Coronavirus

[chitownsalesmen]

So I'm just going to put this out there because it needs to be said.

A lot of people don't have the option to stay home when their sick, a lot of American companies have woeful sick-time and PTO policies for their employees and a lot of Americans are living pay-check to pay-check. So if an employees options are come to work and possibly infect a ton of people or call off and loss their job or at the very least have issues paying their bills at the end of the month I don't know what other options those people have.

Add on to that fact that a lot of Americans don't have insurance or are under-insured, and you better believe a lot of people who are exhibiting symptoms are declining to pursue medical attention because of the costs of treatment.

Over 50% of Republicans polled are in favor of a Bernie Sanders style medicare for all, free at the point of service healthcare system. The question isn't if America will move to a nationalized medical system, the question is when.

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/412552-majority-of-republicans-say-the-support-medicare-for-all-poll

In the words of former Chicago mayor Rham Emanuel, don't let this crisis go to waste if this epidemic doesn't result in dramatic and immediate changes we will have failed ourselves and our country.

[dice]

So I'm just going to put this out there because it needs to be said.

A lot of people don't have the option to stay home when their sick, a lot of American companies have woeful sick-time and PTO policies for their employees and a lot of Americans are living pay-check to pay-check. So if an employees options are come to work and possibly infect a ton of people or call off and loss their job or at the very least have issues paying their bills at the end of the month I don't know what other options those people have.

Add on to that fact that a lot of Americans don't have insurance or are under-insured, and you better believe a lot of people who are exhibiting symptoms are declining to pursue medical attention because of the costs of treatment.

Over 50% of Republicans polled are in favor of a Bernie Sanders style medicare for all, free at the point of service healthcare system. The question isn't if America will move to a nationalized medical system, the question is when.

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/412552-majority-of-republicans-say-the-support-medicare-for-all-poll

In the words of former Chicago mayor Rham Emanuel, don't let this crisis go to waste if this epidemic doesn't result in dramatic and immediate changes we will have failed ourselves and our country.

a lot of children die in school shootings in this country and little changes. and the medical industry is a way bigger special interest than the NRA, so...

[dice]

Read on Twitter

not sure that heartbroken is the correct word to refer to basketball attendance under the circumstances

[chitownsalesmen]

So I'm just going to put this out there because it needs to be said.

A lot of people don't have the option to stay home when their sick, a lot of American companies have woeful sick-time and PTO policies for their employees and a lot of Americans are living pay-check to pay-check. So if an employees options are come to work and possibly infect a ton of people or call off and loss their job or at the very least have issues paying their bills at the end of the month I don't know what other options those people have.

Add on to that fact that a lot of Americans don't have insurance or are under-insured, and you better believe a lot of people who are exhibiting symptoms are declining to pursue medical attention because of the costs of treatment.

Over 50% of Republicans polled are in favor of a Bernie Sanders style medicare for all, free at the point of service healthcare system. The question isn't if America will move to a nationalized medical system, the question is when.

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/412552-majority-of-republicans-say-the-support-medicare-for-all-poll

In the words of former Chicago mayor Rham Emanuel, don't let this crisis go to waste if this epidemic doesn't result in dramatic and immediate changes we will have failed ourselves and our country.

a lot of children die in school shootings in this country and little changes. and the medical industry is a way bigger special interest than the NRA, so...

Well, I'm not going to turn this into a gun debate but the solution for healthcare in america is far more obvious. Also the American population is already in favor of M4A.

I do understand your sentiment though and I'm not expecting immediate change as much as I'm hoping for it. However, like I said, with a majority of even Republican voters favoring M4A, the question isn't if America socializes medicine its when.

[whonka]

The biggest thing I'm scared of is the media fearing us into a recession which will have way more of an impact than this flu.

What if over-reacting today leads to a lower impact tomorrow? If people start taking preventative measures, we can lessen the impact. However, if people suggest that things aren't so serious, then behavior doesn't change and the impact could be far worse.

