American College of Physicians calls for radical change

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Eleuthera, Jan 21, 2020.

  1. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So nothing about constitutional governance?

    I have a strong libertarian streak, so in general terms I agree with you, but life is about many things besides markets.

    What do you think of the general idea of the brotherhood of man?
     
  2. roorooroo

    roorooroo Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 14, 2017
    Messages:
    2,814
    Likes Received:
    3,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So the solution is:

    We are getting what we are NOT paying for?
     
  3. Heartburn

    Heartburn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2015
    Messages:
    13,499
    Likes Received:
    4,973
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you think insurance companies have no use you have probably never been without it. Medicare sets a baseline but insurance companies keep a lid on healthcare costs. Even with Medicare for all there would be a need for supplemental insurance. Medicare is not the panacea some think it is.
     
  4. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37,758
    Likes Received:
    14,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is little evidence that that is true. In my experience everything the government gets involved with gets more expensive.

    Glad to hear it.

    Two reasons for that. Firstly the pharma manufacturers must recoup development costs. Secondly, the cost of drugs relates directly to volume. Drugs developed for rare conditions don't sell enough to provide for more reasonable prices. People can do a lot to help themselves. I take a drug called warfarin which is a blood thinner. I pay nothing for it thanks to my medicare plan. It is a little fussy because I have to do self administered blood tests every couple of weeks to be sure my "INR" is in range. I sometimes have to modify the dose to respond to those tests. In other words there is some management that goes along with it. There are competing drugs on the market that eliminate all of that management. But they typically cost $200 or more per month. I can choose to handle the drug with some management effort for free or pay $200 per month. I choose to handle it for free.

    Also there are discount cards available such as Single Care that can help some people with some drug costs. Also a good physician will explain all treatment options to a patient including the costs and characteristics of various drugs. As an example, drugs get a patent for what I believe is 20 years. After that they can be copied and sold as generic versions of the drug. A trick the Pharma companies use is to add something to the now generic drug to differentiate it and start another 20 year patent. A doctor can tell you which these drugs are and simply prescribe the now generic version in its place.

    On to your complaint. If a drug is actually sold for thousands per month and a few are, I think it would be appropriate for government to intervene and possibly subsidize these drugs for the patients. It isn't the patient's fault that he or she contracted a rare condition. Forcing lower prices might well stop research on drugs for rare conditions. It might also be appropriate to study the potential effects of shortening the time frame of patents. I don't know enough to opine on this since I've never been in the drug business.
     
  5. Heartburn

    Heartburn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2015
    Messages:
    13,499
    Likes Received:
    4,973
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Drug companies may have to recover their research and mfg costs but the US market doesn't have to subsidize the rest of the world. Our problem is there is no entity that speaks for us other than insurance companies. Medicare is not allowed to negotiate for the US market. Why would that be?
     
  6. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37,758
    Likes Received:
    14,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is true that the companies make US customers cover the majority of development costs. I believe people can order drugs from pharmacies in Canada and other countries. That is what I would do if I didn't have Medicare. The government needs to change the law in order for the government to buy drugs from other countries. If filling prescriptions in Canadian pharmacies were made easier, I think the manufacturers would review their business model. I suspect the Canadian pharmacies would love it.
     
  7. Heartburn

    Heartburn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2015
    Messages:
    13,499
    Likes Received:
    4,973
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I looked into that just this month because I had some difficulty with my insurance. I tried to contact two pharmacies in Canada unsuccessfully. I think it is illegal to reimport drugs into the US. Our drugs are exported to Canada and then can be sold back here cheaper than we can buy local. therefore we passed a law preventing that. I think if you go to Canada and buy some for personal use the checkpoint is lax and you will be allowed to bring them back. My situation cleared up so I didn't look any further but I do think it isn't a simple process.
     
  8. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    13,625
    Likes Received:
    11,934
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This is a good conversation. Let's keep it going, and see what we can learn. Let's leave out the political divide between us and just work over these numbers.

