The G2A Unions are Expensive comments went far afield. And I thought they worth repeating.
By the way, you can expand the image by clicking on it.
"Personally I think the growth of popularity in third party candidates is because both the GOP and Dems are becoming too extreme. I sure wish Kasich would have run as an independent, I would definitely have voted for him over Trump." G2A
I don't think the majority parties are becoming extreme, but they are painting their opposition in those terms at every opportunity, and the general population believes that rather than examining the issues involved. The extremists in both parties DO tend to control the base of the party and are the most active and vocal, reinforcing the perception.
For example, I think Democrats are more extreme than ever after seeing a few too many marching vaginas and black-clad rioters. I'm convinced third parties will be merely disruptive until a major issue comes along not addressed by ONE of the majors.
Not sure if, in the modern era, such a transition can even take place, or if it would be of any value. It is more likely that one of the major parties will be "taken over" by one wing or another, such as the Bernie Sanders Democrats or the Ron Paul Republicans.
There is one other solution-- "holding their feet to the fire." Someplace along the line, somebody decided that "rioting in the streets" was better than "write your Congressman," but that gets us more of what we have, and good solutions it is not." Jerry
"Unfortunately given the number of votes that occur along party lines, it seems that the number of good politicians who will think for themselves and listen to their constituents seems to be decreasing.
I mean look at the grouping of the red and blue dots in this graph... There are few who are near the middle... (ie like my example candidate: Peterson)
In summary, writing to your rep seems to make no difference... It seems our gov't has become winner takes all. Which probably explains the violent left right swings in our healthcare and tax systems, and likely the protests. (ie Tea Party and Progressives)" G2AAnd since Jerry neglected to provide an example, the Conservative extremists may be the folks who are fighting the Ryan Health Bill compromise because they want ACA totally gone, no matter how many people lose their health coverage...
44 comments:
As for your chart, I don't think it proves much. Some folks are the cosponsoring kind and others are not. Moreover, there seems to be quite a wide spread within each party, though as one might expect, cosponsorships tend to fall within one's own party. I am still of the opinion that extremists get the most press, often by calling someone in the other party an extremist. And to look at which bills each party's members actually cosponsor, it is quite easy to see there is a left-right ideological divide. So?
Jerry,
I agree that both sides have "extremists". To show this better I added a modified graph to the post. We all seem to agree on the terms Liberals, Moderates and Conservatives so that was easy to label. But titles to the Left and Right of these seem varied... So I cheated and just called them Ultra-Liberal and Ultra-Conservative.
Now since you are likely an Ultra-Conservative, do you believe that you are out of the main stream? Or do you think of yourself as normal and rational, and it is only folks like Ellison who are "extremists"?
Since Emmer and Paulson are in the Conservative zone. Those Ultra Conservatives must be way out there...
And for you far Lefters out there... Please note that Paul Ryan is on the line between Moderate and Conservative... No wonder I like him.
I thought you liked Paul Ryan because he talks in pleasing soundbites but the detail behind is gibberish.
Yes, to a liberal his smaller government and more personal responsibility concepts are probably a bit hard to understand... Maybe if he talks slower... :-)
Sean,
Just curious? Do you consider yourself a Liberal or an Ultra-Liberal?
I understand the concepts of smaller government and more personal responsibility. But when the guy who is deemed Mr. Serious Policy Wonk fundamentally misexplains how insurance works (as he did last week), he is impossible to take seriously.
I don't label myself because it's meaningless. You spend all of your time trying to classify stuff in to your arbitrary compartments so you can just discard it based on the label you provide to it. I'd rather try to get stuff done.
Actually I want to know where people are sitting in the theater so I can understand their perspective.
And even more importantly I think it is more important for them to understand where they are sitting, so they can understand how they are seeing things differently than the others in the theater. G2A Political Self Awareness
Remember that parallax is not a problem as long as you know you are experiencing it and make the appropriate adjustments.
Sean,
Is this the Ryan discussion that concerned you?
The Atlantic Ryan Comments
The Presentation
By the way, the best way to get the Democrats excited to work with the Republicans is to adopt the Ultra-Conservative's plan and totally cancel ACA...
