Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[mike777]

If a mixed economy means:

1) I can sign up for free college sign me up

2) live on campus for free sign me up

3) free medical...sign me up

4) attend free college functions...sign me up

5) I dont see anything in the rules about grades or getting up early so great

 

 

I lived in Urbana where future world champions Chip and Cheri taught me bridge so all of this mixed economy stuff free college/medical stuff sounds great. You got my vote

 

 

btw just for the record while Chapel Hill or Duke are great I am opened minded and am willing to go to my "safety school" on the beach in Wilmington. My long time neighbor two doors down is moving there and i hear it is a great town and school for people of a certain age.

[awm]

If a mixed economy means:

1) I can sign up for free college sign me up

2) live on campus for free sign me up

3) free medical...sign me up

4) attend free college functions...sign me up

5) I dont see anything in the rules about grades or getting up early so great

 

You seem to enjoy mocking the idea of free college. You might want to keep in mind a quick comparison of the present day versus 50 or so years ago (when many bridge players were in school):

 

1. 50 years ago, state colleges in California were free (room and board were not free, but there was no tuition and essentially no fees). In most other states you did have to pay for college, but a good state college cost only a few weeks wages at the minimum wage, meaning a student could work a summer job and basically pay his or her costs. Today, yearly tuition even at state schools exceeds a year's full-time wages at the minimum wage! A student trying to pay his or her own way through school (without money from parents or assistance from scholarships) will come out with as much as 100k in debt. This doesn't seem particularly fair to today's kids, does it?

2. 50 years ago, education through 12th grade was free in the US (as it is today), funded by the government. However, back then there were many jobs for a high school graduate, where he (yes it helped to be male) could support a family even on a single income. Today nearly all such jobs require a college degree. Since supporting a family virtually requires a college degree now (for the vast majority, sure there are cases of people who had some great invention in high school or something), it makes sense to extend government funding through college doesn't it?

 

As for health care, some of us believe it's immoral to allow our fellow citizens to die of something easily curable simply because they do not have much money. Obviously some people disagree with this view (although I'm not sure how they can claim to be the "Christian party" when they want to let poor people die).

[kenberg]

You seem to enjoy mocking the idea of free college. You might want to keep in mind a quick comparison of the present day versus 50 or so years ago (when many bridge players were in school):

 

1. 50 years ago, state colleges in California were free (room and board were not free, but there was no tuition and essentially no fees). In most other states you did have to pay for college, but a good state college cost only a few weeks wages at the minimum wage, meaning a student could work a summer job and basically pay his or her costs. Today, yearly tuition even at state schools exceeds a year's full-time wages at the minimum wage! A student trying to pay his or her own way through school (without money from parents or assistance from scholarships) will come out with as much as 100k in debt. This doesn't seem particularly fair to today's kids, does it?

2. 50 years ago, education through 12th grade was free in the US (as it is today), funded by the government. However, back then there were many jobs for a high school graduate, where he (yes it helped to be male) could support a family even on a single income. Today nearly all such jobs require a college degree. Since supporting a family virtually requires a college degree now (for the vast majority, sure there are cases of people who had some great invention in high school or something), it makes sense to extend government funding through college doesn't it?

 

As for health care, some of us believe it's immoral to allow our fellow citizens to die of something easily curable simply because they do not have much money. Obviously some people disagree with this view (although I'm not sure how they can claim to be the "Christian party" when they want to let poor people die).

 

 

 

I have a busy morning so I might make this a two part response. The opportunity for a decent education is perhaps the highest item on my wish list. I generally agree with what you say, but I see some of the details differently.

 

First, about the need for college. No doubt it can help but it is not so simple. My older daughter has a Ph.D. and has a good job. My younger daughter has a high school diploma and is a part owner of a boarding kennel for dogs (and the occasional cat and others). She didn't invent anything so she is not rich, but she is comfortably self-supporting. After she had been out of high school for a while, her mother and her husband, and Becky and I, had a discussion about supporting Leslie if she was now interested in going on to college. She wasn't. It isn't for everyone, it simply isn't. Maybe she coould have struggled through in some major that held no interest for her but why should she? These studies that show college grads make more money do not, from what I have seen, get at an important point. Does the person who has little interest in academics still do better if s/he spends the crucial years of transition from adolescence to adulthood in an environment that holds no interest for them?