    First some feedback on your reply. (I have read it over several times.)

    That graph you showed I believe shows the cost of care; that is, doctors, hospitals, etc. This is not the cost of insurance, but the care itself. So what you're suggesting is that MFA would pay less to providers, but providers would have smaller administrative costs, and that would bring our costs into line with the other countries in the graph.

    Is that right?

    I'll be honest with you. That makes me a little uneasy. The old saying that "You get what you pay for" comes to mind.

    I have had company-paid medical insurance almost all of my adult life. I must tell you that it has done a good job of taking care of me and my family. My kids are grown now, but my wife and I are still covered by company-paid medical insurance, and I can tell you this ... Whenever we need something, the care we get is very, very good. Very professional clinicians and the latest tech. And this is important ... no waiting, no problem with access. I think I can speak for millions of Americans just like me who do not want to give up this high quality of care and easy access for the sake of saving a few bucks. I do not think Americans would be happy with a system that, although cheaper, made access more difficult, longer wait times, etc. So causing the whole medical industry to economically contract makes me uneasy.

    The next thing to bring up to you is that we would have to have a tax increase. The reason for that is that the money that is paid to private insurers is private money that belongs to individuals and companies. That money belongs to them. A "public" system must have funding through taxation, just like it does in all countries that use a publicly funded system.

    So that brings me to what it would cost.

    I'm going to use a chart that shows how much of the medical dollar is used up by each age demographic in our country. I am going to come up with a cost using the present cost of Medicare as a base, and then I'm going to subtract the amount of savings we would get in administrative costs. Let's see where that lands us.

    Health Care by Age.png
    Please note that green represents the 65 and over population, and they represent 36% of health care spending. If you don't mind, purely for the ease of mathematics, I'm going to regard that as one third of medical spending even though it is actually 3% more than one third. This is easier for our conversation.

    This means that two thirds of medical spending is on the other 84% of the population, the people under 65.

    Earlier in our conversation I pointed out that to close all the gaps in Medicare for seniors, we would need to raise the payroll tax up to about 8.7% from its current 2.9%. That higher rate would create a pretty much free at the point of service medical plan for seniors. If we wished to provide that for the rest of the population, who represent 2/3rds of medical spending, we would have to raise that rate by a factor of 3, bringing the total to 26%.

    According to this NY Times analysis, (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/...-answer-to-sky-high-administrative-costs.html) private insurance has administrative costs (including profit) of 13%, while Medicare only has administrative costs of 1.1%. So it appears that MFA could save 12% in administrative costs. 12% of 26 is 3.1. So those lower administrative costs could reduce the amount of taxation from 26% down to 23%.

    This 23% is based on the cost of care as we know it now, so the only savings so far is in administrative costs and profit. Therefore, if we wished to have a free at the point of service system that cost us less than that in taxation, then we would have to pay less to the providers, creating an economic contraction of the industry which, as I said before, makes me uneasy.

    Now if this 23% sounds crazy, it really isn't. Last year my wife and I paid 13% of our income to federal income taxes. If we paid that, plus 23% for the health system, our total percentage would come to 36%. Compare that to countries that have Universal Health Care, and you will see we would be at or below what many people pay in those countries. So it makes sense to me that this is a realistic estimate.

    Now here's a problem ...

    That 23% is far more (almost 3 times as much) than what my wife's employer pays for our private health insurance. So if her employer was now relieved of the need to pay for our health insurance, and her employer were to raise her salary by the amount they had been paying for health insurance, we would still lose money. I'm talking about a lot of money, not a little, around $20,000. I think this would be true of tens of millions of people across the country. And my wife and I are not rich. Our income puts us right about the border between middle class and upper middle class, so I know we have tens of millions of economic peers.

    Another problem is that we cannot expect low income families to pay 23% of their incomes for health care which means that the middle class and above may have to pay even more. One way around that may be to scrap the whole idea of a payroll tax and, instead, go with a federal Value Added Tax, excluding the necessities of life, that raises the same amount of money.

