Last I checked, I'm Jewish. And last I checked, my Presidential votes have been: Carter, 1976 (Democrat) Carter, 1980 (Democrat) Reagan, 1984 (Republican) Bush 41, 1988 (Republican) Clinton, 1992 (Democrat) Dole, 1996 (Republican, more of a "let's keep this victory narrow); Gore, 2000 (Democrat) Bush 43, 2004 (Republican) McPain, 2008 (Republican) Romney, 2012 (Republican) Looks like a close to even split for to me at least.
I have drifted too. So I guess the assumption that all the new immigrants and non white voters will be Democratic is just drawn from the Black experience. Although traditionally, "we" did stick by the Dems more then most. Just not as much as Black America. Moi I left the Party for Reagan because my taxes were over 50% and my life style middle, middle So. Calif.
I know black people who have voted straight Republican over that time period. An individual case can vary from the norm, but looking at the demographic and remembering that the best predictor of how a demographic is going to vote is to look at how that demographic voted previously. Individual behavior is nearly impossible to predict, but the behavior of large groups lends itself to accurate prediction. A demographic group tends to vote a certain way until that voting pattern is shifted by major defining political events. The black demographic used to vote Republican, but the major defining political events of the Civil Rights movement, the speeches of Eleanor Roosevelt, the desegregation of the military by the executive order of Harry Truman, the Voting Rights Act of 1964, and most recently by the election of the first African-American president, each event has tilted the balance more in favor of the Democratic party, coupled with the Southern Strategy of the GOP, targeting white racist voters. It's the GOP's embrace, however discreet, of racism that has damaged that brand with Hispanic and Asian voters. Those demographics are not a lopsided as the black vote, but those demographics will produce Democratic majorities until some major defining political event shifts that propensity. Just look at pictures of the national conventions, the Democratic convention is a sea of diversity, the Republican convention nearly 99% white. Look at the congressional caucuses, the same thing, and this makes it a self fulfilling prophecy, because most Asian-American politicians are Democrats, most Hispanic American politicians are Democrats, most African American politicians are Democrats, most Jewish American politicians are Democrats, this provides the feedback, that keeps those demographics in the Democratic fold. And look at the current policies, voter ID laws are designed to suppress minority voting, how do you think that will effect the votes of those minorities targeted by those laws? If there was no difference in the policies, and only the weight of the current voting patterns, one would expect the Democrats to dominate the non-white demographic for the next century, just by inertia. But there are policy differences that highlight and reinforce the patterns, so I don't expect the patterns to drift back to where they are all roughly the same for many decades at the least.
The GOP is major trouble and don't seem to care one bit. They continue the same angry, bitter, conspiracy theory driven garbage that is sinking them everyday. It seems they care more about ensuring that nothing gets accomplished while Obama is president than they do trying to to solve problems that they were elected to resolve. Sad. They're just too butt-hurt to care anymore.
It has come down to the Party survivalists who recognize what they must do to appeal to the American electorate vs those whose dogmatic ideological paralysis is impervious to the public will and the changing demographics that constitutes that electorate. The former must repudiate the latter because pandering to them constitutes securing a diminishing constituency. Jettisoning the debilitating bilge is only a matter of time. The imminent show-down concerns the berserkers' eagerness to sabotage the nation in their tizzy over nationalized WillardCare, and the establishmentistas' favouring adult behaviour. Those who obsess over and are hellbent upon thwarting the President at every turn, if they actually believed that the Affordable Care Act, if properly enacted, would constitute a failure, would be eager to see its failing; their fear is predicated upon the prospect of its repeating the success of its Massachusetts model, of course. As for 48 million Americans having their medical expenses routinely dumped on the taxpayer - a glaring injustice for which Willard, Gingrich, that TP darling DeMint, and the rightist Heritage Foundation saw the individual mandate as a conservative solution (each and every person assuming personal responsibility) the current wacko birds offer no solution. .
"Those who obsess over and are hellbent upon thwarting the President at every turn, if they actually believed that the Affordable Care Act, if properly enacted, would constitute a failure, would be eager to see its failing; their fear is predicated upon the prospect of its repeating the success of its Massachusetts model, of course." ~ Natty Bumpo, post 155. Here is a review of Massachusetts' results. Hardly a success. Obamacare hasn't even formally begun yet, and we are already seeing the same things as in Massachusetts. For example, Walgreen's just announced yesterday that it's shifting 160,000 employees into the "exchanges," giving them a fixed amount to shop for a policy. This will help Walgreen's control costs, but will employees have coverage comparable to what they have today? Or will they just have "more choices"? Perhaps the reason Republicans don't want to wait for Obamacare to fail is that they don't want to see millions of people hurt just to make a political point. Once today's system is disassembled it would be hard to reassemble. Republicans as Democrats Lite are doomed to extinction. To remain viable, Republicans must stand firmly for things important to the people and that differentiate them from Democrats. Health care is too important to be a mere political volleyball. Those in Washington who are public spirited, few though they may be, must do all they can to abort Obamacare. If they fail, and Obamacare does terrible harm, these Republicans will be remembered with gratitude in 2014 and 2016.
