PDA

View Full Version : Political Psychology



BenQuick
04-15-2012, 06:53 PM
Liberals and conservatives have access to the same information, yet they hold wildly incompatible views on issues ranging from global warming to whether the president was born in the United States to whether his stimulus package created any jobs. But it’s not just that: Partisanship creates stunning intellectual contortions and inconsistencies. Republicans today can denounce a health-care reform plan that’s pretty similar to one passed in Massachusetts by a Republican — and the only apparent reason is that this one came from a Democrat.

None of these things make sense — unless you view them through the lens of political psychology. There’s now a large body of evidence showing that those who opt for the political left and those who opt for the political right tend to process information in divergent ways and to differ on any number of psychological traits.

Perhaps most important, liberals consistently score higher on a personality measure called “openness to experience,” one of the “Big Five” personality traits, which are easily assessed through standard questionnaires. That means liberals tend to be the kind of people who want to try new things, including new music, books, restaurants and vacation spots — and new ideas.

“Open people everywhere tend to have more liberal values,” said psychologist Robert McCrae, who conducted voluminous studies on personality while at the National Institute on Aging at the National Institutes of Health.

Conservatives, in contrast, tend to be less open — less exploratory, less in need of change — and more “conscientious,” a trait that indicates they appreciate order and structure in their lives. This gels nicely with the standard definition of conservatism as resistance to change — in the famous words of William F. Buckley Jr., a desire to stand “athwart history, yelling ‘Stop!’ ”
Chris Mooney/WP

Ken Bora
04-16-2012, 09:40 AM
of the hard core liberals I personally have interacted with. I would say your statements are completely opposite. The ones in the hunting management area parking lots trying to deter hunters. The ones in the city park protesting money while sucking down a grand coffee. The trust fund faux hippies with leather seats in mommies Volvo. They are the least open to any new idea of any group I have ever chatted with. They have no idea, nay no clue of what they speak yet are so sure they are correct it is ridicules. You cannot debate with them in an organized polite manor.
They are small minded angry people.
 
.

Buzz
04-16-2012, 11:50 AM
of the hard core liberals I personally have interacted with. I would say your statements are completely opposite. The ones in the hunting management area parking lots trying to deter hunters. The ones in the city park protesting money while sucking down a grand coffee. The trust fund faux hippies with leather seats in mommies Volvo. They are the least open to any new idea of any group I have ever chatted with. They have no idea, nay no clue of what they speak yet are so sure they are correct it is ridicules. You cannot debate with them in an organized polite manor.
They are small minded angry people.
 
.

Pretty broad brush you're painting with there.

Ken Bora
04-16-2012, 11:56 AM
and the 3rd paragraph of the original post ain't no fine detail camel hair.......:rolleyes:
just sayin'
 
.

M&K's Retrievers
04-16-2012, 11:57 AM
About 55% of Americans oppose Obamacare. I don't believe 55% of Americans are Republicans and I can assure you that the mass majority of folks in Mass are Democrats.

As to the rest of your observations, boil it down. Liberals want to tell others what to do with their stuff while Conservatives want to keep their stuff.

zeus3925
04-16-2012, 12:00 PM
Ken's remarks are pretty much true for either end of the spectrum. In fact, the political spectrum may be circular, in that the hard core in either direction is not amenable to civilized discussion.

HPL
04-16-2012, 12:09 PM
Pretty broad brush you're painting with there.
As Ken specifically said that he was speaking of the hard core liberals with which he had PERSONAL experience, the brush wasn't really all that broad. It only pertained to his personal experience.

Buzz
04-16-2012, 12:09 PM
Ken's remarks are pretty much true for either end of the spectrum. In fact, the political spectrum may be circular, in that the hard core in either direction is not amenable to civilized discussion.

Bingo... :cool:

Ken Bora
04-16-2012, 12:18 PM
Ken's remarks are pretty much true for either end of the spectrum. In fact, the political spectrum may be circular, in that the hard core in either direction is not amenable to civilized discussion.

true, for example not a lot of deep thinkers in that westboro baptist church cult:confused:
 
 
.

coachmo
04-16-2012, 12:30 PM
Or in Hollywood!

zeus3925
04-16-2012, 12:31 PM
true, for example not a lot of deep thinkers in that westboro baptist church cult:confused:
 
 
.


Exactly!!!