    I have no idea (yet) how much that would have to be. (something to research another day)

    That's all for now. I look forward to your feedback.

    Seth
     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2020
  9. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,827
    Likes Received:
    32,495
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The vast majority of the counties that have public healthcare allow private insurance — they do not have the runaway costs that ours do because they are heavily regulated.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  10. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your anecdotal experience assumes facts NOT in evidence!

    Explain why Big Pharma spends 95% MORE on promotions and advertising than it does on actual research?

    https://www.drugwatch.com/manufacturers/

    Explain why Big Pharma spends MORE on lobbying congress than BOTH Defense and Corporate lobbying COMBINED?

    Explain why Big Pharma is the MOST CORRUPT and FRAUDULENT industry in the world?

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikakelton/2013/07/29/is-big-pharma-addicted-to-fraud/#7be2e4f415fe

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...other-drug-company-ripoffs-column/4408143002/

    Big Pharma is one of the MAJOR CAUSES of excessive cost of healthcare. Generics are BLOCKED by Big Pharma because they provide the EXACT SAME benefits for a small fraction of the cost.

    In essence Big Pharma is BLACKMAILING families into paying them EXTORTIONIST prices otherwise their loved ones are going to suffer and die.

    This MUST be STOPPED!

    PROFITS before PEOPLE is NOT an American value!
     
  11. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    :applause:

    I agree with your proposal that we can treat the Medicare (65+) portion as one third for the sake of this discussion.

    In addition I agree with your methodology and most of your reasoning but your calculation has an incorrect assumption that profits are incorporated into overheads. The reality is that they Overheads and Profits ( O & P ) are normally reported as separate line items.

    You are correct in your comparison of Overheads but you are leaving out the Profits which needs to be factored in as far as savings go. Bear in mind we are ONLY talking about the profits of the healthcare INSURERS. The profits of the healthcare PROVIDERS are NOT part of this equation and they should not be either.

    So to obtain a more accurate figure we are fortunate the Healthcare Insurance industry itself provided us with their own COMBINED O&P number that we can use.

    https://www.ahip.org/health-care-dollar/

    [​IMG]

    From that graphic we can figure out that 81.8% goes to providing healthcare SERVICES and the remaining 18.2% is O&P (including taxes that MFA would not have to pay since it in a Non Profit organization.)

    When we redo the math we can start at the other end and work backwards and see if we get the same results.

    The current 2.9% of payroll taxes covers $391 billion of Medicare expenses. (710 - 319). Another way to look at this is that each 1% amounts to $135 billion. (391 / 2.9) so to cover all $710 would mean that the payroll tax would need to be 5.25% (710/135).

    But just to be certain let's go back and do the numbers for the other side using the private Healthcare Insurance industries own numbers. Out of a total $3.5 trillion they don't cover the $710 billion for Medicare so their share of that spending is $2.79 trillion. We need to subtract the 18.2% O&P+taxes so that means that the total cost of healthcare comes to $2.28 trillion. Without the private O&P+taxes there is an immediate SAVINGS of half a trillion dollars.

    So let's keep going and see what would happen to the payroll tax if we had to raise it to cover that $2.28 trillion and it comes to 16.9% and when we add in the 5.25% we end up with 22.15%. That is very close to your 23% so we are definitely on the same track.

    But we do not have to do it this way!

    All that needs to change is to have everyone who wants to join the MFA Single Payer system just pay their premiums directly to the MFA instead of the private health insurers. MFA premiums will be 20% CHEAPER than the private health insurance premiums. Corporations can include the MFA option in the benefits package that they offer to their employees and put the savings difference back into the paychecks of those who take that option.

    Your concerns about the qualify of the care are valid but, as I mentioned above, nothing changes for the private sector Healthcare PROVIDERS. They can still make the same profits as they always did and if they switch over to MFA only they can SAVE the overheads of dealing with the private insurers. If anything your healthcare SERVICES will IMPROVE because there won't be any "in/out of network" BS and other nonsense to deal with.