People are already conflating professional advice from Doctor's and Virologists with "media scare mongering".

We are in a scary time when expert opinion is often lost in a mindless sea of disinfo and downright lies.

Wash your hands hourly. Don't attend large public events. If you feel sick, don't go anywhere. Self quarantine. Godspeed to all of us.

Unless I am misinterpreting the point of your post, I agree. I am a physician at an academic east coast medical center, and everyone should do all of those things and more. Everything the media says is not “overreaction”. Most US academic hospitals are already instituting the same policies, banning work/conference related domestic and international travel. My hospital had cancelled all internal conferences, invited speakers, etc for the foreseeable future. That should tell you everything you need to know about how “disinfo” this stuff is.

The general public may be at somewhat lower risk (depending on your age and demographics), but please think of your older family and the people with comorbidities around the country. The cavalier and entitled attitude of some of the general public is frankly ridiculous, with some even going as far as to downplay the deaths and impact of influenza just to make a point against covid19.

[coldfish]

So I'm just going to put this out there because it needs to be said.

A lot of people don't have the option to stay home when their sick, a lot of American companies have woeful sick-time and PTO policies for their employees and a lot of Americans are living pay-check to pay-check. So if an employees options are come to work and possibly infect a ton of people or call off and loss their job or at the very least have issues paying their bills at the end of the month I don't know what other options those people have.

Add on to that fact that a lot of Americans don't have insurance or are under-insured, and you better believe a lot of people who are exhibiting symptoms are declining to pursue medical attention because of the costs of treatment.

Over 50% of Republicans polled are in favor of a Bernie Sanders style medicare for all, free at the point of service healthcare system. The question isn't if America will move to a nationalized medical system, the question is when.

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/412552-majority-of-republicans-say-the-support-medicare-for-all-poll

In the words of former Chicago mayor Rham Emanuel, don't let this crisis go to waste if this epidemic doesn't result in dramatic and immediate changes we will have failed ourselves and our country.

I live near Cleveland. If you walk through the long term parking lot at the Clinic, you will see a relatively high percentage of Ontario license plates. England also has a huge private sector backing up its public sector. You don't get much objective data on it but the cost controls involved with universal health care usually entail restrictions on availability.

M4A sounds good until you get into the details. The vast majority of people today (80-90%) have great healthcare available quickly and its largely paid for by taxpayers (Medicare) or employers (which is actually highly progressive). Sure, those people have to pay out of pocket but less than they would in a country where it is funded with taxes. As soon as people see that a universal medical system means higher costs and lower choice for most people, they reject it rather quickly.

Our system currently has a lot of issues but most of the solutions I have seen look like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Worse for most of us.

Personally, I think the original Obamacare idea with a self funded government option was the way to go.

[dice]

So I'm just going to put this out there because it needs to be said.

A lot of people don't have the option to stay home when their sick, a lot of American companies have woeful sick-time and PTO policies for their employees and a lot of Americans are living pay-check to pay-check. So if an employees options are come to work and possibly infect a ton of people or call off and loss their job or at the very least have issues paying their bills at the end of the month I don't know what other options those people have.

Add on to that fact that a lot of Americans don't have insurance or are under-insured, and you better believe a lot of people who are exhibiting symptoms are declining to pursue medical attention because of the costs of treatment.

Over 50% of Republicans polled are in favor of a Bernie Sanders style medicare for all, free at the point of service healthcare system. The question isn't if America will move to a nationalized medical system, the question is when.

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/412552-majority-of-republicans-say-the-support-medicare-for-all-poll

In the words of former Chicago mayor Rham Emanuel, don't let this crisis go to waste if this epidemic doesn't result in dramatic and immediate changes we will have failed ourselves and our country.

a lot of children die in school shootings in this country and little changes. and the medical industry is a way bigger special interest than the NRA, so...

Well, I'm not going to turn this into a gun debate but the solution for healthcare in america is far more obvious. Also the American population is already in favor of M4A.