Then the Dems would feel some motivation to work across party lines. Since the Dems are being so obstinate also, maybe that is what will happen.
Sean, I was agreeing with you right up until that last. Classifying oneself or another is simply a shorthand way of expressing your view of their position on one or more issue. I like to think of myself as having a very rational viewpoint, based on facts and logic, and discover that I generally come down on what is called the "conservative" end of the debate. I have my reasons and if I find reason lacking in the opposition, I tend to label them "liberal" or "Left." And opinions are, as they say, everybody has one.
Now where we may part company is that you "try to get stuff done." I would applaud that so long as you, or I, or we together, are trying to do the right "stuff." When you work to get government to compel me to do what you want done, however, we part ideological company quickly.
Again I point out the chart is based on cosponsorships, not actual votes, and certainly not on actual statements. Bernie Sanders admits he is a socialist and often says things which would qualify him. Does that make him an extremist within his party? Apparently not. Ellison says some even wilder things, and "liberals" like Pelosi utter nonsense on a regular basis. Does nonsense mark you as extreme? I'm just asking because it seems to be a matter of opinion.
"Is this the Ryan discussion that concerned you?"
Yep. Mr. Serious Policy Wonk doesn't understand how insurance works, which is why he's introduced a bill that does the opposite of what he claims it will. Tom Price's promise that “nobody will be worse off financially” under the GOP plan is going to come back and haunt like some of Obama or Pelosi's verbal missteps during the ACA battle.
"Since the Dems are being so obstinate also"
Are you suggesting that Democrats should just go along with a plan that will kick millions off of their health insurance? And, perhaps, you can show me how the GOP has reached out to Democrats to try and solve this problem? In 2009, President Obama stopped the House bill for months so that the bipartisan "Gang of Six" in the Senate could try to work out a deal. I don't see any such effort happening today.
14 million more uninsured *next year*, 24 million more uninsured by 2026.
Premiums up by 15-20% the next two years, and it's worse for near-seniors.
Great bill, guys!
At its heart, this is tax cut for rich people paid for by cutting Medicaid and kicking near-seniors off of insurance.
Jerry... Bernie is the 3rd from the Left on the Senate Graph... Seems like an outlier to me.
Sean,
So ACA jacked up the taxes on the rich and raised the healthcare costs for most of us, so that unsuccessful and pre-existing condition people could get free or reduced cost healthcare. (ie a welfare like entitlement was born)
Of course backing it out would have the reverse impact.
Now for the big question... Do we want to keep moving towards being a social democracy where the government collects and distributes ever more? Or do we want to head more towards capitalism, personal responsibility, etc?
Let the pendulum keep swinging.
Health Care is a human right. It's greed and monied interests that get in the way.
Thank you for your belief. Do you have a name / call signal we can refer to you by?
So is your belief that Doctors, Nurses and all the people in the Healthcare fields should work for free?
I've heard rumblings that the CBO is essentially worthless at saying what legislation will do or cost or save. On top of "static scoring," assuming that people will not change their behavior regardless of the incentives or disincentives placed before them, it seems they assume that legislation in general will do what it is supposed to do. For example, it was supposed to bring insurance costs down by $2500 per family. Apparently they went UP by more than that. Millions of people were not supposed to lose their plan or doctor under Obamacare, so what faith can we have that its repeal will do something similar? I think we should pay more attention to what the actual policy is likely to do, than to what the good intentions are behind it.
That said, I wish Republicans had said we are doing total repeal of the benefits 3 years hence, and total repeal of the mandates now. That way, NOBODY "loses" their insurance, but everybody will have choices better than Obamacare.
"Jerry... Bernie is the 3rd from the Left on the Senate Graph... Seems like an outlier to me. "
And yet he gets about 40% of the primary vote for President, and well over 50% in his home state. Are all those folks extremists? Is the 3rd person from the right equally extreme?
"raised the healthcare costs for most of us"
Nope. Overall health care inflation has been at or near 40-year lows since the ACA was passed. Premiums in the employer market have been consistent with this trend as well.
