Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah I agree the logic is just different but it's not the typical political logic that got him elected. He essentially ignored most of the middle ground voters and got the base to come out really well and only middle voters that had an issue with trade and immigration. Bernie was the same on the left. Harris Can't pull that out but someone like Ojeda or maybe Gillium could. I think that's the real answer you can have extreme left or right views and still get elected you just need to keep your base excited and just siphon some of the disgruntled middle. On the left the disgruntled middle will likely follow on health care and education.
I think CT would in general do better under a left leaning federal gov, healthcare fixes may extend to retirees on health plans for the state in which case it would fix huge portions of the state budget.
I tend to agree , except for Health care " fixes ". The Democrats constant drum beat regarding health care ( or is it health insurance ? ) needs to be defined. As I mentioned, Americans are pretty content with the status quo , and if you look at the declining deaths from cancer over the past decade , you have to wonder what needs to be fixed. Speaking to an Oncologist the other day, it is his opinion that 20-25 % of people that get cancer are obese.
Medicare for All will not solve that problem. 60 % SNAP purchases are sugar laden products, so perhaps looking at that might be a more intelligent approach.
Meanwhile, the issue is who will pay for it. When the ACA put 7 million more Americans on Medicaid, we now have many cities , and towns , with higher levels of Medicaid recipients. Last time I checked, around 40 % of the patients at Hartford Hospital are on Medicaid. Guess who makes up some of the difference in $$$ ? Those that have Private Health Plans. Eliminate them and Hospitals will suffer dearly.
I like how you avoid my first sentence. That is the one part everyone is leaving out when discussing 2020, because there is no real way to judge how it effected 2016 - though it most certainly did.
As for the insurance part, I more then get that. I moved my family to this state because of my wife's work in the health insurance industry.
While my own beliefs are that Medicare for all should be the way to go, getting rid of insurance companies, coders, etc, could possibly kill off my wifes job, and most certainly would kill off the jobs of people on her side of the family who have all gone into medical coding, and there are quite a few people on her side of the family.
Conflicted I am.
I didn't avoid your first sentence, it was my choice just not to acknowledge it . The reason is that at this point my opinion is that it is just speculation and conjecture.
I tend to agree , except for Health care " fixes ". The Democrats constant drum beat regarding health care ( or is it health insurance ? ) needs to be defined. As I mentioned, Americans are pretty content with the status quo , and if you look at the declining deaths from cancer over the past decade , you have to wonder what needs to be fixed. Speaking to an Oncologist the other day, it is his opinion that 20-25 % of people that get cancer are obese.
Medicare for All will not solve that problem. 60 % SNAP purchases are sugar laden products, so perhaps looking at that might be a more intelligent approach.
Meanwhile, the issue is who will pay for it. When the ACA put 7 million more Americans on Medicaid, we now have many cities , and towns , with higher levels of Medicaid recipients. Last time I checked, around 40 % of the patients at Hartford Hospital are on Medicaid. Guess who makes up some of the difference in $$$ ? Those that have Private Health Plans. Eliminate them and Hospitals will suffer dearly.
Well the trick is the how not the what. Studies (on both sides of the aisle) have found if you add up all the private spending on health care and public spending you have more then enough to pay for everyone to have medicare for all. In fact it would save money.
The how you collect that money now being paid as premium by business and individuals is the trick.
Our health care system is way way way more expensive then any other system in the world and our results are not all that great (Cuba has better health averages then us). So you can see the math take what you pay now into healthcare (premium etc ) and you now will pay it all as tax.
I assume here in CT most of the health insurers would be safe short term as current health insurance companies act as government contractors to administer the plans, while slowly eliminating duplication.
Well the trick is the how not the what. Studies (on both sides of the aisle) have found if you add up all the private spending on health care and public spending you have more then enough to pay for everyone to have medicare for all. In fact it would save money.
The how you collect that money now being paid as premium by business and individuals is the trick.
Our health care system is way way way more expensive then any other system in the world and our results are not all that great (Cuba has better health averages then us). So you can see the math take what you pay now into healthcare (premium etc ) and you now will pay it all as tax.
I assume here in CT most of the health insurers would be safe short term as current health insurance companies act as government contractors to administer the plans, while slowly eliminating duplication.
Well yes, but the most important issue is that how much control over our lives do we want the Government to have ? You are basically talking about 1/6 of the economy. Kamala wants the Government to run it all.
Democrats are embracing late term abortion. Almost unheard of in Europe. You have to go line by line when comparing. In England , you just can't get to see a Doctor anytime, anyplace you want.
Let me give you example of how lucky I think we are. I needed a Diagnostic Procedure which involves Sedation and a Specialist, along with other Medical Assistants . I was pressed for time as I was in a transition period from one Insurance Provider to another. I could not get the Procedure scheduled before my coverage lapsed, as the Doctor was booked solid, as was the facility.
As a new patient , I called a Specialists's Office @ 8 :30 AM. I had an Appointment with the Doctor @ 2:30 PM that same day .. After the consultation, the procedure was scheduled in 10 days. Done deal. Only in America.
Please don't mention Cuba, where there are buildings that haven't been painted in 50 years. Cuba should not be an example for anything , the people there are some of the most oppressed in the world.