Matt McKenzie
04-16-2012, 01:50 PM
The more people I discuss politics or social issues with others, the more I believe the basic premise of the original post as far as people processing things very differently. There are times when I just can't understand how someone can look at a group of facts and come up with their conclusions and opinions. I'm not referring to stupid people or those with very limited experience or education. I'm talking about people with similar levels of intelligence, life experience and education that come up with completely opposite conclusions about the same issues. I don't understand how someone can know that the top 10% of taxpayers in this country pay 70% of the tax burden while the bottom 47% pay nothing, but still think that the rich don't pay their fair share. I don't understand how someone can look at the fact that "big oil" makes about 9 cents on every gallon of gas sold while government taxes take around 40 cents, but they demonize the gas company for high gas prices and "record profits". I don't understand how someone can look at the decline in the level of education in our children since the Department of Education was founded and how we continue to spend more money while achieving worse results, but still think that if we throw more money at it, something will get better. But people believe these things.
As far as liberals being open to new things, that may very well be true as a broad generalization within the constraints of how "openness" is defined by the researcher. But rather than get into another right-left urination contest, I will point out one flawed point of logic in the original post. The idea that conservatives are OK with Romneycare because Romney is a Republican but are against Obamacare because Obama is a Democrat is incorrect on several levels. First, most conservatives that I know are NOT OK with Romneycare, but feel that if the citizens of that state want to impose it, so be it. Most conservatives I know are not OK with Obamacare because they believe that it is unconstitutional, unaffordable and expands the role of the Federal government into health care where it has no business. The Federal government has proven itself to be the least efficient organization to accomplish anything. State-run health care has been proven time and again to be inefficient and ineffective. But just like socialism, there are those who feel that even though it's failed every other time it's been tried, this time will be different. So we're back to that logical processing thing again. It's the only explanation I can see for the divergent views on relatively simple issues. I suspect that the liberal thought process is most likely caused by some sort of brain infection or possibly a genetic mutation. ;-) . More research should be done so we can find a cure and help these poor people.

HPL
04-16-2012, 02:12 PM
I don't understand how someone can know that the top 10% of taxpayers in this country pay 70% of the tax burden while the bottom 47% pay nothing, but still think that the rich don't pay their fair share. people.

I think that I can address one part of the reasoning some might have on this one issue (not saying it's my position, but have recently heard it discussed a bit). Seems to me that I have heard recently that the 10% that pays the 70% actually makes something over 80% of the national income. Seems impossible to me, but haven't been able to formulate the correct search phrase to find the information so far.

coachmo
04-16-2012, 02:22 PM
Isn't it only the rich, greedy conservatives that should be paying more?

Buzz
04-16-2012, 02:40 PM
I don't understand how someone can know that the top 10% of taxpayers in this country pay 70% of the tax burden while the bottom 47% pay nothing, but still think that the rich don't pay their fair share.


State-run health care has been proven time and again to be inefficient and ineffective.


In the first point above, I hope I can find the time over the next few days to come back to this. I have argued this here several times and I would like to see if I can make you understand my point of view on this. But alas, I'm freak'in busy! I get my taxes back from the accountant today, it will be interesting to see what my net effective rate will be.

On your second point above, I would ask which rich industrialized nation in the world does not have some sort of single payor type system? Which rich industrialized nation pays nearly twice per capita what every other rich industrialized nation pays?

paul young
04-16-2012, 03:08 PM
The more people I discuss politics or social issues with others, the more I believe the basic premise of the original post as far as people processing things very differently. There are times when I just can't understand how someone can look at a group of facts and come up with their conclusions and opinions. I'm not referring to stupid people or those with very limited experience or education. I'm talking about people with similar levels of intelligence, life experience and education that come up with completely opposite conclusions about the same issues. I don't understand how someone can know that the top 10% of taxpayers in this country pay 70% of the tax burden while the bottom 47% pay nothing, but still think that the rich don't pay their fair share. I don't understand how someone can look at the fact that "big oil" makes about 9 cents on every gallon of gas sold while government taxes take around 40 cents, but they demonize the gas company for high gas prices and "record profits". I don't understand how someone can look at the decline in the level of education in our children since the Department of Education was founded and how we continue to spend more money while achieving worse results, but still think that if we throw more money at it, something will get better. But people believe these things.
As far as liberals being open to new things, that may very well be true as a broad generalization within the constraints of how "openness" is defined by the researcher. But rather than get into another right-left urination contest, I will point out one flawed point of logic in the original post. The idea that conservatives are OK with Romneycare because Romney is a Republican but are against Obamacare because Obama is a Democrat is incorrect on several levels. First, most conservatives that I know are NOT OK with Romneycare, but feel that if the citizens of that state want to impose it, so be it. Most conservatives I know are not OK with Obamacare because they believe that it is unconstitutional, unaffordable and expands the role of the Federal government into health care where it has no business. The Federal government has proven itself to be the least efficient organization to accomplish anything. State-run health care has been proven time and again to be inefficient and ineffective. But just like socialism, there are those who feel that even though it's failed every other time it's been tried, this time will be different. So we're back to that logical processing thing again. It's the only explanation I can see for the divergent views on relatively simple issues. I suspect that the liberal thought process is most likely caused by some sort of brain infection or possibly a genetic mutation. ;-) . More research should be done so we can find a cure and help these poor people.

