NMR: If you watched the debates who did you like?

hoffse

als1982 said:

What I find frustrating is that many of us can probably relate to some points from both sides.  Sure, there are those who are all-in for either camp, but most people are moderate.

The lack of compromise over the last 15-20 years has made the 2-party system one that I just can't relate to.  I almost wish we had a coalition government, even if that would slow down legislation. 

I think the two-party system also increases the number of single-issue voters.  Ultimately, when your real views on all of these things are split right down the middle you have to rank your issues and you end up voting for whoever is most inline with you on the one or two things you care about the most.  For me:

1) Taxes/Budget/Spending - #1

2) I'm strongly in favor of looking at a national transportation plan, both to lower energy consumption and to decrease the number of drivers on the roads (thereby decreasing the number of accidents and decreasing the amount of money spent on road work).  People say the US is too big for trains.  That is simply not true. There have been proposals to link major US cities by rail for years, and high-speed trains are now up to about 220 mph, using magnets for propulsion.

3) I'm pro-choice, even though it's a choice I could personally never make.  I also wish we would move on from this issue because it's not exactly developing law anymore.

4) Gay marriage - again, pro-gay-marriage, and now that this has been accomplished it's time for the people who are "anti" to move on and fight about something else.  It's the law of the land.  Get over it.

5) In favor of a national health plan that looks at costs, rather than regulating the insurance side. Medical billing has gotten crazy, and people don't use medical insurance for insurance but as a way to pre-pay for things they know they will need.  This needs to be re-examined.

6) I am very much in favor of gun control. I also think that if you kill it, you (or somebody) should eat it.    

7) Legalize marijuana and tax the bejeezes out of it.  Exhibit A: Colorado.

8) I think the criminal justice system needs to be overhauled.  While I think people who commit crimes need to go to jail, I worry that we have lost the "innocent until proven guilty" standard in our courts.  I also think sentencing has gotten out of hand.  And I think it's really crazy that a prosecutor can introduce inadmissible evidence in a grand jury proceeding to get somebody indicted.  After indictment, the odds of a guilty plea (and jail) are over 95%.  The odds of a criminal case actually going to trial when the rules of evidence finally attach are about 5%. And yet, prosecutors have a carte blanche in the indictment phase.

9) I'm very interested in foreign affairs.  We live in a global economy and the US is a key player. I don't think we can thrive while ignoring political realities in other countries, and I think we have a moral obligation to help the citizens of countries that are in turmoil (Syria).

Call me fresh, but I've added you and @simplyelise to my girl crush list.

Lol.  The problem is that my #1 is taxes/spending, which often lands me conservative for federal purposes, even though philosophically I'm pretty liberal.  The obvious place to cut is defense spending, but I think some entitlement programs really need to be examined too.

I really think that education, healthcare, transportation, and reasonable defense could be appropriately funded (without overhauling the tax system) if somebody actually sat down and decided to plug the big black holes of federal spending - I'm talking about things like pork and government contractors.

Congress also has to fund the IRS for any tax plan to work.  Now really, I spend my career trying to make sure that taxpayers legally minimize their tax liability.  But still, if you want to collect national revenue and track down the people who are engaging in illegal tax avoidance, you have to adequately fund the national tax collector.  In reality, the IRS's funding has been cut year after year, and it makes enforcement really difficult for them.  Our national tax gap (the difference between what is owed and what is paid) is in the hundreds of billions of dollars per year.  That seems like some pretty low-hanging fruit to me. 

simplyelise

Agree completely that the 2 party system and the continuous jerry-mandering to make districts more extreme red and extreme blue has left much of the moderate middle unrepresented.

Definitely not good for anyone's blood pressure to be following it too closely 14 months out. Hopefully the primary season will result in strong candidates from all sides who don't resort to personal attacks to get their points across.

I live in an increasingly red state, so it's not like my vote will really help at all anyway!! I'm honestly a lot more invested in who will be my state senator because I have a vendetta against one of the dudes running. And it drives him crazy that he can't get me to like him. Our state legislature is a joke.

ETA: MO state politics really is crazy. We had a statewide office holder and gov candidate commit suicide, another suicide of his staffer and attempt by a legislator, racist whisper campaigns, multiple sexual assault/harassment cases involving interns, just crazy stuff. 

formerlyGDaisy09

@simplyelise, I think you're right, with roadblocks put up by congress policies from a Sanders White House would likely line-up quite well with where my politics lie. 

Agreed @hoffse, Taxes/budget/spending are #1- I don't think any candidate is going to put forward a plan that I love...but some are better than others, especially keeping in mind that congress is going to hold things up and force concessions. 

I'm pro-gay marriage (I feel like I'm from part of the country that's been on board with this for a long time). 

Pro-single payer health care (my grad school was major advisor to Obama as he developed the ACA). I think ACOs are the future of where healthcare needs to go.

I get the theory behind common-core, unfortunately I don't think it works in application. 

Pro-choice...but highly in favor of programs like planned parenthood that encourage education and use of contraceptives to prevent the need for abortions. 

Gun control-yes! limits on the types of riffles and firearms that can be sold, universal background checks, limits on conceal carry across state line (my ILs very much disagree with my stance on gun control...they they think I'm a crazy libral with a vendetta against them personally). I mean really, I'm all for hunting, if you're eating what you're killing, great! but beyond that, I really don't see the need for private citizens to conceal carry weapons (again why my ILs think I'm crazy, FIL won't go anywhere unarmed...he chose to drive to NE from AL rather than fly so he could have his guns with him.)

Yes , please lets decriminalize marijuanna, and tax it! 

lets also come-up with a better mental health system so that we can deal with so many of the minor drug charges that clog up the prison system (some states..ehehm, Sander's own Vermont), are taking steps to change how addicts are treated to get them help for their disease rather than throwing them in prison.

MommyLiberty5013

hoffse said:

als1982 said:

What I find frustrating is that many of us can probably relate to some points from both sides.  Sure, there are those who are all-in for either camp, but most people are moderate.