Well yes, but the most important issue is that how much control over our lives do we want the Government to have ? You are basically talking about 1/6 of the economy. Kamala wants the Government to run it all.
Democrats are embracing late term abortion. Almost unheard of in Europe. You have to go line by line when comparing. In England , you just can't get to see a Doctor anytime, anyplace you want.
Let me give you example of how lucky I think we are. I needed a Diagnostic Procedure which involves Sedation and a Specialist, along with other Medical Assistants . I was pressed for time as I was in a transition period from one Insurance Provider to another. I could not get the Procedure scheduled before my coverage lapsed, as the Doctor was booked solid, as was the facility.
As a new patient , I called a Specialists's Office @ 8 :30 AM. I had an Appointment with the Doctor @ 2:30 PM that same day .. After the consultation, the procedure was scheduled in 10 days. Done deal. Only in America.
Please don't mention Cuba, where there are buildings that haven't been painted in 50 years. Cuba should not be an example for anything , the people there are some of the most oppressed in the world.
OK no more Cuba, but that was just an extreme example. Our health outcomes are worse then the vast majority of first world countries and cost more then double. Seems like a lot of room for improvement.
OK no more Cuba, but that was just an extreme example. Our health outcomes are worse then the vast majority of first world countries and cost more then double. Seems like a lot of room for improvement.
I can go down to the store right now and buy an extra large box of triple stuffed oreas for a few bucks. In Europe they would likely be outright banned or there would be a heavy sin tax(on top of an outrageous VAT tax) and the portion size would be limited on top of that the product itself would likely be more expensive as the government has more controls over the food supply. Governments in Europe go to great lengths to contol costs through preventive measures, ie control your entire life. With our obesity rates can you imagine what the cost overruns would be on a single payer? Of course this is just one aspect of the challenges there are a litany of them. We have an border with a third world country, we partake in more dangerous activities, our Drs and Nurses are the highest paid in the world, we subsidize the world’s medical R&D(bring nearly all new medicine to market), we don’t have enough Drs, Nurses, specialists... the list is endless. Single payer wouldn’t work in the US it would bankrupt the country and result in excessively long wait times.
I can go down to the store right now and buy an extra large box of triple stuffed oreas for a few bucks. In Europe they would likely be outright banned or there would be a heavy sin tax(on top of an outrageous VAT tax) and the portion size would be limited on top of that the product itself would likely be more expensive as the government has more controls over the food supply. Governments in Europe go to great lengths to contol costs through preventive measures, ie control your entire life. With our obesity rates can you imagine what the cost overruns would be on a single payer? Of course this is just one aspect of the challenges there are a litany of them. We have an border with a third world country, we partake in more dangerous activities, our Drs and Nurses are the highest paid in the world, we subsidize the world’s medical R&D(bring nearly all new medicine to market), we don’t have enough Drs, Nurses, specialists... the list is endless. Single payer wouldn’t work in the US it would bankrupt the country and result in excessively long wait times.
Those obese people are costing whatever health plan you are on NOW major dollars. Nothing better then seeing someone overweight at work, who may or may not be on my health plan in all fairness, talk about their upcoming knee surgery - not how they are going to lose weight after it. Time for my premiums to go up!
So the idea that unhealthy people are going to suddenly cost more. Nope, we are already paying for them in our privatized health insurance.
As for the oreo comment - are you suggesting that we stop taxing cigarettes, because, freedom? we can have more people smoking, maybe cut all the "here is what smoking does to you" advertisements to none, because, babysitting state, and then have lung cancer numbers go back up. I am sure that will help keep down my health insurance costs too, as i subsidize those people in my plan.
and just to roll this back into the topic - i am sure massive changes to healthcare would hurt the state. It would probably hurt all the states.
Last edited by NUHuskies01; 01-31-2019 at 02:51 PM..
Connecticut ranks No. 3 according to this article in the number of millionaires per capita. That is good. If you look at the list, most of the states listed are higher taxed states like Connecticut. The list of the lowest number per capita states are all considered lower tax states. Makes you wonder.
If you read the article, it notes that Washington DC has seen a significant increase in the number of millionaires in the past year. It is enough to raise its ranking nine places. That is a lot. Also Delaware, a low tax state, has dropped from the top 10 to No. 16. Also makes me wonder. Jay
Connecticut ranks No. 3 according to this article in the number of millionaires per capita. That is good. If you look at the list, most of the states listed are higher taxed states like Connecticut. The list of the lowest number per capita states are all considered lower tax states. Makes you wonder.
If you read the article, it notes that Washington DC has seen a significant increase in the number of millionaires in the past year. It is enough to raise its ranking nine places. That is a lot. Also Delaware, a low tax state, has dropped from the top 10 to No. 16. Also makes me wonder. Jay
I find it more curious that given a historic 10 year bull run and CT's 65+ population being 14-16%, the percentage of CT millionaires only increased 2.24 percentage points over the same period. Either a lot of boomers did not save at least $1M in investible assets, have pensions that article did not include in net worth, and/or boomers are retiring to other States and the offsetting population inflow is of lower net worth.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Also Delaware, a low tax state, has dropped from the top 10 to No. 16. Also makes me wonder. 