you make some good points in this post. things i can agree with.

but, i have to point out that if we taxed the bottom 10% of wage earners at that same rate of 70% we would be no closer to a solution. what's 70% (or ANY percentage, for that matter)of next to nothing?-Paul

luvmylabs23139
04-16-2012, 04:34 PM
you make some good points in this post. things i can agree with.

but, i have to point out that if we taxed the bottom 10% of wage earners at that same rate of 70% we would be no closer to a solution. what's 70% (or ANY percentage, for that matter)of next to nothing?-Paul


How about we just stop giving them money at tax time!

Matt McKenzie
04-16-2012, 04:38 PM
you make some good points in this post. things i can agree with.

but, i have to point out that if we taxed the bottom 10% of wage earners at that same rate of 70% we would be no closer to a solution. what's 70% (or ANY percentage, for that matter)of next to nothing?-Paul

Paul,
By no means am I advocating taxing the very poor at a rate equal to that of the very rich. In fact, if I had my way, there would be no income tax at all and we would replace it with the Fairtax. But unfortunately, that system is too easy to misrepresent and demagogue and it takes the power away from the government, so it will never happen. But as long as we have an income tax, I agree that it should be progressive. But it is VERY progressive and there are too many deductions allowed (for the rich, the poor and all of us in between) that only serve to allow politicians to manipulate our behavior and purchase votes.
But I'm heading out on a tangent. My point is that those at the top of the income scale are paying the lion's share of the bill, but some people think that they should pay more. I don't understand it.
How much of your property should the government allow you to keep? Can you even see the problem with this concept?

luvmylabs23139
04-16-2012, 04:46 PM
[quote=Buzz;953993]In the first point above, I get my taxes back from the accountant today, it will be interesting to see what my net effective rate will be.

quote]


Hey at least yours are done. Wish my tax acoountant would finish mine. Oh yeah, she's been a bit tied up sorting out her clients' piles of unorganized stuff!:rolleyes:

Matt McKenzie
04-16-2012, 04:49 PM
In the first point above, I hope I can find the time over the next few days to come back to this. I have argued this here several times and I would like to see if I can make you understand my point of view on this. But alas, I'm freak'in busy! I get my taxes back from the accountant today, it will be interesting to see what my net effective rate will be.

On your second point above, I would ask which rich industrialized nation in the world does not have some sort of single payor type system? Which rich industrialized nation pays nearly twice per capita what every other rich industrialized nation pays?

Those single payer systems have their own problems. LOTS of them. Just talk to people from Canada or Great Britain that live here now. What country has the absolute best quality health care available? The U.S. Where do the wealthy from every country in the world go in order to get the best quality health care? The U.S.
Health care in this country is expensive for many reasons, most of which are the result of government interference and over-regulations.
Here's something to think about. What good or service other than medical care do we as Americans routinely purchase without ever knowing the cost and without even asking? None. So why do we purchase health care without knowing what it will cost? the only time we bother to know the price is if we are having some sort of elective procedure that isn't covered by insurance or medicare. If you are having Lasik or a boob job, you definitely ask how much it's going to cost.
Would our health care decisions be different if doctors and hospitals provided a menu of services with the prices? If people were able to compare the cost of a procedure with what their insurance would cover and then shop around, would that change the dynamic at all?