The lack of compromise over the last 15-20 years has made the 2-party system one that I just can't relate to.  I almost wish we had a coalition government, even if that would slow down legislation. 

I think the two-party system also increases the number of single-issue voters.  Ultimately, when your real views on all of these things are split right down the middle you have to rank your issues and you end up voting for whoever is most inline with you on the one or two things you care about the most.  For me:

1) Taxes/Budget/Spending - #1

2) I'm strongly in favor of looking at a national transportation plan, both to lower energy consumption and to decrease the number of drivers on the roads (thereby decreasing the number of accidents and decreasing the amount of money spent on road work).  People say the US is too big for trains.  That is simply not true. There have been proposals to link major US cities by rail for years, and high-speed trains are now up to about 220 mph, using magnets for propulsion.

3) I'm pro-choice, even though it's a choice I could personally never make.  I also wish we would move on from this issue because it's not exactly developing law anymore.

4) Gay marriage - again, pro-gay-marriage, and now that this has been accomplished it's time for the people who are "anti" to move on and fight about something else.  It's the law of the land.  Get over it.

5) In favor of a national health plan that looks at costs, rather than regulating the insurance side. Medical billing has gotten crazy, and people don't use medical insurance for insurance but as a way to pre-pay for things they know they will need.  This needs to be re-examined.

6) I am very much in favor of gun control. I also think that if you kill it, you (or somebody) should eat it.    

7) Legalize marijuana and tax the bejeezes out of it.  Exhibit A: Colorado.

8) I think the criminal justice system needs to be overhauled.  While I think people who commit crimes need to go to jail, I worry that we have lost the "innocent until proven guilty" standard in our courts.  I also think sentencing has gotten out of hand.  And I think it's really crazy that a prosecutor can introduce inadmissible evidence in a grand jury proceeding to get somebody indicted.  After indictment, the odds of a guilty plea (and jail) are over 95%.  The odds of a criminal case actually going to trial when the rules of evidence finally attach are about 5%. And yet, prosecutors have a carte blanche in the indictment phase.

9) I'm very interested in foreign affairs.  We live in a global economy and the US is a key player. I don't think we can thrive while ignoring political realities in other countries, and I think we have a moral obligation to help the citizens of countries that are in turmoil (Syria).

Call me fresh, but I've added you and @simplyelise to my girl crush list.

Lol.  The problem is that my #1 is taxes/spending, which often lands me conservative for federal purposes, even though philosophically I'm pretty liberal.  The obvious place to cut is defense spending, but I think some entitlement programs really need to be examined too.

I really think that education, healthcare, transportation, and reasonable defense could be appropriately funded (without overhauling the tax system) if somebody actually sat down and decided to plug the big black holes of federal spending - I'm talking about things like pork and government contractors.

Congress also has to fund the IRS for any tax plan to work.  Now really, I spend my career trying to make sure that taxpayers legally minimize their tax liability.  But still, if you want to collect national revenue and track down the people who are engaging in illegal tax avoidance, you have to adequately fund the national tax collector.  In reality, the IRS's funding has been cut year after year, and it makes enforcement really difficult for them.  Our national tax gap (the difference between what is owed and what is paid) is in the hundreds of billions of dollars per year.  That seems like some pretty low-hanging fruit to me. 

I disagree with the cutting of the defense. The military is the smallest it has ever been and the ships/planes are VERY old. We have Russia and Syria teaming up. Iran acting squirrely. North Korea acting crazy and China about ready to take over shipping lanes in the South Pacific and they are building landing strips on coral reefs and are also building islands. Chinese and Russian subs have been found in US waters. Plus, we have the issue of ISIS both abroad and possibly here. We need to have a good defense.

AprilZ81

I may be a bit naive on this, but my favorite political saying is "We don't have a tax problems (speaking about revenue) we have a spending problem."

Our government wastes an unGodly amount of money on stuff that doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.  I think it is very possible to rework the federal budget (assuming one ever gets passed) to balance the budget without needing to make as many painful cuts to services that affect everyday Americans.  I think there are a lot of programs that overlap and serve the same/similar populations that could be combined to reduce overlap and waste, I think our military can be strong but with a more reasonable budget, and the Libertarian in my wishes that the government would shrink WAY, WAY back.  Washington DC has assumed a lot of power that was never included in the Constitution.  If the power is not written into the Constitution specifically then it was meant to be for the states to decide.  

The problem with entitlement reform is that it isn't a a true entitlement in some ways because everyone (minus some state employees) who works pays into Social Security and Medicare.  I would be shocked if SS is available when I retire, and if it does I have a feeling I'm only going to get a fraction of what I paid into the system.

I'm fiscally conservative/Libertarian and socially moderate.  I think abortion is horrible (don't get me started on Planned Parenthood) but if that is a choice a woman wants to make I want to make sure she doesn't die because of lack of care.  Legalize pot and tax the hell out of it.  My Christian faith tells me that homosexuality is a sin, but we are all sinners so I'm not going to cast the first stone and I'm not going to treat you (general) any different.

dragonstarjk

als1982 said:

Totally agree that the last thing we need is another Bush or Clinton in the white house. I've not watched the debates, I think I'd spend the whole time yelling at the TV. 

I'm ready to support a Bernie Sanders-Elizabeth Warren campaign...

I have a mad girl crush on Elizabeth Warren. As for Bernie, I like the idea of him. But gun control is a big issue for me, and I don't love his libertarian stance in that regard. So between him and Hillary, I'm team Clinton.

I've been wanting an Elizabeth Warren campaign for months!

hoffse

OMG Alabama politics are insane too.  They're also heavily influenced by the University of Alabama's underground government called The Machine.  Look it up - completely bizarre to me, and I went to school with some kids from heavy-hitter political families.  

I'm fairly moderate compared to the country at large, but I might as well be a raging liberal where I live.  Many of the campaign commercials around here involve shotguns and Bibles.  They're as bad as used car commercials. 