    In summary the Medicare payroll tax needs to be increased from 2.9% to 5.25% (reducing the deficit by $319 billion per year) and everyone who decides to switch over to the MFA ends up pocketing a share of the $0.5 trillion in SAVINGS which is considerably MORE than the payroll tax increase.

    Your point about it being an onerous burden on low income families is valid and we could introduce a progressive system of taxation starting at 2.9 and having a middle tier of 5.25 and then a top tier of 7 to make up the difference.

    Modest changes that have very minimal impact on the economy and leave it up to We the People to decide if we want to stick with the private health insurers or move over to MFA instead.

    Finally I oppose VAT because it is a PITA and places the majority of the tax burden on those that can least afford it.

    Your thoughts?
     
  12. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37,758
    Likes Received:
    14,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We outlawed cigarette advertising. We can do the same for consumer advertising of prescription drugs. I would support that. They should advertise to the doctors, not the public. If the government were to report the projected cost of lobbying congress to the public, it may reduce it. I have always believed that advertising prescription drugs to the public is ridiculous. All of this assumes that your facts are true.
     
  13. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37,758
    Likes Received:
    14,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Too bad. Every time government gets involved in managingn business it turns into a cow pie. We need to bring the federal government down to a manageable size. The huge majority of what they do shouldn't be done in federal government.
     
  14. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    13,625
    Likes Received:
    11,934
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Again, good conversation.

    I started trying to figure out how my math differed from yours, but then I just decided to be satisfied that we both came up with the virtually the same number.

    So you are proposing that the payroll tax be increased in a progressive manner to cover seniors, filling the gaps in their Medicare program, an idea I support. This alone would reduce our annual federal deficit, and I just think this is the right thing to do for our parents and grandparents. And, of course, it will help all of us as well when we are in retirement.

    You have also suggested paying premiums directly to MFA rather than by some other tax, and you have suggested that MFA would be an option to private insurance rather than the only option.

    Those are interesting ideas for our discussion. Making MFA optional runs counter to those who visualize MFA as the only option, completely taking private insurance out of health care. It sounds like you visualize MFA as not being mandatory and not being the only option.

    But if it's not mandatory, how do we achieve full coverage for all people? Some people could not afford the premiums. Others, especially young, healthy people, may choose not to insure at all, as a lot of them do now. If the goal is universal coverage for all, how do we do that if MFA is optional?

    And if MFA is mandatory for all, doesn't that mean that our premiums would be supporting low income people? I think that is inevitable, and don't get me wrong, we support them now with Medicaid which is the right thing to do. But I just wonder how that would effect the cost of the premiums. And how do we decide what income threshold is the right threshold at which to exempt them from paying or to require them to pay.

    In defense of a VAT or sales tax, I don't think this is much of a PITA. It can all be computed automatically at the register, and the proceeds can be electronically transmitted to the federal government. This seems to me to be pretty quick and seamless. The other thing is that the necessities of life can be exempted from a VAT - food, baby supplies, medicine, utilities, fuel, etc. And rather than simply exempting low-income people, it gives them some skin in the game if they choose to buy things that are not necessities. I'm not saying a VAT should be the only source of funding for health care, but I am suggesting that a thoughtfully crafted VAT could be a part of it.

    So I'll let you give me your thoughts on these things for now.

    Cheers!

    Seth
     
  15. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is going really well! :)

    We agree on the Medicaid increase using a progressive payroll tax so let's consider that to be a compromise we can both agree upon.

    Making MFA optional was not part of my thinking and I apologize for not making myself clear in that regard.

    What I am proposing is a two tier system that accommodates BOTH the MFA and the private health insurance since I believe that there is room in the marketplace for this to happen.