Matt McKenzie
04-16-2012, 04:53 PM
I think that I can address one part of the reasoning some might have on this one issue (not saying it's my position, but have recently heard it discussed a bit). Seems to me that I have heard recently that the 10% that pays the 70% actually makes something over 80% of the national income. Seems impossible to me, but haven't been able to formulate the correct search phrase to find the information so far.

From the Tax Foundation:
In 2009, the top-earning 5 percent of taxpayers (AGI equal to or greater than $154,643), however, still paid far more than the bottom 95 percent. The top 5 percent earned 31.7 percent of the nation's adjusted gross income, but paid approximately 58.7 percent of federal individual income taxes.

HPL
04-16-2012, 04:58 PM
From the Tax Foundation:
In 2009, the top-earning 5 percent of taxpayers (AGI equal to or greater than $154,643), however, still paid far more than the bottom 95 percent. The top 5 percent earned 31.7 percent of the nation's adjusted gross income, but paid approximately 58.7 percent of federal individual income taxes.
Thanks! That's what I've been trying to find. What is the Tax Foundation? Where did you find it.

Matt McKenzie
04-16-2012, 05:27 PM
Thanks! That's what I've been trying to find. What is the Tax Foundation? Where did you find it.

www.taxfoundation.org

Here are some sobering statistics. This one page on the internet will clear up LOTS of confusion about our income tax system. The truth is out there.http://www.taxfoundation.org/press/show/28121.html

Gerry Clinchy
04-16-2012, 05:56 PM
From the Tax Foundation:
In 2009, the top-earning 5 percent of taxpayers (AGI equal to or greater than $154,643), however, still paid far more than the bottom 95 percent. The top 5 percent earned 31.7 percent of the nation's adjusted gross income, but paid approximately 58.7 percent of federal individual income taxes.
It's kind of surprising that the top 5% is as low as $154,643, isn't it?

Those who pay no income taxes (the lower 47%) appear not realize that this would not be possible without the other 53% subsidizing benefits like Food Stamps, subsidized housing, Medicaid, etc.

Here in PA most local school districts have a 1% income tax. EVERYBODY pays, no matter what their income. It is, however, only on earned income. Dividends, interest and SS are not taxed. There are no deductions. It is likely that most who have kids in school still have earned income. Seems fair that retirees, after paying this tax for 45 years (or more) should get a little break. However, the school tax portion of property taxes is still going through the roof.

The latest county-wide reassessment reduced taxes on the newer, larger, most expensive homes & raised taxes on older homes. The basis for that was that those older homes had increases in value (since the last assessment) that were greater than the increase on the newer homes (not surprising due to the real estate market in recent years). However, that increase will make the older homes less affordable for new buyers.

Gerry Clinchy
04-16-2012, 06:12 PM
Wonder if the psychologist who did the study was a liberal or conservative? :-)

Buzz
04-16-2012, 06:31 PM
Those single payer systems have their own problems. LOTS of them. Just talk to people from Canada or Great Britain that live here now. What country has the absolute best quality health care available? The U.S. Where do the wealthy from every country in the world go in order to get the best quality health care? The U.S.
Health care in this country is expensive for many reasons, most of which are the result of government interference and over-regulations.
Here's something to think about. What good or service other than medical care do we as Americans routinely purchase without ever knowing the cost and without even asking? None. So why do we purchase health care without knowing what it will cost? the only time we bother to know the price is if we are having some sort of elective procedure that isn't covered by insurance or medicare. If you are having Lasik or a boob job, you definitely ask how much it's going to cost.
Would our health care decisions be different if doctors and hospitals provided a menu of services with the prices? If people were able to compare the cost of a procedure with what their insurance would cover and then shop around, would that change the dynamic at all?


When your are having an elective procedure, you have the luxury of shopping around. When you are really sick, and I have been there, you are in no position to shop. That is the one flaw in applying market principles to healthcare, it is not at all like looking for a new car, furniture, a house, or anything else we normally analyze to the nth degree when making a purchase of that magnitude.

And you are right, we do have the best healthcare in the world, for those who can pay. I met many of those folks coming here to the USA at Mayo Clinic in Rochester a few years ago when I needed to go see the best. Those people coming from Canada are not jumping across the border to go to our rural health systems. They are traveling to see the best because they can afford it, or their backs are up against the wall with a very serious problem, like some of us here in the USA who have made the trek to Rochester. When I was at Mayo, I found out that the best local doctors here had their heads up their butts. Lucky me, I can afford to take time away, I have very good insurance, I can pay travel costs, and pay for hotels while I'm being checked out. One of the problems with Canada's health system isn't merely the fact that they have a single payer system. Canada is largely a rural country with lots of folks located in remote isolated areas.