We also elect our judges, including our state supreme court.  That resulted in Roy Moore who declared his rule of law to be above SCOTUS after the gay marriage decision came down... with most of the state bar cringing on the sidelines.  Keep in mind this happened after Roy Moore was removed from office when he disobeyed an order to remove the 10 commandments from the court.  He was sanctioned for violating judicial ethics, and he was removed from office.  And yet, the people reelected him anyway.

hoffse

The DoD enters no-bid contracts without limit, and often there is not a stated price per unit.  The department isn't audited, and they can spend pretty much whatever they want on ridiculous stuff, without oversight.

Here's a nice synopsis:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/12/defense-military-waste-cost-timeline

My point is you could have exactly the same military infrastructure at a fraction of the price if the military was ever actually audited and somebody took the time to plug the holes. 

vlagrl29

simplyelise said:

@vlagrl29

The standardized testing has nothing to do with common core. It was a requirement of no child left behind. Also, most states actually have requirements for yearly testing of some kind so that they can compare schools and assess  if requirements have been met for accreditation. 

Common Core isn't even a curriculum, it's a set of standards for each grade to work on with a guideline for when skills should be introduced, practiced, and mastered. It was created from the results of decades of research on the best practices for teaching math and english. With an emphasis on not just rote memorization, but understanding of numbers. On the english side, it does not mandate any specific books that must be read or not be read. It just adds standards for non-fiction reading. Most kids are about two grades higher in fiction reading than they are in non-fiction reading. So they have trouble reading textbooks 

As far as why the math problems look weird. I got my math ed degree from one of the uni's that developed "new math" and it definitely took me awhile to understand the different ways of teaching operations and algebra, etc. But what those viral stories on the internet don't show you is that math is still being taught the way you remember it. Kids are still doing multiplication written out (and memorizing their tables), but they are also being taught how to do a box multiplication. Adding these additional methods to the usual ones helps kids develop an understanding of how numbers are manipulated and what you are actually doing. Sure, you can write out 45x18 and finish the problem like we all did growing up. But making kids write it out as a box (40x10 = 400 and 8x5=40, so my answer is 440) helps them understand what's happening when they use the shorter method.

The best way I've been able to explain common core math is this: some people just click with math and have a way of thinking it through that comes naturally, while many others just don't get it naturally. Common Core, in addition to providing comprehensive learning standards for each grade (simply replacing similar standards that were already being used), attempts to foster that math thinking that comes naturally to some. When I am doing math in my head and trying to figure out how old my dad is when he was born in 1957, I don't write out 2015-1957 in my head and carry the ones, etc. Instead, I think 3 to 1960 then 40 to 200, so 43 plus 15 is 58. That is a common core technique that parents have freaked about, but it's just encouraging sound mathematical thinking.

Common core reading and math standards were developed through research based methods to give the best learning results. Previous state standards were developed decades ago with usually very little explanation of what mastery looks like. When kids have a better understanding of what they are doing to numbers when they perform simple operations, it becomes easier for them to understand higher level math 

Super long rant, sorry. But yeah, I think the opposition boils down to people thinking Obama made it (really started by the Uni's and the national governor's association), parents not liking the inferred idea that the way they learned it wasn't good enough, and conspiracy theory loving state representatives who know nothing about education or research. 

Also, for some reason, people think it mandates the reading of lots of technical manuals? Which somehow means Obama wants your child to work in a factory? Idk it's baffling to me.

Its good to get an outsiders opinion.  I personally don't have an informed enough decision to say if I like it or not. DD will be in Kindy next year so I will see more of it then I'm sure.  It would just take me a long time to get use to that math stuff and I was top of my class in algebra in HS - I really loved math.

AprilZ81

No bid contracts are inexcusable.  Contracts should also include penalties for project delays.

When I lived in NC there were so many news articles about road construction crews (state contractors) pulling crews from big interstate projects to go work on something else that made more money.  Since their contract with the state had no penalties for not finishing on time there was no incentive to stay and get the work done.  It cost the state a crap ton of money and delayed projects for YEARS.

Xstatic3333

dragonstarjk said:

als1982 said:

formerlyGDaisy09 said:

Totally agree that the last thing we need is another Bush or Clinton in the white house. I've not watched the debates, I think I'd spend the whole time yelling at the TV. 

I'm ready to support a Bernie Sanders-Elizabeth Warren campaign...

I have a mad girl crush on Elizabeth Warren. As for Bernie, I like the idea of him. But gun control is a big issue for me, and I don't love his libertarian stance in that regard. So between him and Hillary, I'm team Clinton.

I've been wanting an Elizabeth Warren campaign for months!


As much as I love her, I'm torn about wanting her to run for President. Part of me would rather see her have a long, illustrious Senate career a la Ted Kennedy, her predecessor. We need people like her in the Senate who are proactive and willing to stray from the party line when appropriate. I think she'll make a huge difference there.

I thought the same thing about Obama 8 years ago. I at least would have rather seen him serve as a senator a bit longer before running. It's pretty embarrassing in retrospect but I think I voted for John Edwards in the 2008 primary.

formerlyGDaisy09

AprilZ81 said:

I may be a bit naive on this, but my favorite political saying is "We don't have a tax problems (speaking about revenue) we have a spending problem."

Our government wastes an unGodly amount of money on stuff that doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.  I think it is very possible to rework the federal budget (assuming one ever gets passed) to balance the budget without needing to make as many painful cuts to services that affect everyday Americans.  I think there are a lot of programs that overlap and serve the same/similar populations that could be combined to reduce overlap and waste, I think our military can be strong but with a more reasonable budget, and the Libertarian in my wishes that the government would shrink WAY, WAY back.  Washington DC has assumed a lot of power that was never included in the Constitution.  If the power is not written into the Constitution specifically then it was meant to be for the states to decide.  

The problem with entitlement reform is that it isn't a a true entitlement in some ways because everyone (minus some state employees) who works pays into Social Security and Medicare.  I would be shocked if SS is available when I retire, and if it does I have a feeling I'm only going to get a fraction of what I paid into the system.