I do understand your sentiment though and I'm not expecting immediate change as much as I'm hoping for it. However, like I said, with a majority of even Republican voters favoring M4A, the question isn't if America socializes medicine its when.

agree that it's just a matter of time. but there will be a lot more needless suffering in the meantime

as for public support, there IS a slim majority that wants a system where everybody gets their insurance from the government, but republicans oppose it 76% to 20%. so unless the filibuster rule is eliminated in the senate, still need 60+ democrats in office

the senate is an abomination of an institution. very anti-democratic

[dice]

So I'm just going to put this out there because it needs to be said.

A lot of people don't have the option to stay home when their sick, a lot of American companies have woeful sick-time and PTO policies for their employees and a lot of Americans are living pay-check to pay-check. So if an employees options are come to work and possibly infect a ton of people or call off and loss their job or at the very least have issues paying their bills at the end of the month I don't know what other options those people have.

Add on to that fact that a lot of Americans don't have insurance or are under-insured, and you better believe a lot of people who are exhibiting symptoms are declining to pursue medical attention because of the costs of treatment.

Over 50% of Republicans polled are in favor of a Bernie Sanders style medicare for all, free at the point of service healthcare system. The question isn't if America will move to a nationalized medical system, the question is when.

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/412552-majority-of-republicans-say-the-support-medicare-for-all-poll

In the words of former Chicago mayor Rham Emanuel, don't let this crisis go to waste if this epidemic doesn't result in dramatic and immediate changes we will have failed ourselves and our country.

I live near Cleveland. If you walk through the long term parking lot at the Clinic, you will see a relatively high percentage of Ontario license plates. England also has a huge private sector backing up its public sector. You don't get much objective data on it but the cost controls involved with universal health care usually entail restrictions on availability.

M4A sounds good until you get into the details. The vast majority of people today (80-90%) have great healthcare available quickly and its largely paid for by taxpayers (Medicare) or employers (which is actually highly progressive). Sure, those people have to pay out of pocket but less than they would in a country where it is funded with taxes. As soon as people see that a universal medical system means higher costs and lower choice for most people, they reject it rather quickly.

Our system currently has a lot of issues but most of the solutions I have seen look like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Worse for most of us.

Personally, I think the original Obamacare idea with a self funded government option was the way to go.

i'll say upfront that i agree that a public option is the way to go. if for no other reason than it's more palatable to the public and thus more feasible to make into law. it would cause people to flood out of the private sector when they realize how much better an option it is and quickly result in something approaching medicare for all anyway. in the meantime, let people shoot themselves in the foot by stubbornly maintaining their private plans. let them deal with insurance companies whose motive is to deny them services whenever possible, let them pay their co-pays and premiums and deductibles, let them continue to have their wages stagnate because their employer can't afford to pay them more due to providing their health care

i also believe that a private market should be available for those who want to supplement their government coverage. or in the case of the wealthy, skip it entirely

now...employer-funded coverage is often NOT great. it also places an unnecessary burden on businesses. most importantly, and people don't seem to realize this...the cost of your coverage is not a fringe benefit of being employed. it is part of your compensation package. YOUR SALARY WOULD BE HIGHER IF YOUR EMPLOYER DIDN'T HAVE TO PROVIDE HEALTHCARE! why has the american median wage remained stagnant for 40 freaking years while the national wealth has doubled? that's right, in large part it's due to the skyrocketing cost of healthcare

those raises that you deserved and didn't get? almost all going to health care:



but health care costs have gone up everywhere, right? yeah, but...



the reality is that americans pay way more than any other nation for inferior results...best system in the world...if you're rich

[transplant]

a lot of children die in school shootings in this country and little changes. and the medical industry is a way bigger special interest than the NRA, so...

Well, I'm not going to turn this into a gun debate but the solution for healthcare in america is far more obvious. Also the American population is already in favor of M4A.