Canada's population is about 1/10th that of the USA population at 35 million. Looking at majors cities that might have a chance of having a good sized or major medical center includes the following. That's it, across that huge land mass...

Toronto (GTA, including Burlington and Oshawa) (9.5 million)
Montreal Region (4.2 million)
Greater Vancouver (2.6 million)
Ottawa (Greater Capital Region) (1.5 million)
Calgary (1.2 million), Edmonton (1.1 million)
Greater Winnipeg (including Selkirk) (890,000) Quebec City (800,000)
Hamilton (750,000)
London (550,000)

For reference, here are the population of US States. California has more citizens than the entire land mass of Canada.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population

Not trying to be difficult, just trying to have a conversation...

luvmylabs23139
04-16-2012, 06:36 PM
The latest county-wide reassessment reduced taxes on the newer, larger, most expensive homes & raised taxes on older homes. The basis for that was that those older homes had increases in value (since the last assessment) that were greater than the increase on the newer homes (not surprising due to the real estate market in recent years). However, that increase will make the older homes less affordable for new buyers.



My taxes are going up again for 2 reasons.
It is an older home so it didn't get that what you paid at the peak to buy it vs new homes and they want to raise the rate to make up for the losses on the peak built houses.
Of course those that use that really use the services pay zip as we the taxpayers pay for their housing and they get all the services like police patrols etc.
Haven't seen a cruiser here since my across the street neighbor retired from the force and his take home car is no longer in that driveway.

luvmylabs23139
04-16-2012, 06:40 PM
When your are having an elective procedure, you have the luxury of shopping around. When you are really sick, and I have been there, you are in no position to shop. That is the one flaw in applying market principles to healthcare, it is not at all like looking for a new car, furniture, a house, or anything else we normally analyze to the nth degree when making a purchase of that magnitude.

And you are right, we do have the best healthcare in the world, for those who can pay. I met many of those folks coming here to the USA at Mayo Clinic in Rochester a few years ago when I needed to go see the best. Those people coming from Canada are not jumping across the border to go to our rural health systems. They are traveling to see the best because they can afford it, or their backs are up against the wall with a very serious problem, like some of us here in the USA who have made the trek to Rochester. When I was at Mayo, I found out that the best local doctors here had their heads up their butts. Lucky me, I can afford to take time away, I have very good insurance, I can pay travel costs, and pay for hotels while I'm being checked out. One of the problems with Canada's health system isn't merely the fact that they have a single payer system. Canada is largely a rural country with lots of folks located in remote isolated areas.

Canada's population is about 1/10th that of the USA population at 35 million. Looking at majors cities that might have a chance of having a good sized or major medical center includes the following. That's it, across that huge land mass...

Toronto (GTA, including Burlington and Oshawa) (9.5 million)
Montreal Region (4.2 million)
Greater Vancouver (2.6 million)
Ottawa (Greater Capital Region) (1.5 million)
Calgary (1.2 million), Edmonton (1.1 million)
Greater Winnipeg (including Selkirk) (890,000) Quebec City (800,000)
Hamilton (750,000)
London (550,000)

For reference, here are the population of US States. California has more citizens than the entire land mass of Canada.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population

Not trying to be difficult, just trying to have a conversation...


In the UK you can get your dog into the specialist, seen , diagnosed and treated a lot faster than a human!

Buzz
04-16-2012, 06:44 PM
From the Tax Foundation:
In 2009, the top-earning 5 percent of taxpayers (AGI equal to or greater than $154,643), however, still paid far more than the bottom 95 percent. The top 5 percent earned 31.7 percent of the nation's adjusted gross income, but paid approximately 58.7 percent of federal individual income taxes.


Kinda scary. I get a lot of my information on taxes from the Tax Foundation. Be careful... ;-)

It isn't really the top 10%, or 5%, or 1% that are really getting over on taxes. It is the top .1%. I can't wait to look over my taxes tonight when I get home from work. I hear I am getting $1,100 back and I made an extra $10k on the side doing some consulting/moonlighting that I didn't pay taxes on. So I'm feeling pretty good! Thought I would owe maybe $3k or so... Thank goodness my day job pays more than the limit for what they deduct SS & medicare to, so I was paid up and didn't need to get mauled by the self-employment tax to cover payroll taxes!