I'm fiscally conservative/Libertarian and socially moderate.  I think abortion is horrible (don't get me started on Planned Parenthood) but if that is a choice a woman wants to make I want to make sure she doesn't die because of lack of care.  Legalize pot and tax the hell out of it.  My Christian faith tells me that homosexuality is a sin, but we are all sinners so I'm not going to cast the first stone and I'm not going to treat you (general) any different.

I'm not entierly certain what this means, but I just can't leave it. Only 3% of the services offered by planned parenthood are related to abortions...the other 97% of services are things like breast exams, cancer screenings, consultations and providing contraceptives (to prevent unwanted pregnancies that might end in abortions), low cost general health services for men and women, STD treatment and education...

Planned parenthood is part of the solution to the rising cost of healthcare in the US, they are a non-profit organization providing essential services to underserved and underinsured populations of people, that would likely go without care without planned parenthood. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe1510281

AprilZ81

formerlyGDaisy09 said:

AprilZ81 said:

I may be a bit naive on this, but my favorite political saying is "We don't have a tax problems (speaking about revenue) we have a spending problem."

Our government wastes an unGodly amount of money on stuff that doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.  I think it is very possible to rework the federal budget (assuming one ever gets passed) to balance the budget without needing to make as many painful cuts to services that affect everyday Americans.  I think there are a lot of programs that overlap and serve the same/similar populations that could be combined to reduce overlap and waste, I think our military can be strong but with a more reasonable budget, and the Libertarian in my wishes that the government would shrink WAY, WAY back.  Washington DC has assumed a lot of power that was never included in the Constitution.  If the power is not written into the Constitution specifically then it was meant to be for the states to decide.  

The problem with entitlement reform is that it isn't a a true entitlement in some ways because everyone (minus some state employees) who works pays into Social Security and Medicare.  I would be shocked if SS is available when I retire, and if it does I have a feeling I'm only going to get a fraction of what I paid into the system.

I'm fiscally conservative/Libertarian and socially moderate.  I think abortion is horrible (don't get me started on Planned Parenthood) but if that is a choice a woman wants to make I want to make sure she doesn't die because of lack of care.  Legalize pot and tax the hell out of it.  My Christian faith tells me that homosexuality is a sin, but we are all sinners so I'm not going to cast the first stone and I'm not going to treat you (general) any different.

I'm not entierly certain what this means, but I just can't leave it. Only 3% of the services offered by planned parenthood are related to abortions...the other 97% of services are things like breast exams, cancer screenings, consultations and providing contraceptives (to prevent unwanted pregnancies that might end in abortions), low cost general health services for men and women, STD treatment and education...

Planned parenthood is part of the solution to the rising cost of healthcare in the US, they are a non-profit organization providing essential services to underserved and underinsured populations of people, that would likely go without care without planned parenthood. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe1510281

My issue with them is the selling of fetal tissue and the videos that came out this summer.  I found them horrifying that they were discussing babies like spare parts in a junk yard.  

PP can do manual breast exams, but they do not have mammogram abilities and refer patients to another provider. 

als1982

AprilZ81 said:

formerlyGDaisy09 said:

AprilZ81 said:

I may be a bit naive on this, but my favorite political saying is "We don't have a tax problems (speaking about revenue) we have a spending problem."

Our government wastes an unGodly amount of money on stuff that doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.  I think it is very possible to rework the federal budget (assuming one ever gets passed) to balance the budget without needing to make as many painful cuts to services that affect everyday Americans.  I think there are a lot of programs that overlap and serve the same/similar populations that could be combined to reduce overlap and waste, I think our military can be strong but with a more reasonable budget, and the Libertarian in my wishes that the government would shrink WAY, WAY back.  Washington DC has assumed a lot of power that was never included in the Constitution.  If the power is not written into the Constitution specifically then it was meant to be for the states to decide.  

The problem with entitlement reform is that it isn't a a true entitlement in some ways because everyone (minus some state employees) who works pays into Social Security and Medicare.  I would be shocked if SS is available when I retire, and if it does I have a feeling I'm only going to get a fraction of what I paid into the system.

I'm fiscally conservative/Libertarian and socially moderate.  I think abortion is horrible (don't get me started on Planned Parenthood) but if that is a choice a woman wants to make I want to make sure she doesn't die because of lack of care.  Legalize pot and tax the hell out of it.  My Christian faith tells me that homosexuality is a sin, but we are all sinners so I'm not going to cast the first stone and I'm not going to treat you (general) any different.

I'm not entierly certain what this means, but I just can't leave it. Only 3% of the services offered by planned parenthood are related to abortions...the other 97% of services are things like breast exams, cancer screenings, consultations and providing contraceptives (to prevent unwanted pregnancies that might end in abortions), low cost general health services for men and women, STD treatment and education...

Planned parenthood is part of the solution to the rising cost of healthcare in the US, they are a non-profit organization providing essential services to underserved and underinsured populations of people, that would likely go without care without planned parenthood. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe1510281

My issue with them is the selling of fetal tissue and the videos that came out this summer.  I found them horrifying that they were discussing babies like spare parts in a junk yard.  

PP can do manual breast exams, but they do not have mammogram abilities and refer patients to another provider. 

I just can't understand why anyone would be opposed to turning an abortion into helping improve the care and treatment of disease through science. It's an apples to oranges comparison, but it's almost like declining organ donation. Why wouldn't you want to make as much positive as you can from a situation no woman wants to be in?

AprilZ81

als1982 said:

formerlyGDaisy09 said:

AprilZ81 said:

I may be a bit naive on this, but my favorite political saying is "We don't have a tax problems (speaking about revenue) we have a spending problem."

Our government wastes an unGodly amount of money on stuff that doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.  I think it is very possible to rework the federal budget (assuming one ever gets passed) to balance the budget without needing to make as many painful cuts to services that affect everyday Americans.  I think there are a lot of programs that overlap and serve the same/similar populations that could be combined to reduce overlap and waste, I think our military can be strong but with a more reasonable budget, and the Libertarian in my wishes that the government would shrink WAY, WAY back.  Washington DC has assumed a lot of power that was never included in the Constitution.  If the power is not written into the Constitution specifically then it was meant to be for the states to decide.  