Its not even funny to see hyper-partisans with their heads in holes still trying to circle jerk each other. Its just sad to know that people can be that full of themselves, and yet that far gone.
I place the welfare of the American people above the welfare of Barack Obama and his Administration. That doesn't make me "hyper-partisan." Your use of the term suggests you see this as chiefly a partisan issue. It's far more important than that. There are a few good things about Obamacare which should be retained. The rest is harmful, as has been amply documented. You may be aware that a long list of major corporations and unions have sought and received waivers from participation. Why would they seek waivers, if Obamacare were so beneficial? Members of Congress and the Administration and their staffs recently awarded themselves a subsidy! They see that insurance premiums will soar with Obamacare, so Congressional staffers (who make far more than the national average personal income of $32,140) are getting their premiums subsidized by you and me. If Obamacare will not significantly raise costs for most people (instead of the $2,400 average cut Obama promised), why are Washington mandarins being subsidized? The flaws in Obamacare are so many, they beggar description. When you remember how this vast bill was rushed out, largely without public or even Congressional input, the many flaws are no surprise. Is it really "hyper-partisan" to say we should design a new health care system carefully and deliberately, with the full participation of the public and Congress? Does not democracy demand that? I understand the politics: heady with their recent victory, Democrats wanted to push through something they had sought since the 1940s while they had the political strength. But the haste and the cloistered method of planning back-fired. Now we have an over-priced and unwieldy system that will worsen health care at the same time as bankrupting the country. Democrats - dare I say hyper-partisan Democrats - seem concerned only that "their achievement" not be seen for what it is until it's too late. At that point, they hope that a suffering people will embrace the "single payer" system they really prefer. But who would subject the people to such a catastrophe as a means of herding them into something else? I ask with a pure, if hyper-partisan, heart.
The primary flaw of ObamaCare is it is regressive. It is a program where the new "tax" will hurt the poorest people the most. It is an obscene excuse for National Health Care to require all citizens to pay a profit to private health insurers or possible face a fine. This is regressive. This is National Socialism, Socialism for the corporations, rugged individualism for the rest of us. This is a fine example of RepubloCrats in action. Does anyone remember the true meaning of "progressive" as opposed to "regressive"? Not to be confused with Liberals. Moi Anti RepubloCrat Progressive Obama Lies and I would yell it at him given half a chance!
The problem with the republican party, is that it has always consisted of two prongs. Once prong is the elites - the rich, corporate interests--basically the 1% that romney mentioned when he thought no one was listening. It's this elite group that seeks to make rich people richer, at the expense of everyone else. They claim to support the "free market" and "freedom", but what they really care about is keeping rich people rich. The problem the republican elites have, however, is that most republicans aren't rich. And they need these people to come out and vote. So they way they do that is by drumming up all these BS issues to rally up the non-rich republican base. It's always something really stupid, that has nothing to do with reality. Remember death panels? Huge controversy, right? Turns out to be absolutely nonsense. Obama's death certificate--nonsense. The fed's economic stimulus would cause widespread inflation--nonsense. An Obama presidency would cause guns to be taken away--nonsense (Obama has actually weakened gun control). The problem is that eventually, when you create enough of these nonsense issues, the conservative base begins to buy into it all. And what you end up with is a party of crazy people--who are paranoid that some tyrannical liberal government is coming to take away their freedoms. Of course--this is nonsense as well. But the conservative base has been fed to much nonsense, that they've come to understand nonsense as truth. And the republican elites have lost control. It's kinda funny, in a sad way. Even Karl Rove realizes that the GOP party has turned into crazytown: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324492604579082851832871952.html?mod=wsj_nview_latest Just read some of the radical right-wing posts on this thread, and you can see just how crazy the party has become. Unfortunately for the GOP, crazy isn't really a winning platform. The GOP is just digging its own grave. They've already lost the presidency. they've lost the senate.And they basically lost the house (they lost the popular vote in the house, and the only way they retained control is by gerrymandering and re-districting). And all these losses came with the incumbent democrats during a recession. The GOP is in bad shape. And things are only gonna get worse.
It is an accommodation to the privateer's cartel, but the only practicable way to extend coverage to tens of millions at present. Lowering the Medicare eligibility age over time, incrementally, would eventually achieve universal coverage at significantly lower cost by observing economy of scale - cutting out the superfluous middle-man that grabs a sizable chunk of every heath care dollar (for huge executive salaries, corporate profit, advertising, marketing, political lobbying, etc.), maximizing the risk pool (the profiteers never wanted that most costly elderly demographic, of course,) standardizing and thus lowering all those duplicated clerical expenses, and eventually eliminating the monstrous $250 billion annual subsidy by which the tax payer sustains employer group insurance. Extant examples in advanced nations amply demonstrate that superior, universal care can be achieved at half the cost, but hardcore ideologues are impervious to the demonstrable reality. Pragmatic folks grasp it. .
The minority group members should see that government programs don't really help them too much. They would get further ahead by entrepreneurship and hard work than by supporting the kinds of programs Obama supports.