I do understand your sentiment though and I'm not expecting immediate change as much as I'm hoping for it. However, like I said, with a majority of even Republican voters favoring M4A, the question isn't if America socializes medicine its when.

agree that it's just a matter of time. but there will be a lot more needless suffering in the meantime

as for public support, there IS a slim majority that wants a system where everybody gets their insurance from the government, but republicans oppose it 76% to 20%. so unless the filibuster rule is eliminated in the senate, still need 60+ democrats in office

the senate is an abomination of an institution. very anti-democratic

How can the senate be anti-democratic? Senators are selected by popular vote. On senate votes, majority rules with the VP breaking ties. Do you want the senate eliminated?

[dice]

Well, I'm not going to turn this into a gun debate but the solution for healthcare in america is far more obvious. Also the American population is already in favor of M4A.

I do understand your sentiment though and I'm not expecting immediate change as much as I'm hoping for it. However, like I said, with a majority of even Republican voters favoring M4A, the question isn't if America socializes medicine its when.

agree that it's just a matter of time. but there will be a lot more needless suffering in the meantime

as for public support, there IS a slim majority that wants a system where everybody gets their insurance from the government, but republicans oppose it 76% to 20%. so unless the filibuster rule is eliminated in the senate, still need 60+ democrats in office

the senate is an abomination of an institution. very anti-democratic

How can the senate be anti-democratic? Senators are selected by popular vote. On senate votes, majority rules with the VP breaking ties. Do you want the senate eliminated?

the senate should never have been created. the house of representatives is democratic. the senate is what makes us a democratic republic rather than a democracy

-california (population 40 million) is represented by two senators
-the dakotas, idaho, wyoming and montana (total population around 5 mil) are represented by TEN senators

-there are 47 senators caucusing with the democrats. they represent 168 million americans
-there are 53 republican senators. they represent 163 million americans

that's completely upside down and backwards. had the founding fathers known how enormous the differential in state populations would become, it's hard to believe that they would have come up with the compromise that they did. and it WAS a political compromise. there was no deep, over-arching wisdom involved (notice that nowhere else in the world has the american system been replicated over the past 250 years). it was an enticement for smaller states to participate in a federal system

so when you hear someone say that the senate (and the electoral college) were designed to protect the minority from the "tyranny of the majority", they're full of crap. in reality what we have is a tyranny of the MINORITY. where rural populations have grossly disproportionate power. where land masses are represented rather than human beings

individuals ranked in descending order of popularity nationwide in 2016:

barack obama
hillary clinton
donald trump

in 2016, for the first time in US history, the senate (controlled undemocratically by the republicans) refused to advise and consent on a sitting president's supreme court nominee. they also held up the nominations of scores of federal court appointments. this was a POPULAR sitting president. one elected and re-elected in part to fill court vacancies. the republicans disingenuously said "let's wait nearly a year until the election to see who the american people REALLY want to make these decisions." the american people said "well that's ****ed up, but ok, hillary clinton then." but due to the undemocratic electoral college, donald trump was elected, filled the supreme court slot, filled another supreme court slot, and has packed the federal courts with countless unqualified right wing judges (https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=unqualified+federal+judge+hearing). the republicans have taken the unprecedented step of virtually shutting down all business in the senate except for the confirmation of judges. meanwhile, the democrat-controlled house of reps is showing up to work and doing their jobs, passing laws and sending them to the senate, where they do not even get a vote. even on previously easy to pass stuff like the violence against women act. because republicans on the senate don't want it on their voting record having voted down such measures. meanwhile, the undemocratically elected president continually refers to his opposition as the "do nothing democrats", trusting that his minions are not paying attention to what is actually going on, relying on his twitter feed for their news even as he fills that feed with lies on a daily basis

[chitownsalesmen]

I live near Cleveland. If you walk through the long term parking lot at the Clinic, you will see a relatively high percentage of Ontario license plates.