The problem with entitlement reform is that it isn't a a true entitlement in some ways because everyone (minus some state employees) who works pays into Social Security and Medicare.  I would be shocked if SS is available when I retire, and if it does I have a feeling I'm only going to get a fraction of what I paid into the system.

I'm fiscally conservative/Libertarian and socially moderate.  I think abortion is horrible (don't get me started on Planned Parenthood) but if that is a choice a woman wants to make I want to make sure she doesn't die because of lack of care.  Legalize pot and tax the hell out of it.  My Christian faith tells me that homosexuality is a sin, but we are all sinners so I'm not going to cast the first stone and I'm not going to treat you (general) any different.

I'm not entierly certain what this means, but I just can't leave it. Only 3% of the services offered by planned parenthood are related to abortions...the other 97% of services are things like breast exams, cancer screenings, consultations and providing contraceptives (to prevent unwanted pregnancies that might end in abortions), low cost general health services for men and women, STD treatment and education...

Planned parenthood is part of the solution to the rising cost of healthcare in the US, they are a non-profit organization providing essential services to underserved and underinsured populations of people, that would likely go without care without planned parenthood. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe1510281

My issue with them is the selling of fetal tissue and the videos that came out this summer.  I found them horrifying that they were discussing babies like spare parts in a junk yard.  

PP can do manual breast exams, but they do not have mammogram abilities and refer patients to another provider. 

I just can't understand why anyone would be opposed to turning an abortion into helping improve the care and treatment of disease through science. It's an apples to oranges comparison, but it's almost like declining organ donation. Why wouldn't you want to make as much positive as you can from a situation no woman wants to be in?

Then why are they SELLING it? They can donate the tissue and get the same result, minus the income stream.

formerlyGDaisy09

AprilZ81 said:

formerlyGDaisy09 said:

AprilZ81 said:

I may be a bit naive on this, but my favorite political saying is "We don't have a tax problems (speaking about revenue) we have a spending problem."

Our government wastes an unGodly amount of money on stuff that doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.  I think it is very possible to rework the federal budget (assuming one ever gets passed) to balance the budget without needing to make as many painful cuts to services that affect everyday Americans.  I think there are a lot of programs that overlap and serve the same/similar populations that could be combined to reduce overlap and waste, I think our military can be strong but with a more reasonable budget, and the Libertarian in my wishes that the government would shrink WAY, WAY back.  Washington DC has assumed a lot of power that was never included in the Constitution.  If the power is not written into the Constitution specifically then it was meant to be for the states to decide.  

The problem with entitlement reform is that it isn't a a true entitlement in some ways because everyone (minus some state employees) who works pays into Social Security and Medicare.  I would be shocked if SS is available when I retire, and if it does I have a feeling I'm only going to get a fraction of what I paid into the system.

I'm fiscally conservative/Libertarian and socially moderate.  I think abortion is horrible (don't get me started on Planned Parenthood) but if that is a choice a woman wants to make I want to make sure she doesn't die because of lack of care.  Legalize pot and tax the hell out of it.  My Christian faith tells me that homosexuality is a sin, but we are all sinners so I'm not going to cast the first stone and I'm not going to treat you (general) any different.

I'm not entierly certain what this means, but I just can't leave it. Only 3% of the services offered by planned parenthood are related to abortions...the other 97% of services are things like breast exams, cancer screenings, consultations and providing contraceptives (to prevent unwanted pregnancies that might end in abortions), low cost general health services for men and women, STD treatment and education...

Planned parenthood is part of the solution to the rising cost of healthcare in the US, they are a non-profit organization providing essential services to underserved and underinsured populations of people, that would likely go without care without planned parenthood. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe1510281

My issue with them is the selling of fetal tissue and the videos that came out this summer.  I found them horrifying that they were discussing babies like spare parts in a junk yard.  

PP can do manual breast exams, but they do not have mammogram abilities and refer patients to another provider. 

if you read the NEJM editorial (literally one of the most respected journals in medicine), none of the fetal tissue used for research is taken without the consent of the woman it's retreived from, which means the protocol has gone through istitutional review board for approval (a very tedious process) and it gets reviewed at least annually-for both safety and ethical compliance. the research done with that tissue is of astronomical importance (conditions that might benefit form this type of research include, but are not limited to; cancers, cyctic fibrosis, MS, ALS, diabetes, congenital disorders, lupus, auto-immune diesease, inflammatory bowel disease, rheumatoid/psoriatic arthritis, literally any chronic condition could potentially benefit from this research. And ultimately the woman who has made the tough decision to have an abortion (whether by choice or medical necessity) has absolute say in whether the tissue is used or not. 

The GOP had absolutely twisted what happens when those samples are retreived, PP is only paid for the costs assiciated with retreiving and properly storing those samples. storing and transferring biological samples for research is not easy or cheap. and paying for someone to take the time to go through the consent process for patients wanting to participate in research is also not cheap. As someone who consents patients to research, I have certification I have to maintain to be qualified to conduct research in human subjects and for a simple survey study with a blood draw the consent process can take 20-30 minutes, and we know exactly what will happen to that sample. I can only imagine what is involved with the consent process for patients who choose to donate fetal tissue. 

There are a whole other set of issues connected with breast cancer screening and cervical cancer screening (any one interested I highly suggest several books by H. Gilbert Welch, bot "Should I be tested for cancer?" and "Overdiagnosed" specifically speak to the dangers of screening). BUT manual breast exams by trained medical staff are both cheaper and nearly as likely as mammography to catch agressive cancers. mammography does a great job at catching small cancers...but there is a question in medicine about whether finding those small cancers actually does more harm than good. 

als1982

AprilZ81 said:

als1982 said:

AprilZ81 said:

formerlyGDaisy09 said:

AprilZ81 said:

I may be a bit naive on this, but my favorite political saying is "We don't have a tax problems (speaking about revenue) we have a spending problem."

