / Medicare Advantage system is very popular and efficient, because it includes an excellent blend of public foundation and free market competition & innovation. It could be easily scaled up, with a few tweaks, for all.

The right wingers can't support it because they're told not to, and the left wingers are LYING to the voters, calling Single Payer "Medicare for All".

As usual, the wings are slowing down progress and causing harm.
.

Yea dumbass, put government bueracrats, whose bosses are corrupt politicians elected by special interest groups, in charge of paying your health care bills. What could possibly go wrong?

 

[Mac1958]

The Medicare / Medicare Supplement / Medicare Advantage system is very popular and efficient, because it includes an excellent blend of public foundation and free market competition & innovation. It could be easily scaled up, with a few tweaks, for all.

The right wingers can't support it because they're told not to, and the left wingers are LYING to the voters, calling Single Payer "Medicare for All".

As usual, the wings are slowing down progress and causing harm.
.

Yea dumbass, put government bueracrats, whose bosses are corrupt politicians elected by special interest groups, in charge of paying your health care bills. What could possibly go wrong?

Unlike you, I don't view the world through a political/ideological lens.

Play with someone who does, thanks.
.

 

[Flash]

The Medicare / Medicare Supplement / Medicare Advantage system is very popular and efficient, because it includes an excellent blend of public foundation and free market competition & innovation. It could be easily scaled up, with a few tweaks, for all.

The right wingers can't support it because they're told not to, and the left wingers are LYING to the voters, calling Single Payer "Medicare for All".

As usual, the wings are slowing down progress and causing harm.
.

Yea dumbass, put government bueracrats, whose bosses are corrupt politicians elected by special interest groups, in charge of paying your health care bills. What could possibly go wrong?

Unlike you, I don't view the world through a political/ideological lens.

Play with someone who does, thanks.
.

Trust the government to take care of your every need including taxing you and controlling your health care. What could possibly go wrong?

Unlike you I am not an idiot that trust the government to look after my best interest.

 

[Mac1958]

The Medicare / Medicare Supplement / Medicare Advantage system is very popular and efficient, because it includes an excellent blend of public foundation and free market competition & innovation. It could be easily scaled up, with a few tweaks, for all.

The right wingers can't support it because they're told not to, and the left wingers are LYING to the voters, calling Single Payer "Medicare for All".

As usual, the wings are slowing down progress and causing harm.
.

Yea dumbass, put government bueracrats, whose bosses are corrupt politicians elected by special interest groups, in charge of paying your health care bills. What could possibly go wrong?

Unlike you, I don't view the world through a political/ideological lens.

Play with someone who does, thanks.
.

Trust the government to take care of your every need including taxing you and controlling your health care. What could possibly go wrong?

Unlike you I am not an idiot that trust the government to look after my best interest.

I think that finding efficient & effective equilibrium between free market dynamics and public resources is the smartest approach, depending on the issue being addressed.

But I'm not going to try to explain that to you.
.

 

[healthmyths]

The Medicare / Medicare Supplement / Medicare Advantage system is very popular and efficient, because it includes an excellent blend of public foundation and free market competition & innovation. It could be easily scaled up, with a few tweaks, for all.

The right wingers can't support it because they're told not to, and the left wingers are LYING to the voters, calling Single Payer "Medicare for All".

As usual, the wings are slowing down progress and causing harm.
.

Here go to this link: See how many people are on traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage
https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statis...Medicare-Enrollment/Enrollment Dashboard.html

Then see the exact amount of enrollees in the 734 Medicare Advantage Plans:
MA Plan Directory | CMS

 

[Mac1958]

The Medicare / Medicare Supplement / Medicare Advantage system is very popular and efficient, because it includes an excellent blend of public foundation and free market competition & innovation. It could be easily scaled up, with a few tweaks, for all.

The right wingers can't support it because they're told not to, and the left wingers are LYING to the voters, calling Single Payer "Medicare for All".

As usual, the wings are slowing down progress and causing harm.
.

Here go to this link: See how many people are on traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage
https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/Dashboard/Medicare-Enrollment/Enrollment Dashboard.html

Then see the exact amount of enrollees in the 734 Medicare Advantage Plans:
MA Plan Directory | CMS

Do you have a specific point?
.

 

[Flash]

The Medicare / Medicare Supplement / Medicare Advantage system is very popular and efficient, because it includes an excellent blend of public foundation and free market competition & innovation. It could be easily scaled up, with a few tweaks, for all.

The right wingers can't support it because they're told not to, and the left wingers are LYING to the voters, calling Single Payer "Medicare for All".

As usual, the wings are slowing down progress and causing harm.
.

Yea dumbass, put government bueracrats, whose bosses are corrupt politicians elected by special interest groups, in charge of paying your health care bills. What could possibly go wrong?

Unlike you, I don't view the world through a political/ideological lens.

Play with someone who does, thanks.
.

Trust the government to take care of your every need including taxing you and controlling your health care. What could possibly go wrong?

Unlike you I am not an idiot that trust the government to look after my best interest.

I think that finding efficient & effective equilibrium between free market dynamics and public resources is the smartest approach, depending on the issue being addressed.

But I'm not going to try to explain that to you.
.

Is it precious? The little Moon Bat trust the government to tax him and them pay his health care bills. What could possible go wrong with that?

 

[Mac1958]

The Medicare / Medicare Supplement / Medicare Advantage system is very popular and efficient, because it includes an excellent blend of public foundation and free market competition & innovation. It could be easily scaled up, with a few tweaks, for all.

The right wingers can't support it because they're told not to, and the left wingers are LYING to the voters, calling Single Payer "Medicare for All".

As usual, the wings are slowing down progress and causing harm.
.

Yea dumbass, put government bueracrats, whose bosses are corrupt politicians elected by special interest groups, in charge of paying your health care bills. What could possibly go wrong?

Unlike you, I don't view the world through a political/ideological lens.

Play with someone who does, thanks.
.

Trust the government to take care of your every need including taxing you and controlling your health care. What could possibly go wrong?

Unlike you I am not an idiot that trust the government to look after my best interest.

I think that finding efficient & effective equilibrium between free market dynamics and public resources is the smartest approach, depending on the issue being addressed.

But I'm not going to try to explain that to you.
.

Is it precious? The little Moon Bat trust the government to tax him and them pay his health care bills. What could possible go wrong with that?

Cool, dittos Rush.
.