" so that unsuccessful and pre-existing condition people could get free or reduced cost healthcare. (ie a welfare like entitlement was born)"
Do you have amnesia? We've discussed this point several times. We pay for that healthcare in one form or another anyway. The ACA did more than before (and more that the AHCA does) to discourage free-riding.
"Or do we want to head more towards capitalism, personal responsibility, etc?"
Per the CBO, a 64-year-old under the Ryan plan would have to pay over 1/2 of their income to pay their insurance premium. So, yes, that person is probably going to have the "freedom" of not having health insurance. They can have that engraved on their tombstone.
"I've heard rumblings that the CBO is essentially worthless at saying what legislation will do or cost or save."
That's what The Trump Administration would have you believe, but actually the CBO analysis of the ACA was pretty good. At this point, they projected that the uninsured rate would be cut in half, and it's actually been cut by 43% (reasons for the difference is primarily because the CBO assumed all states would take the Medicaid expansion). Premium levels are also close to what they projected.
"On top of "static scoring,"
The CBO has done dynamic scoring since Republicans took control of both houses.
Jerry,
Yes I think the 3 from the right are just as extreme. Please remember that those are the folks that want cut taxes, disband SS / Medicare, etc.
Sean,
I agree that the folks were cared for by different groups and means before ACA. (ie hidden costs) But it was not by taking from Peter and giving to Paul at the point of a government gun.
And yes I find it amusing that the GOP folks are criticizing the CBO ACA forecast when it seemed pretty accurate.
Isn't it something like 70% of those "newly insured" come from people going on Medicaid, either were eligible before or were newly eligible? That's not the ACA doing that. And health care inflation is down because of government price controls and doctors just not taking patients or patients skipping care because they can't afford the deductibles and the providers being taxed for providing. Sorry, but the ACA is indefensible as sound policy. Find another way to do the same or better is what should be the current debate.
We seem to have drifted off-topic again. The premise here – that "extremists" "control the country" is not an unreasonable perception. I would rather say that extremists control the narrative of the popular press, and that there is a difference. Pointing out that our political institutions are highly polarized is correct, but I would point out that, even at its most polarized, so long as there is a balance between the two poles, it is the sensible center which will prevail. In some cases that will take the form of government inaction, which in those instances may be the correct course. In this environment, rarely does compromise produce better policy than one or the other mainstream consensus proposals.
It definitely makes for some big swings in policies...
And since Trump and the GOP seem to be failing in communicating / accomplishing in part because of the Conservative extremists, we will likely start swinging the other direction in ~22 months.
And so goes the pendulum.
That's an interesting take, that the GOP is "failing in communication" and that you are blaming that on the "extremists." Is it possible that the GOP simply lacks the "message discipline" and "big microphone MSM" that Democrats have? Is it possible that the media pay far more attention to GOP extremists and ignore the GOP mainstream? How many stories have you seen of Democrats, of any stripe, criticizing Obamacare's many faults?
Back when Obama compromised and did not pursue single payer, it seems that I saw many stories about Progressives being in disagreement.
The reality is that Trump made foolish promises instead of explaining clearly the upsides and downsides of the proposal. (ie reduction in welfare like program, and many lose those benefits)
I don't care about Obama "making compromises." Democrats in Congress made no such. If there were those in the "sensible middle" they did not vote that way, and such extreme legislation should not have, under reasonable conditions, every been passed.
Progressives disagreed with Democrats, that's news. How many stories focused favorably on the GOP's very real (and later confirmed) concerns?
Unfortunately many of those issues were caused by the GOP's unwillingness to improve an okay bill, and many GOP State's refusing to expand Medicaid.
I agree that ACA has issues, but it certainly is not extreme legislation. All it says is:
- Only good full benefit policies can be sold, since you do not know what problems you may face. (ie mental illness, long term chronic issue, etc)
- Everyone must buy a policy.
- Society will help you afford it if necessary.
- Society will ensure it is easy for you to shop and compare.
Seems pretty rational to me.