Our government wastes an unGodly amount of money on stuff that doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.  I think it is very possible to rework the federal budget (assuming one ever gets passed) to balance the budget without needing to make as many painful cuts to services that affect everyday Americans.  I think there are a lot of programs that overlap and serve the same/similar populations that could be combined to reduce overlap and waste, I think our military can be strong but with a more reasonable budget, and the Libertarian in my wishes that the government would shrink WAY, WAY back.  Washington DC has assumed a lot of power that was never included in the Constitution.  If the power is not written into the Constitution specifically then it was meant to be for the states to decide.  

The problem with entitlement reform is that it isn't a a true entitlement in some ways because everyone (minus some state employees) who works pays into Social Security and Medicare.  I would be shocked if SS is available when I retire, and if it does I have a feeling I'm only going to get a fraction of what I paid into the system.

I'm fiscally conservative/Libertarian and socially moderate.  I think abortion is horrible (don't get me started on Planned Parenthood) but if that is a choice a woman wants to make I want to make sure she doesn't die because of lack of care.  Legalize pot and tax the hell out of it.  My Christian faith tells me that homosexuality is a sin, but we are all sinners so I'm not going to cast the first stone and I'm not going to treat you (general) any different.

I'm not entierly certain what this means, but I just can't leave it. Only 3% of the services offered by planned parenthood are related to abortions...the other 97% of services are things like breast exams, cancer screenings, consultations and providing contraceptives (to prevent unwanted pregnancies that might end in abortions), low cost general health services for men and women, STD treatment and education...

Planned parenthood is part of the solution to the rising cost of healthcare in the US, they are a non-profit organization providing essential services to underserved and underinsured populations of people, that would likely go without care without planned parenthood. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe1510281

My issue with them is the selling of fetal tissue and the videos that came out this summer.  I found them horrifying that they were discussing babies like spare parts in a junk yard.  

PP can do manual breast exams, but they do not have mammogram abilities and refer patients to another provider. 

I just can't understand why anyone would be opposed to turning an abortion into helping improve the care and treatment of disease through science. It's an apples to oranges comparison, but it's almost like declining organ donation. Why wouldn't you want to make as much positive as you can from a situation no woman wants to be in?





Then why are they SELLING it? They can donate the tissue and get the same result, minus the income stream.

It's not proven that they are. There are significant costs associated with collecting, storing and transferring human cells and organs. They are legally allowed to recoup those expenses.

ETA: Jinx @formerlyGDaisy09! Thanks for articulating my simplified explanation far better than I ever could.

formerlyGDaisy09

@als1982, no prob! if it did nothing else, 3 years in school for an MS in clinical research and health policy helped formulate that explanation. 

short+sassy

So many good and interesting responses!  I lost track of everyone I wanted to quote, so I'll summarize, lol.

I'm very generally following all the candidates, but I'm registered "non-partisan" anyway, so I don't get to vote in the primaries.  I'll start paying a lot more attention when we are narrowed down to two.  Like @hoffse and others, I'm SO SO tired of the extremism.  And I always find it baffling that it seems to come down to that.  Extreme=small percentage of population.  It makes logical sense politicians should be focused on the swing voters/middle road folks, but they never are.

Also agree with @hoffse on politicians needlessly beating dead horses for no reason.  Generally speaking, abortion and same sex marriage fall under the Judicial branch (ie SCOTUS) of our government and have already been decided...not the Executive branch anyway.  So stop endlessly talking about it, candidates.  Stop throwing my scarce state taxes at windmills because you disagree with a SCOTUS decision...talking to you, Gov. Jindal.  (He spent a couple mil. trying to do some loop around that states can make their own rules for state courts, even if it counters a SCOTUS decision).

Tax system needs to be simplified.  I won't even pretend that I'd have any idea how to do that.  Though I'd start with the most popular deductions disappearing...ie child dependents and mortgage  interest.  Hence, why it will never happen.

Affordable medical care for everyone.  The ACA is "sort of" a start, but the bigger problem is the vicious cycle of private insurance we have been living under for too long.  Medical bills are astronomical...because "meh, who cares, insurance pays them."  But now that medical bills are astronomical, insurance rates are astronomical.  It's the medical bills that need to decrease and get reigned into a fair amount.  How do we do that?  I don't know the answer.

(Going a bit rogue and "out there" on this one)  Though I think it would help if we can turn medical care into a more open marketplace.  Like...readily available price lists for different services.  We read reviews and compare costs for things like cars and electronics...why can't we do the same for medical services?  Because, I guarantee you, if most consumers started considering prices for their medication/surgeries/doctor visits...we would start to see the laws of competition go into effect.  That is what is largely missing in our current configuration.  So we continue to pay $150 for one dose of aspirin in the hospital.  Because, "meh, who cares, insurance pays it".  As an aside, I did have a coworker who brings his own bottle of aspirin to the hospital and will tell the nurses, "No, I brought my own.  Take that away.  Don't charge me for it."  Love it, lol!

@simplyelise, thanks for Common Core math illustration.  What is really funny about that is I started doing math that way...as an adult...about 15 years ago.  I just figured it out for myself that this was an easier way to do math in my head.  It was like an epiphany and then I was kind of pi**ed off they never taught me that technique in school.  Not saying it is best for everyone, but I would have had a much easier time in math if I learned that method when I was actually in school.

As for Trump, he could not be a bigger no for me.  To me, a KEY character trait that a world leader must possess is tact and diplomacy.  POTUS is our country's face to the world and I don't want to spend four years wondering which head of state, ambassador, or business leader is being grossly insulted this week.   

AprilZ81

short+sassy said:

<snip quote>

(Going a bit rogue and "out there" on this one)  Though I think it would help if we can turn medical care into a more open marketplace.  Like...readily available price lists for different services.  We read reviews and compare costs for things like cars and electronics...why can't we do the same for medical services?  Because, I guarantee you, if most consumers started considering prices for their medication/surgeries/doctor visits...we would start to see the laws of competition go into effect.  That is what is largely missing in our current configuration.  So we continue to pay $150 for one dose of aspirin in the hospital.  Because, "meh, who cares, insurance pays it".  As an aside, I did have a coworker who brings his own bottle of aspirin to the hospital and will tell the nurses, "No, I brought my own.  Take that away.  Don't charge me for it."  Love it, lol!