Buzz
04-16-2012, 06:47 PM
In the UK you can get your dog into the specialist, seen , diagnosed and treated a lot faster than a human!

I am under the impression that Canada is single payer. Isn't the UK a completely government run system top to bottom?

A huge fraction of US healthcare dollars are already paid through single a payer system, medicare.

Marvin S
04-16-2012, 06:49 PM
They are traveling to see the best because they can afford it, or their backs are up against the wall with a very serious problem, like some of us here in the USA who have made the trek to Rochester.

Do you believe that level of care should be available to all? I do not unless the nation is willing to adopt unlimited enrollment in medical school as there is with engineering ;-). Wonder how the MD's would like that :) ?


When I was at Mayo, I found out that the best local doctors here had their heads up their butts.

I know a lot of people who have maintained a healthy life style that lived to a very old age & their only care was these doctors you refer to.


Lucky me, I can afford to take time away, I have very good insurance, I can pay travel costs, and pay for hotels while I'm being checked out. One of the problems with Canada's health system isn't merely the fact that they have a single payer system. Canada is largely a rural country with lots of folks located in remote isolated areas.

Canada's population is about 1/10th that of the USA population at 35 million. Looking at majors cities that might have a chance of having a good sized or major medical center includes the following. That's it, across that huge land mass...

Toronto (GTA, including Burlington and Oshawa) (9.5 million)
Montreal Region (4.2 million)
Greater Vancouver (2.6 million)
Ottawa (Greater Capital Region) (1.5 million)
Calgary (1.2 million), Edmonton (1.1 million)
Greater Winnipeg (including Selkirk) (890,000) Quebec City (800,000)
Hamilton (750,000)
London (550,000)

For reference, here are the population of US States. California has more citizens than the entire land mass of Canada.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population

Not trying to be difficult, just trying to have a conversation...

If the Canucks are here, it does not say much for their one payer system!!

luvmylabs23139
04-16-2012, 07:01 PM
I am under the impression that Canada is single payer. Isn't the UK a completely government run system top to bottom?

A huge fraction of US healthcare dollars are already paid through single a payer system, medicare.


No you can pay to go outside the system, but it can be a PIA.
My Aunt says she can fly over here to her house in Florida see a doctor etc faster than the wait time in the UK.
The other side of it is that if something happens to you over there and you just get the bill before going thru your US insurance (filing a claim) the bill can be so low you wonder whether or not it is even worth filing.

Buzz
04-16-2012, 07:16 PM
I know a lot of people who have maintained a healthy life style that lived to a very old age & their only care was these doctors you refer to.




I don't doubt that, but in my case, the doctors here were way off base. One of the things they told me here is that I had such bad GERD, I now had a pre-cancerous condition of the esophagus. I had been treated for GERD for years to the tune of about $1400/year in proton pump inhibitors, and had to have a $3000 scope every other year to monitor my condition risk of cancer I was told was very high. At Rochester they told me that I didn't even have acid reflux and there was NO precancerous condition! I could go on about other things, but I will leave it at that & not share my medical history over the internets...

I maintain a healthy lifestyle (except for all the sitting I do at a desk), but sometimes you just can't overcome genetics with healthy living...

Matt McKenzie
04-16-2012, 07:58 PM
I don't doubt that, but in my case, the doctors here were way off base. One of the things they told me here is that I had such bad GERD, I now had a pre-cancerous condition of the esophagus. I had been treated for GERD for years to the tune of about $1400/year in proton pump inhibitors, and had to have a $3000 scope every other year to monitor my condition risk of cancer I was told was very high. At Rochester they told me that I didn't even have acid reflux and there was NO precancerous condition! I could go on about other things, but I will leave it at that & not share my medical history over the internets...

I maintain a healthy lifestyle (except for all the sitting I do at a desk), but sometimes you just can't overcome genetics with healthy living...

One thing I learned when my wife was going through cancer treatment was that doctors are no different than anyone else you pay for a service. There are good ones and bad ones, smart ones and dumb ones (relatively speaking), nice folks and jerks. If the one you have isn't working out, fire him and get another one. Once I got past the whole putting doctors on a pedestal thing, life got much easier. A doctor is someone who has a set of skills that we sometimes need, just like a plumber or a mechanic.
It's like the old joke about what you call a guy who finished last in his class at medical school......doctor.