Thats fine and well but theirs far more examples of American's going out of the country for medical services then of foreign nationals coming to America for our specialized medical services. Further more of the small minority of people that come to America for medical service I would be willing the bet that most of those folks are wealthy people who have the means to seek out specialists in the first place.

Also, there are already a lot of physicians in America that do not accept insurance, my fathers GP for example does't. So if some one wants to offer high level care for example say athletes they already effectivelly do just that.

England also has a huge private sector backing up its public sector. You don't get much objective data on it but the cost controls involved with universal health care usually entail restrictions on availability.

Yeah and if you tried to replace the NHS with an American for profit healthcare system onto the British people you would have revolts in the street that would make Brexit look like childs play.

M4A sounds good until you get into the details. The vast majority of people today (80-90%) have great healthcare available quickly and its largely paid for by taxpayers (Medicare) or employers (which is actually highly progressive). Sure, those people have to pay out of pocket but less than they would in a country where it is funded with taxes. As soon as people see that a universal medical system means higher costs and lower choice for most people, they reject it rather quickly

M4A doesn't just "sound" good it is legitimately good for the vast majority of the American people. Sure the people that can afford the American pay to play system do like it, that specifically is the problem. A lot of people can't afford to pay these huge premiums, copays etc . The American healthcare system is also by far the least effective. We pay more per-capita then any-other developed country on our healthcare expenses.

Just because you nationalize the bread and butter healthcare system doesn't mean you also wouldn't have a private for profit model for those who can afford and seek higher level care. I have no problem with Doctors and consumers operating on a private for profit model outside of a fully government funded system, not just a "public option".

Our system currently has a lot of issues

I 100% agree we have a lot of issues, in fact we have in all likely hood the most amount of issues of any healthcare system of any developed country in the world. We have extraordinary amounts of people going bankrupt, not receiving the preventative care that they need and as a result having issues worsen and fester until their condition becomes unavoidable and by that point end up costing far more and being far more deadly.

Again a prime example of this is this Coronavirus, our infection rate and death rate are far higher then should be and also far higher then it would be under a Bernie Sanders style M4A system.

but most of the solutions I have seen look like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Worse for most of us.

No its quite the opposite. Look every country has its issues, I'm not going to deny reality which is why its impossible for me to ignore the issues the vast majority of people face with our current system. Again, every developed country has some form or another of a nationalist healthcare system, except for America. Logic would dictate since America is the outlier, that it will either be a shinning example of American exceptionalism and a true feather in the cap of capitalism, or it would be a clear indicator that our system is worse.

The facts of the matter are that the American healthcare system has far, far more blind spots then another developed nations healthcare system. Our health outcomes are not markedly better then any-other developed nation, in fact a lot of the evidence seems to show our system is producing poor health outcomes. In addition to the expense of our system the drain economically that it is having on generations of americans its really an open and shut case, our system stinks for a lot of people, in fact most Americans would greatly benefit from a M4A system.

Personally, I think the original Obamacare idea with a self funded government option was the way to go.

The problem with a public option is 1. we've gone to far to get that toothpaste back in the container. Insurance companies aren't going to go quietly into the night, their going to go kicking and screaming to hold on to their profits. 2. If you allow private insurance companies to siphon through who they accept your going to see a disproportionate amount of people who are at high risk for especially expensive conditions wind up in the public bracket and without the necessary funding of the majority of people to distribute that risk among a majority of people its going to wind up being far to underfunded.

Look at the end of the day, it comes down to this question. Do you believe healthcare is a human right. Politics is a meassure of priorities, and the reality of our system is we prioritize profits.

[dice]

I live near Cleveland. If you walk through the long term parking lot at the Clinic, you will see a relatively high percentage of Ontario license plates.