Sounds Like An Obamite Apologist "Oh, ObamaCare is NOT the goal. It is the road to a single payer system" "It will cover ? millions of uninsured". http://thelawdictionary.org/article/how-many-americans-really-do-not-have-health-insurance/ "While it's difficult to gauge the exact number of Americans without health insurance at any given moment, most credible sources place this figure at between 40 and 45 million. In other words, one American in seven lacks even basic health insurance coverage. So not quite 15% of Americans lack health insurance. The 85% of Americans who do have health insurance are now being "messed with" for their having coverage in the current market. The 85% face income taxes on their Health Insurance benefits. The 85% face employers dumping their old plans and supplementing their employees to go fish for a new plan. The 85% are de facto required to again pick up the tab for the uninsured. The 85% experience an intrusion by the <doom> Federals <Darth Vadar breath sounds> and not a benefit. ObamaCare takes indigent medical care out of the "general fund" and places more taxes on the working poor. ObamaCare is a regressive an excuse for National Health Care and should be dumped. Democrats are either too infatuated with themselves for achieving some sort of national health care law regardless of how nasty it is or Democrats are working for the further profits of the Health Insurance industry. Just like HillaryCare did. Remember, Networks? Managed Care. Courtesy of HillaryCare. Moi M.D. ret. The cure is to rearrange Physician reimbursement around time and not procedure. Without that, all hope is dashed for true reform that translates to an improved national health.
that's a lie. with the economy the way it is, entrepreneurship and hard work isn't really a winning formula. the middle class is being squeezed to such an extent, that the only way to get rich nowadays is by having rich parents. economic mobility is at a low point. if you aren't born rich, chances are, you will never be rich, no matter how hard you work. that's the ugly truth, and it undermines the entire republican platform.
The time for a surgery, even with complications is pretty well established. I hope that was your sense of humor. A cardiologist make more money per minute running a catheter up your coronary artery then teaching you how to live with heart disease. AND if the cardiologist leaves a stent behind in your coronary artery, he makes more money. AND if he leave two stents, more money, and more for three. FACT: A stent will kill you faster then No Stent. Immediately and for the first 6 months there is an improvement in vitality, then no difference except earlier mortality for the stented in matched groups. Moi Physician reimbursement by time, not procedure will improve the public health and lower costs.
So, other than a few tweaks for the exorbitant, inadequate plight, you have no viable alternative to nationalized WillardCare, and no extant national plan preferable to the several of advanced nations that provide superior care to all citizens at half the cost? No, dumping the medical costs of 48 million uninsured on the taxpayer whilst also forcing that taxpayer to subsidize employer-based group plans at $250 billion annually is not acceptable.
Hardly "tweaks". It is rotten from the foundation! The foundation is private profits for health insurers by <doom> Federal Law <Darth Vadar breath sounds>. Why mess with the covered 85% to extend coverage to the 15%. Design a program for that 15%. I think Rand Paul said that. But, he always makes too much sense. Like it couldn't be that simple. Moi ObamaCare is going to improve health care delivery just like the water conserving toilet save water, after three or four flushes. Cover the 15%, Don't mess with the 85%
Whether huge private profits by superfluous parties to the provider/patient relationship is the point, maintaining standards of competence has always been within the purview of the law. If you wish to deregulate health care, you are liable to need it after the 85% you pretend to speak for get ahold of you. It sounds as if you wish to perpetuate the $250 billion annual federal subsidy to sustain group insurance plans to the exclusive benefit of those insured through them, but extending coverage to otherwise uninsured family members up to age 26, preventing insurance companies from denying coverage to your kids with pre-existing conditions, or being guaranteed affordable coverage between jobs is not regarded as being "messed with" by all who may benefit. You can't pretend that your "85%" feel that they are being thusly "messed with." It may well be for simpletons but, fortunately, there are several extant national plans that provide a higher quality of care to everyone at around half the cost. Clinging to an inferior arrangement for ideological reasons is a case of blind faith over pragmatic sensibility. Rand Paul lies but, in any event, we are dealing with reality, not a pulp fiction world, so we look to real examples of superior systems, not airy-fairy dogma. As Willard enthused about his his very popular and successful model for ObamaCare, "The idea for a health care plan in Massachusetts was not mine alone. The Heritage Foundation, a great conservative think tank, helped on that. Im told Newt Gingrich, one of the very first people who came up with the idea of an individual mandate, did that years and years ago. It was seen as a conservative idea to say, you know what? People have a responsibility for caring for themselves if they can. Well help people who cant care for themselves, but if you can care for yourself, you gotta take care of yourself and pay your own bills. Willard's signature accomplishment on his scanty political resumé was his individually-mandated health coverage plan that proved very successful and the model for the nation, and so the GOP chose him to carry their Party banner.
I have an out-of-the-box thought. Eliminate all health insurance, except catastrophic conditions. And federally fund that. Medical transaction costs and fraud eat up alot of money. And insurance creates perverse incentives.
they can and they have. unregulated capitalism naturally leads to income inequality. that's what youre seeing here.
so perhaps we should establish a single payer system which evaluates interventions based on a cost-benefit anaysis and stop reimbursing for things that dont make economic sense, like stents. isn't that exactly what the liberals want?