Sure, it sounds good when you say it that way, because all it really does is to describe the good intentions that went into it. It does not describe all of those devilish little details that makes a one-size-fits-all federal program fail to meet the promises made for it. For example, why should that 65-year-old bachelor farmer need maternity care? Why does the Seventh-day Adventist preacher need coverage for drug treatment? Why does a healthy 22-year-old have to pay an exorbitant price for full coverage when all they need is catastrophic insurance, if that? If it is so easy to shop and compare, why are there so few choices in these exchanges, and why are we not allowed to buy insurance we like outside of those "approved" choices?
Good intentions do not make good policy. Especially when it is rammed through on parliamentary procedures and without knowing what was in it.
Story today about how the state of Maine refuse the Medicaid expansion and is doing very well without it. Seems as though that is one more failure of Obama care that cannot be blamed on Republicans.
What were you saying about Maine?
The Hill Maine Fights GOP Plan
To answer your questions. Because;
- pastors can become addicted
- men want prostrate treatments, Viagra, etc
- bad things can happen to young people
- no sense to slice this pie so fine
That's not it. Question for you to research, though. Does Maine have a State exchange? If not, those Obamacare subsidies are not part of the Obamacare law. They are only paid because of Obama's executive order and should have been terminated. Trump could end them tomorrow, which OUGHT to be an incentive to vote for the replacement. NOTE: the replacement bill hasn't even come up yet. That's why I think we should vote full repeal as of year-end 2017, to create the incentive for Congress to pass a very good "replace."
"no sense to slice the pie this fine." So you agree with Liberals that we do not need that many different brands of automobile, that two-- say a Honda Civic and a Lincoln Town Car-- should be plenty? And we haven't even begun talking about brands of peanut butter.
Well, if peanut butter fails to meet your unexpected needs... Will the general public end up paying the extra costs?
I mean we could eliminate minimum liability insurance requirements to save folks money... Should we?
I am betting Trump is going to be very gun shy about doing anything rash with ACA. Every body hates it until they start learning about the alternatives.
One more time we assume the government is responsible for seeing to it that we make "good choices" by offering us only one choice. Not only that, but somehow society has to pay for us making bad choices, if we are allowed to make them? Can we get some consistency here?
Actually the government did not offer anything. It just set a mandatory minimum.
And then insurance companies offered various plans that met or exceeded it. And there were the Bronze, Silver and Gold levels if you wanted more options.
I think I have 4 options at my company... Any thing from low copays/deductibles to high deductibles with an HSA.
"Actually the government did not offer anything. It just set a mandatory minimum." That is true. They just made it illegal to offer something that people might actually want. Right now something like 1/3 of all US counties have only one provider on the Obamacare exchange. Three cheers for all that "competition."
I don't think that mandatory minimum squashed competition... I think it was that pre-existing condition reqt that freeloaders took advantage of.
It is pretty painful when people sign up just long enough to get a new knee and then stop paying the premiums. But of course that is what happens when you allow people to make free choices... They often pay for the least expensive option and let others pay the bill when things go really wrong.
You never answered if you thought we should drop the vehicle liability insurance reqts? I mean I am sure some folks would love the freedom to just risk it...
Despite the existence of a penalty for not having it, just like Obamacare, some people either choose to forgo it, or cannot afford it. And if you only drive to church on Sundays, you probably do not need it, either. You are as likely to cause a major crash as you are to die from Global Warming, and if you are a member of that church you aren't driving at all. government should not be in the business of telling you what you must buy.
Perhaps you can say that the required coverages did not "squash competition," but it made health insurance a choice between a Lexus and a Mercedes, and excluded a used Chevy or Toyota Corolla that might have been "the plan you like."
I think the pre-existing condition thing is the reason prices on the exchange continue to rise at ridiculous rates. The coverage mandates should have raised prices but they should have stayed relatively stable. The "experience" of the insurers is all negative, especially now that the "risk payments" have been scaled back. Insurers have no choice but to exit the markets altogether.
So, on the original question and if anybody cares. Extremists in Congress may no longer be in control of Congress, but they still have the health care of the country in their twisted grasp.
Post a Comment