Thats fine and well but theirs far more examples of American's going out of the country for medical services then of foreign nationals coming to America for our specialized medical services. Further more of the small minority of people that come to America for medical service I would be willing the bet that most of those folks are wealthy people who have the means to seek out specialists in the first place.

yep. and wealthy americans sometimes leave the country for specialized services as well. including this guy:

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/14/rand-paul-canada-surgery-neighbor-attack-1099485

M4A sounds good until you get into the details. The vast majority of people today (80-90%) have great healthcare available quickly and its largely paid for by taxpayers (Medicare) or employers (which is actually highly progressive). Sure, those people have to pay out of pocket but less than they would in a country where it is funded with taxes. As soon as people see that a universal medical system means higher costs and lower choice for most people, they reject it rather quickly

M4A doesn't just "sound" good it is legitimately good for the vast majority of the American people. Sure the people that can afford the American pay to play system do like it, that specifically is the problem. A lot of people can't afford to pay these huge premiums, copays etc . The American healthcare system is also by far the least effective. We pay more per-capita then any-other developed country on our healthcare expenses.

Just because you nationalize the bread and butter healthcare system doesn't mean you also wouldn't have a private for profit model for those who can afford and seek higher level care. I have no problem with Doctors and consumers operating on a private for profit model outside of a fully government funded system, not just a "public option".

bernie sanders's specific M4A plan bans private insurance. that in my opinion is a bad idea both in substance and politically

Personally, I think the original Obamacare idea with a self funded government option was the way to go.

The problem with a public option is 1. we've gone to far to get that toothpaste back in the container. Insurance companies aren't going to go quietly into the night, their going to go kicking and screaming to hold on to their profits.

let them. they'd be helpless. either provide better services to their remaining customers or see them bolt for the public plan

2. If you allow private insurance companies to siphon through who they accept your going to see a disproportionate amount of people who are at high risk for especially expensive conditions wind up in the public bracket and without the necessary funding of the majority of people to distribute that risk among a majority of people its going to wind up being far to underfunded.

a public option would not eliminate the current law requiring private insurers not to discriminate based on pre-existing conditions. they would still be required to accept anyone who is willing to pay the same rate as their healthier customers

[chitownsalesmen]

I live near Cleveland. If you walk through the long term parking lot at the Clinic, you will see a relatively high percentage of Ontario license plates.

Thats fine and well but theirs far more examples of American's going out of the country for medical services then of foreign nationals coming to America for our specialized medical services. Further more of the small minority of people that come to America for medical service I would be willing the bet that most of those folks are wealthy people who have the means to seek out specialists in the first place.

yep. and wealthy americans sometimes leave the country for specialized services as well. including this guy:

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/14/rand-paul-canada-surgery-neighbor-attack-1099485

M4A sounds good until you get into the details. The vast majority of people today (80-90%) have great healthcare available quickly and its largely paid for by taxpayers (Medicare) or employers (which is actually highly progressive). Sure, those people have to pay out of pocket but less than they would in a country where it is funded with taxes. As soon as people see that a universal medical system means higher costs and lower choice for most people, they reject it rather quickly

M4A doesn't just "sound" good it is legitimately good for the vast majority of the American people. Sure the people that can afford the American pay to play system do like it, that specifically is the problem. A lot of people can't afford to pay these huge premiums, copays etc . The American healthcare system is also by far the least effective. We pay more per-capita then any-other developed country on our healthcare expenses.

Just because you nationalize the bread and butter healthcare system doesn't mean you also wouldn't have a private for profit model for those who can afford and seek higher level care. I have no problem with Doctors and consumers operating on a private for profit model outside of a fully government funded system, not just a "public option".

bernie sanders's specific M4A plan bans private insurance. that in my opinion is a bad idea both in substance and politically

Personally, I think the original Obamacare idea with a self funded government option was the way to go.