    Let me explain how I see this working. MFA Part A is mandatory and covers the basics of all healthcare. This includes doctors visits, ER, hospitalization and coverage for all of the standard medical conditions that are commonplace. By that I mean high blood pressure, mammograms, colonoscopies, contraception, vaccines, sprained ankles, allergies, Rx glasses, routine dental care, etc, etc. All drugs related to these conditions are covered as well. The "premium" for this is deducted from wages automatically since it is another progressive payroll tax. (I will revisit this aspect below.)

    MFA Part B and private Healthcare Insurance are essentially for everything else and everyone must have the option to go with either choice and then pay the premium to either MFA or to the private healthcare insurer of their choice. This would include things like private hospital rooms, name brand drugs, private surgeries and clinics, etc, etc.

    With this two tier system everyone is covered for all basic medical conditions and for those who want it, and can afford it, they can choose to pay for premium services because they have that freedom of choice. Employers can make this a potential hiring benefit in order to attract top talent.

    When it comes to VAT you raised the point about exemptions and that is exactly why it is a PITA. Where is the line drawn? Does pate de fois gras fall under food and is therefore exempt even though it is clearly a luxury item? Where does candy fall in this spectrum? Do we exempt milk as a basic food but charge VAT on chocolate milk? We already have this problem in states that charge Sales Taxes. Here is a link that gives a glimpse into the enormity of this problem.

    https://taxfoundation.org/sales-taxes-on-soda-candy-and-other-groceries-2018/

    IOW's introducing a VAT just creates a massive problem that makes a lot of money for accountants and keeps regulators employed while doing next to nothing to solve the problem which is how to pay for MFA.

    Using the math from my prior post where I calculated that each percentage of Medicaid payroll tax raised $135 billion and it requires 5.25% to cover the Medicaid expense of $710 we could use that as the basis to figure out how much would be needed cover MFA Part A.

    We agreed that Medicaid is responsible for one third of the cost so if we need another 2/3rds to cover everyone else under MFA Part A then that would be another 10.5% for a total increase of 16.75% overall. The total amount raised is in the region of $2.3 trillion for both Medicaid and MFA Part A. Yes, it would be absolutely essential to spread this across a progressive tax rating system but the end result would be the same.

    The net savings would still apply and everyone would have both basic coverage and the freedom to chose premium healthcare options. The impact to the economy would be minimal since it is just shifting an expense from one line item to another with no impact on profits or payrolls. From a worker's perspective what was once a deduction to pay for private health insurance disappears and is replaced by a similar deduction for MFA Part A instead.

    There is another economic benefit which is that a healthier workforce is a more productive workforce. It is harder to pin a number on but we already know that nations with Single Payer systems tend to have populations that are happier and I suspect that is a direct result of being healthier. The two go hand in hand since being sick makes one miserable.

    Your thoughts?
     
  16. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    13,625
    Likes Received:
    11,934
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So I went back and looked at the math. I think when you made your computations you were leaving out the income Medicare receives from premiums and some small miscellaneous sources. (This is partly my fault because I didn't point this out earlier.) Only 36% of Medicare's revenue comes from payroll taxes. That's 255 billion. The remainder, 454 billion, comes from general revenue, premiums, and those very small miscellaneous sources. If we were to make this free for seniors, we would have to eliminate those premiums, and so we would have to increase payroll taxes by a factor of (just under) 3 to do it, bringing the payroll tax to around 8.7%. Then, to bring in the other two thirds of the population, we'd have to multiply that by 3 because seniors account for about one third of health care expenses. This brings us to 26%. Now let's say we save 18% by going public instead of private as you showed with the chart you showed. We could reduce that 26% tax by 18%. That's 4.7%, bringing us down to 21.3%. So I don't think we could do it at 16.75%.

    Now I realize that you said that we don't have to do it this way. You said that, instead, MFA could charge premiums. In any case, whether the overall cost was 21.3% or 16.75%, if we were relying on premiums to pay for this instead of payroll taxes, that cost would have to be covered. We know that there are low-income elderly (65+) and low-income people below 65 who cannot afford premiums. And to make it affordable for them and to cover them too, we would need a progressive system of premiums. A big problem with that is that, at some threshold of income, some people would be paying more for medical insurance than they are now. This would be high income people, but it would create resistance. Keep in mind that high income people are not just Republicans, and so resistance would come from all sides.