Gerry Clinchy
04-16-2012, 08:48 PM
I am under the impression that Canada is single payer. Isn't the UK a completely government run system top to bottom?

A huge fraction of US healthcare dollars are already paid through single a payer system, medicare.
The UK is now encouraging doctors to see patients in private practice. Again, those who can pay will not have to stand in line. Wonder how long before health insurance companies materialize there so that more average people can find a way to get more expensive private care?

I think UK is one of the oldest of these govt programs, and it may be morphing back into a private system? It took a lot of years for the issues to come full circle.

Like Marvin, I don't believe that there is enough $ in the world to give EVERYONE the highest level of care that is possible.

As for Medicare, you'd better have a supplemental plan, because Medicare-only will still leave a big hole in your pocket.

duk4me
04-17-2012, 01:16 PM
Kinda scary. I get a lot of my information on taxes from the Tax Foundation. Be careful... ;-)

It isn't really the top 10%, or 5%, or 1% that are really getting over on taxes. It is the top .1%. I can't wait to look over my taxes tonight when I get home from work. I hear I am getting $1,100 back and I made an extra $10k on the side doing some consulting/moonlighting that I didn't pay taxes on. So I'm feeling pretty good! Thought I would owe maybe $3k or so... Thank goodness my day job pays more than the limit for what they deduct SS & medicare to, so I was paid up and didn't need to get mauled by the self-employment tax to cover payroll taxes!

Didn't pay taxes on? Isn't that sort of illegal? Are you sure your not a closet Republican?:cool:

Buzz
04-17-2012, 01:49 PM
Didn't pay taxes on? Isn't that sort of illegal? Are you sure your not a closet Republican?:cool:

Maybe I should mention that I did receive a 1099 for everything paid to me for engineering services. But I did not pay quarterly, so I figured that this tax season it would be time to pay the piper. It seems that I would have otherwise had a big refund coming instead of $1,000 it would have been in the $3-4k range.

duk4me
04-17-2012, 02:03 PM
Maybe I should mention that I did receive a 1099 for everything paid to me for engineering services. But I did not pay quarterly, so I figured that this tax season it would be time to pay the piper. It seems that I would have otherwise had a big refund coming instead of $1,000 it would have been in the $3-4k range.

You arent' denying it so you must be a closet Republican.:razz:

Marvin S
04-17-2012, 04:36 PM
They are traveling to see the best because they can afford it, or their backs are up against the wall with a very serious problem, like some of us here in the USA who have made the trek to Rochester.

You posted this & appear to be in favor of O-care


Do you believe that level of care should be available to all? I do not unless the nation is willing to adopt unlimited enrollment in medical school as there is with engineering ;-). Wonder how the MD's would like that :) ?

I asked you the 1st question as otherwise there will be rationing - like Cheney getting a heart transplant as an example ;-).


I maintain a healthy lifestyle (except for all the sitting I do at a desk), but sometimes you just can't overcome genetics with healthy living...

Buzz I am glad for you, but still want that "available to all" question answered :)

Buzz
04-17-2012, 10:11 PM
Buzz I am glad for you, but still want that "available to all" question answered :)




Marvin, you know as well as I do that there are many reasons why we cannot provide that kind of service and care to everyone. No matter what system we have, the best care will go to those who can best afford it, one way or another. I guess it creates the quandary in my mind trying to figure out what minimum level of care that everyone is entitled, unless your are one that believes that those who can't pay deserve none, period, pure survival of the fittest, then it's easy... I guess.

I know it isn't popular because Americans seem to want everything, but they don't want to pay for it. That's why when you ask people about certain aspects of Obamacare they like them, but it it's totality they are against it. In my mind, mandating young people and others not participating in the system to buy insurance if they can afford it is a conservative idea. Believe me, a lot of liberals didn't like a lot of things about Obamacare, including the mandate. It seriously dismays me to see conservatives react to it the way they do. That personal responsibility thing, I don't like to pay for insurance any more than the next guy, but I feel like I have a responsibility to do it if I can. Sometimes it looks to me like freedom is viewed by many as their pass for being irresponsible. Then when they are faced with needing healthcare, they put the system I depend on into jeopardy and raise my rates by leaching off something they have not paid into.