The problem with a public option is 1. we've gone to far to get that toothpaste back in the container. Insurance companies aren't going to go quietly into the night, their going to go kicking and screaming to hold on to their profits.

let them. they'd be helpless. either provide better services to their remaining customers or see them bolt for the public plan

2. If you allow private insurance companies to siphon through who they accept your going to see a disproportionate amount of people who are at high risk for especially expensive conditions wind up in the public bracket and without the necessary funding of the majority of people to distribute that risk among a majority of people its going to wind up being far to underfunded.

a public option would not eliminate the current law requiring private insurers not to discriminate based on pre-existing conditions. they would still be required to accept anyone who is willing to pay the same rate as their healthier customers

Yeah so then we probably will continue to disagree as far as we stretch this out then, because no matter what laws are on the books the greatest law in the business world is the law of return on investment. So its not unreasonable for reasonable people to disagree.

I have no doubt if you allow private insurance companies to some how still operate in the medical industry even after a M4A reform they would find a way to carve up the risky people at a greater rate then not. IMO, you either cut that off at the knees or you are playing Russian Roulette if corporate america can figure out how to screw over the American people again, not unlike how the financial industry did during the subprime mortgage crisis.

A better and more confounding issue is what role would drug companies play in a M4A system, insurance companies are just middlemen that we can more or less cut out of the equation.

Bernie Sanders is quite literally the reason for the pre-existing condition clause being part of the affordable care act in the first place, I believe he has the insight on this as well.

[jump]

agree that it's just a matter of time. but there will be a lot more needless suffering in the meantime

as for public support, there IS a slim majority that wants a system where everybody gets their insurance from the government, but republicans oppose it 76% to 20%. so unless the filibuster rule is eliminated in the senate, still need 60+ democrats in office

the senate is an abomination of an institution. very anti-democratic

How can the senate be anti-democratic? Senators are selected by popular vote. On senate votes, majority rules with the VP breaking ties. Do you want the senate eliminated?

the senate should never have been created. the house of representatives is democratic. the senate is what makes us a democratic republic rather than a democracy

-california (population 40 million) is represented by two senators
-the dakotas, idaho, wyoming and montana (total population around 5 mil) are represented by TEN senators

-there are 47 senators caucusing with the democrats. they represent 168 million americans
-there are 53 republican senators. they represent 163 million americans

that's completely upside down and backwards. had the founding fathers known how enormous the differential in state populations would become, it's hard to believe that they would have come up with the compromise that they did. and it WAS a political compromise. there was no deep, over-arching wisdom involved (notice that nowhere else in the world has the american system been replicated over the past 250 years). it was an enticement for smaller states to participate in a federal system

so when you hear someone say that the senate (and the electoral college) were designed to protect the minority from the "tyranny of the majority", they're full of crap. in reality what we have is a tyranny of the MINORITY. where rural populations have grossly disproportionate power. where land masses are represented rather than human beings

individuals ranked in descending order of popularity nationwide in 2016:

barack obama
hillary clinton
donald trump

in 2016, for the first time in US history, the senate (controlled undemocratically by the republicans) refused to advise and consent on a sitting president's supreme court nominee. they also held up the nominations of scores of federal court appointments. this was a POPULAR sitting president. one elected and re-elected in part to fill court vacancies. the republicans said "let's wait nearly a year until the election to see who the american people REALLY want to make these decisions." the american people said "well that's ****ed up, but ok, hillary clinton then." but due to the undemocratic electoral college, donald trump was elected, filled the supreme court slot, filled another supreme court slot, and has packed the federal courts with countless unqualified right wing judges (https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=unqualified+federal+judge+hearing). the republicans have taken the unprecedented step of virtually shutting down all business in the senate except for the confirmation of judges. meanwhile, the democrat-controlled house of reps is showing up to work and doing their jobs, passing laws and sending them to the senate, where they do not even get a vote. even on previously easy to pass stuff like the violence against women act. because republicans on the senate don't want it on their voting record having voted down such measures. meanwhile, the undemocratically elected president continually refers to his opposition as the "do nothing democrats", trusting that his minions are not paying attention to what is actually going on, relying on his twitter feed for their news even as he fills that feed with lies on a daily basis

Dice, I will never again disagree with your opinion on any thing. Brilliant. This is exactly what is wrong with this country.