    So tell me what you think of this idea....

    Perhaps we should keep the Medicaid program for low-income people under 65. And perhaps we should raise payroll taxes to pay for more for our seniors (our parents and grandparents and ourselves one day). There are premiums they pay for Part B and Part D or they pay private insurance for Med-Advantage plans. Perhaps we should pay that 8.7% and make it all free for them. And if not totally free, perhaps with small (and I mean small) co-pays to discourage abuse.

    What this would leave to be insured would be individuals and families (all under 65) with middle incomes and better. Perhaps these are the people who should be covered under MFA with premiums. (Perhaps it should be renamed to something else since it really wouldn't be "for all".) Anyways, I would expect that working people with middle incomes and above, and who are under 65, are probably the healthiest people we have in this country. Since their premiums were not paying for the poor or the elderly, and MFA has no profits, I would think that the premiums would be quite low. In a great many cases, their employers would pay their premiums, perhaps more employers than those who do now. Or, perhaps it could just be mandatory for employers. And I would expect that if you or your employer was paying your premiums, your MFA account would cover you and your dependents.

    An advantage to this structure would be that those healthier, working people (or their employers) would not need to pay their premiums with progressive rates. They could have a standard rate for all of them, and, as you have pointed out, that rate would be lower due to less admin cost and no profit involved. And as I suggested, they would not be supporting the poor or the elderly through these premiums. (We would be supporting them through Medicaid and Medicare, but not through the premiums.)

    And I'll end this chapter of our conversation with one other thing for you to chew on....

    I think it is crucially important that this program be fully funded. I would go so far as to say that the premiums may be increased as necessary to balance income and outgo without changes in the law, which means without congressional authorization. Private insurance does the same thing. They raise rates as necessary, and I do NOT want a program like this to end up being paid for out of general revenue. Our annual deficits are far too much already. I want it fully funded through dedicated taxes or premiums, not any general revenue, ever.

    Okay ... Your thoughts?

    Seth
     
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2020
  17. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    :applause:

    I do believe that we have reached a general compromise that we can both live with. The changes that you suggest are all within the goal of ensuring medical coverage for ALL Americans which is what matters. The split between taxes and premiums is negotiable and given both a progressive tax basis and premiums based upon incomes that will cover all costs.

    I absolutely agree that premiums and tax rates must be self managed by MFA, or whatever it ends up being called, without Congressional interference. This can be achieved by including in the legislation that tax rates and premiums must always ensure that the program is fully funded for all budget years. Another provision that I would include is that these funds are dedicated to funding healthcare ONLY and can NEVER be used for any other purpose by Congress. If there is a surplus in any year it must be carried over and used for lower premiums/taxes the following year and vice versa in the case of shortfalls.

    Good job!
     
  18. jbh100

    jbh100 Active Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    406
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Yes, centralized power, collectivism, nationalized healthcare, govt monopoly education only, jobs for all with equal pay..Just what liberals dream of today .. All the great dictators would love.
     
  19. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You must be describing beneficent dictators, what with healthcare for all and education for all.
     
  20. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    13,625
    Likes Received:
    11,934
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I am to the right of you on most things. But this is what can happen when opposite sides of the spectrum actually talk to each other in good faith. It's a shame that our Congress cannot do the same thing. Some time ago on a thread about immigration, I commented that I'd bet that the two sides could hammer out a solution to the immigration issue in a matter of a couple of hours if they were willing to compromise and act in good faith.

    That is probably true of most of the issues that vex us.

    And as I think about it, I feel angry with the politicians because I think they keep us divided on purpose. It works for them, but it doesn't work for the country.

    It's not a topic for this thread, but we should term limit our members of Congress and take our Congress back.

    It's been a good conversation. Cheers! :beer:

    Seth
     
    Derideo_Te and Eleuthera like this.

Share This Page