This is actually similar to what DH and I think would help, although we would start "small" and get tort reform passed.  A lot of the overhead doctors and hospitals have is outrageous malpractice insurance.  Americans in general are "lawsuit happy" and want a million dollar settlement because of a minor medical mistake.  Limiting settlements based on the severity of the issue is a good start.  You get the wrong leg amputated?  You get a massively huge settlement.  You surgery incision doesn't heal well and you have an "ugly" scar? Sorry, your quality of life isn't affected and you don't get anything.

The next thing I would like to see is that you can buy insurance across state lines.  I live in Ohio and I can only buy a policy here.  If there is an insurance policy in Indiana or Kentucky that I like that is a lower cost I should be able to buy it.  More policies being available will help drive the cost down in the long run.

Shopping around for individual procedures is a good idea.

Generally I think we got into this mess because people started looking at health insurance as health care and the two terms are not interchangeable.  Insurance was originally more like today's "Major Medical Policies" where it was insurance against spending your life savings if you needed a heart transplant or got cancer.  As more procedures, tests and office visits became covered we (general we) started to expect more stuff to be "free" because we pay for the insurance.

Cash prices are usually a fraction of insurance prices.  And I've heard stories (nothing I can prove factually) that dealing with the insurance companies actually costs doctors/hospitals more money because they need to hire more staff just to make sure everything is properly coded and submitted for payment and then to deal with all of the appeals and back and forth.

Forcing everyone to buy insurance was never a good idea to bring down the cost of health care.  This is especially sure when you expect the policy to include a whole host of new issues.  

short+sassy

@AprilZ81, the insurance I currently have through my employer is kind of like what you are talking about.  It is a high deductible plan...it pays nothing, not even for prescriptions or doctor visits...until I have spent $8,000 out of pocket (family) or $3,000 (individual).  The individual plan is free, the family plan is $17/month.

The company also has a more traditional plan, but it is a few hundred bucks for family and a couple hundred for employee only.

I even have a lot of medical/prescription expenses but, when I did the math, it was still cheaper for me to just pay out of pocket.  Then pay the higher premium PLUS my most expensive medication was the highest tier on that plan anyway.  So it would have been $50/pop.

My solution?  I buy my medication from an online Canadian pharmacy for less than half the cost it would be in the U.S.  Exact same brand, exact same medication.  I can even turn in those receipts to my insurance and they count toward my deductible.  Though, thankfully, so far I've never come close to hitting that $8K.

Unfortunately, I can't do a lot about the cost of doctor/lab visits.  I should start being more proactive and angle for a "cash discount".  I think one of the other big losses for medical institutions...though probably more on the hospital side...is the expense of not having patient bills paid.  Either because the patient didn't have insurance or...did have insurance, but still couldn't pay some of their portion.

You're also right about the enormous cost of malpractice insurance.  I've often heard of limiting lawsuit sizes as a way of bringing down costs for the provider side of medicine.

As an aside, I was in a mock jury awhile back in regards to a case where a person had been paralyzed.  And, although a bit disconcerting to relate someone's life to their "dollar value", the prosecuting attorney laid out the math for how they had come to the judgment they were requesting.  Some factors included were the man's expected medical expenses, his lifetime earnings he would have made (which took into account his previous income and age at time of injury).  But, looking at it from that perspective.  While everybody's life is priceless, from a judgment standpoint, nobody's life is worth tens of millions of dollars. 

smerka

Forcing everyone to get insurance lessens the costs to hospitals for the uninsured who show up at the ER for a problem that could be taken care of at a doctor's office. Like a UTI that turns into a bladder infection

short+sassy

@smerka, for some reason I can't quote you .  This is extra bad where I live.  My H was taken to the ER a few years ago after a bike accident.  The ER was PACKED!  I soon found out why.  I overheard people all around me talking about how long they had been waiting.  The lady next to me had an "earache" and had been waiting since 10PM the night before...this was at 1:00PM in the afternoon!  Another guy had been waiting since midnight for a similarly minor issue.

I don't understand how people in even minor pain can be waiting around overnight and for hours on end (shudder).  It was pretty miserable just for the 30 minutes I was there waiting for the "visiting" 15 minutes.  I pray I am never that desperate.   

formerlyGDaisy09

@short+sassy and @AprilZ81, part of the problem with extreme differences in the prices on the chargemasters at hospitals is that they are entierly based on the payer mix that each individual hospital sees, their prices are based around what they can get for reimbursement from medicare, medicaid, insurance companies, and what percentage of their customers are put of pocket payers, or customers that are going to be charity care or not be able to pay their bills. most hospitals operate at a less than 1% margin (exceptions being for profit centers....but their care model is totally different and they turn-away non-payers and medicaid). if we switch to a singer payer system, the payer mix issue goes away. 

ACOs (accountable care organizations) are set-up to handle a single payer system where a system of health organizations is paid to take care of a population of patients, the ACO succeeds if they keep the majority of their population healthy, they are no longer incentivized to provide more care to make more money, which means that patients get the care they need, nothing more, nothing less. 

@smerka, overuse of ERs as a substitute for preventative care is a HUGE problem, I've noticed in our area (rural new england) an increase in the number of urgent care centers (can handle things like broken bones, UTIs, etc) and minute clinics that I hope help to free-up ERs for true emergencies, MIs, stroke, and serious accidents. I know our hospital is working to build an ACO network and one of the main goals is trying to get specialty clinics to help triage their sick patients so they don't end-up in the ER.

KatieCutie05

I said it 8 years ago and i'll say it again.... This country will never fairly elect a Woman as president unless its Woman vs. Woman. Theres far too many idiotic feminists that dont care about anything at all except getting "the first woman president". If its Hillary vs any man - she'll win soley because she's a woman. 