[dice]

I have no doubt if you allow private insurance companies to some how still operate in the medical industry even after a M4A reform they would find a way to carve up the risky people at a greater rate then not.

they haven't found a way under obamacare

corporate america can figure out how to screw over the American people again, not unlike how the financial industry did during the subprime mortgage crisis.

sure, except with a public option the american people can opt out of potentially being screwed over

A better and more confounding issue is what role would drug companies play in a M4A system, insurance companies are just middlemen that we can more or less cut out of the equation.

true. the government is astonishingly currently not permitted to negotiate drug prices. so that's a start

Bernie Sanders is quite literally the reason for the pre-existing condition clause being part of the affordable care act in the first place, I believe he has the insight on this as well.

got any reporting on that? i can't find anything i know he negotiated funding for health clinics, but i have not seen that he was the origin of the pre-existing conditions clause

[dice]

OT, but health related and i didn't want to start a new thread. perhaps we have a health expert or some educated guesses out there

what do you think the ideal breakdown is for time spent exercising? assume a reasonably healthy person, not young, not elderly. also assume the focus is strictly health as opposed to appearance. use the following categories:

-abdominal
-cardio
-stretching/light weights (lots of reps)
-heavy weights/muscle building

i was thinking that if you're strictly focused on health it would be heavy cardio and not much in the way of heavy weights. maybe very little. something like:

58% cardio
24% stretching/light weights
13% abs
5% heavy weights

too imbalanced? is there even a point to including heavy weights as such a small part of the workout?

[bulls_troy]

OT, but health related and i didn't want to start a new thread. perhaps we have a health expert or some educated guesses out there

what do you think the ideal breakdown is for time spent exercising? assume a reasonably healthy person, not young, not elderly. also assume the focus is strictly health as opposed to appearance. use the following categories:

-abdominal
-cardio
-stretching/light weights (lots of reps)
-heavy weights/muscle building

i was thinking that if you're strictly focused on health it would be heavy cardio and not much in the way of heavy weights. maybe very little. something like:

58% cardio
24% stretching/light weights
13% abs
5% heavy weights

too imbalanced? is there even a point to including heavy weights as such a small part of the workout?

Depends on the goal. Ultimately no matter what, you'll never out train a bad nutrition plan.

Want good advice, Jeff Cavaliere at AthleanX is the way to go. Just watch his YouTube videos.

[jc23]

OT, but health related and i didn't want to start a new thread. perhaps we have a health expert or some educated guesses out there

what do you think the ideal breakdown is for time spent exercising? assume a reasonably healthy person, not young, not elderly. also assume the focus is strictly health as opposed to appearance. use the following categories:

-abdominal
-cardio
-stretching/light weights (lots of reps)
-heavy weights/muscle building

i was thinking that if you're strictly focused on health it would be heavy cardio and not much in the way of heavy weights. maybe very little. something like:

58% cardio
24% stretching/light weights
13% abs
5% heavy weights

too imbalanced? is there even a point to including heavy weights as such a small part of the workout?

Depends on the goal. Ultimately no matter what, you'll never out train a bad nutrition plan.

Want good advice, Jeff Cavaliere at AthleanX is the way to go. Just watch his YouTube videos.

and then if you need some motivation check out David Goggins.

edit: which David would say is bull **** lol

[dougthonus]

too imbalanced? is there even a point to including heavy weights as such a small part of the workout?

I think most modern research would say you need a lot of weight lifting and minimal cardio to maintain your capabilities longer into life (ie, have more quality years).

[PaKii94]

too imbalanced? is there even a point to including heavy weights as such a small part of the workout?

I think most modern research would say you need a lot of weight lifting and minimal cardio to maintain your youth and capabilities longer into life.

which research is this (genuinely curiouse)? The latest I read was weight lifting can help with weight loss due to increased calorie burn during stand by but afaik choosing between the two, cardio is the way to go for long term health.