Last election - everyone i liked was knocked out in just a few months. The primaries - i actually voted for someone who had already dropped out because i just couldn't vote for a moderate. I did vote for Romney just in a "anyone but obama" vote - but DH went 3rd party. I think the way the primaries are so spread out just destroys everything. i wish my state was sooner just so i could actually have some say in who gets on the ticket! its always down to 2 by the time it rolls around to us. I would have watched the debates if i had cable but i don't. 

Honestly its ALL politics and I don't trust a single soul. I like Rand Paul or Ted Cruz the most but in an effort to keep the clintons out of the white house again and have to start house hunting in Canada - I support Carly Fiorina. Theres a few issues i don't agree with her on but she's a million times better then Hillary. 

It doesn't matter who i support until election day anyway..... The chances that who i like will still be running by then is slim. 

simplyelise

@katiecutie05

Totally get your frustration on our whacked out primary system. It's very frustrating to feel like candidates you most like are not given a fair shake just because Iowa doesn't like them.

But I don't really get this:

"This country will never fairly elect a Woman as president unless its Woman vs. Woman. Theres far too many idiotic feminists that dont care about anything at all except getting "the first woman president".

What do you mean by "fairly"? Do you just mean that for you it won't feel like the female candidate earned it because some people are solely voting for her because she is a woman? If that is the case, many of our elections haven't been "fair" because many people just vote for "the man" or "the one who's white" or "the one who's my religion". It seems odd to specify that only the female candidate is getting these kinds of non-issue votes. It also seems like an easy way to dismiss someone, a la, he only won because he's black. It makes it easy for people to feel like they don't have to treat the position with any respect because to them it wasn't earned "fairly."

als1982

simplyelise said:

@katiecutie05

Totally get your frustration on our whacked out primary system. It's very frustrating to feel like candidates you most like are not given a fair shake just because Iowa doesn't like them.

But I don't really get this:

"This country will never fairly elect a Woman as president unless its Woman vs. Woman. Theres far too many idiotic feminists that dont care about anything at all except getting "the first woman president".

What do you mean by "fairly"? Do you just mean that for you it won't feel like the female candidate earned it because some people are solely voting for her because she is a woman? If that is the case, many of our elections haven't been "fair" because many people just vote for "the man" or "the one who's white" or "the one who's my religion". It seems odd to specify that only the female candidate is getting these kinds of non-issue votes. It also seems like an easy way to dismiss someone, a la, he only won because he's black. It makes it easy for people to feel like they don't have to treat the position with any respect because to them it wasn't earned "fairly."

Or in the same respect, voting or not voting for someone based on their family lineage.

Xstatic3333

simplyelise said:

@katiecutie05

Totally get your frustration on our whacked out primary system. It's very frustrating to feel like candidates you most like are not given a fair shake just because Iowa doesn't like them.

But I don't really get this:

"This country will never fairly elect a Woman as president unless its Woman vs. Woman. Theres far too many idiotic feminists that dont care about anything at all except getting "the first woman president".

What do you mean by "fairly"? Do you just mean that for you it won't feel like the female candidate earned it because some people are solely voting for her because she is a woman? If that is the case, many of our elections haven't been "fair" because many people just vote for "the man" or "the one who's white" or "the one who's my religion". It seems odd to specify that only the female candidate is getting these kinds of non-issue votes. It also seems like an easy way to dismiss someone, a la, he only won because he's black. It makes it easy for people to feel like they don't have to treat the position with any respect because to them it wasn't earned "fairly."

@simplyelise that was so well stated!  Thank you!

I tried, but I can't quite let "idiotic feminists" go by, either.  I think we've done a pretty good job keeping this conversation respectful, and I've learned a lot from both people I agree with and people who will probably vote differently from me.  Our country is so polarized, and it has been interesting to hear why people make the decisions they do.  We all have our own good reasons for the ways we vote and the values we hold.  However, I'm proud to consider myself a feminist (definition: one who thinks that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities) and still take time to evaluate each candidate based on their policies, skills, and leadership ability.  Heck, Hillary doesn't even have my primary vote, and if she did her gender would have nothing to do with it.  

KatieCutie05

Okay "idiotic feminists" was the wrong word. but we all know the extreme type i'm talking about. Its those hardcore women that are either gay or unmarried because they hate ALL men and the second a female gets up on that stage they are all of a sudden way into politics. They don't even care about political issues. But you can bet they want a female president. Like somehow gender has anything to do with your ability to run a country.I heard the same thing with obama and the blacks and "we need a black man in there". SO many people saying they just wanted a black man or they just wanted to "make history" so they voted for obama. Ofcourse those are probably just people who would normally not vote and not even know the presidents name - but they'll vote to try to "make history" or like "yea sure it would be cool to have a woman/black president" 

I see everyone as equals and gender or the color of your skin shouldn't have anything to do with your ability to run a country but somehow that makes you electable. Lets face it - if Hillary was a man and there was all that junk in the media about her - they wouldn't be pushing to get her on the ballot because it would be too negative. But since she can play that "gender card" she's all of a sudden electable. 

I wasn't talking about feminists just in the "equal rights for women" sense at all. I honestly don't even consider those people feminists. A feminist to me is someone who thinks women are BETTER then men - not equal. Trust me i'm all for equal rights - i was underpaid for years because i'm a woman. A man with less experience and less education that was working underneath me - was paid more then me. But i still don't describe myself as a feminist. I guess its just a matter of how you define "feminist" or maybe i just know one too many extremes that just put a bad taste in my mouth. 

formerlyGDaisy09

@Xstatic3333 +1 from another feminist who won't be voting for Hilary

@KatieCutie05 I find a lot of that very offensive. There is a lot of naivety in the voting population, regardless of who the candidate is. every candidate who runs is going to have a population of voters who follow them blindly (for whatever reason) to say that a woman or someone from a minority has an unfair advantage is ignoring the whole other naive portion of the voting popoulation that is voting for the other candidate because they're a white man. 

and you can't change the definition of Feminist