 

So that's the first point. It is not that you must go to college or else do something unusual such as invent something or become a successful boxer.

 

 

Second point. I did go to college and yes, in 1956 when I started at the University of Minnesota the world was a very different place. I lived in St. Paul and, after some discussion,my parents informed me that if I wanted to go to college I could continue to live at home without paying rent. I got a scholarship that covered tuition and books, with a bit left over. By the time I was a senior I could no longer stand it at home so, rent free or not, I got out and wished I had done it earlier. I worked. During the summer of course but I worked quite a bit during the school year as well. By the time I finished grad school I had some debt, but not unmanageable. Part of this was from the different way society was back then, part of it, I think, is the way I approached the issue.

 

Got to go, but this is a huge issue with me and I will probably say more later.

[kenberg]

A few more words.

 

I have seen, in fact it is common enough to no longer surprise me, young people borrow to the hilt with little or any concern for what they are seeking or what lies down the road. Some schools act as enablers. I very much wish for a young person to get himself/herself off to college if this is a reasonable path for him/her. I think, however, that the years from 17-21 are critical in a person's life. Wasting those years because someone gives you generic advice such as "Go to college, major in something" or "Get into a STEM area" or "Get a business degree" or whatever is disastrous. Four or maybe five or maybe six years later the person maybe has a degree in something, graduating with a 2.0001 grade point average, no better prepared to do useful work than s/he was when s/he graduated from high school.

 

Of course it is the responsibility of the individual to choose a reasonable course of action but we are all only so good at this, and while I strongly support making college accessible I think the concern I raise about tempting people to waste precious years is a very real problem.

 

I have a bridge game this afternoon and some things to do beforehand but I may say yet more.

[barmar]

So that's the first point. It is not that you must go to college or else do something unusual such as invent something or become a successful boxer.

There are also lots of examples of people who lived into their 80's and 90's, despite smoking most of their lives. You wouldn't use that to endorse smoking, would you (unless you're a tobacco company)?

 

The simple fact is that as automation of menial jobs increases, there's less opportunity for people without a good education to get decent jobs. There are of course exceptions, like your daughter, but for most people college will put them in a much better position to be successful.

[barmar]

As for health care, some of us believe it's immoral to allow our fellow citizens to die of something easily curable simply because they do not have much money. Obviously some people disagree with this view (although I'm not sure how they can claim to be the "Christian party" when they want to let poor people die).

It's hard to argue for allowing people to die, but to play Devil's Advocate, health care goes far beyond just saving lives. Most of the things we go to the doctor for, or even the hospital, are hardly life threatening. Maybe the Republicans wouldn't have had as much of an argument if Obamacare only covered critical conditions -- it probably would have prevented the controversy over contraception.

[Zelandakh]

It's hard to argue for allowing people to die, but to play Devil's Advocate, health care goes far beyond just saving lives. Most of the things we go to the doctor for, or even the hospital, are hardly life threatening. Maybe the Republicans wouldn't have had as much of an argument if Obamacare only covered critical conditions -- it probably would have prevented the controversy over contraception.

To take this further, the most cost-effective healthcare is sometimes said to be preventative. If everyone did an hour of intensive exercise a day, it could potentially save health services an enormous amount of money. Add in initiatives such as reducing smoking and drinking, or improving diet and you are talking about a huge impact that does not involve any doctors at all.

[Winstonm]

The discussion of capitalism is somewhat ridiculous -- basically everyone believes in a mixed economy these days where a few parts of the economy are government controlled and others are private

 

I don't think you have seen enough posts of Mike777. :P

[mycroft]

Free medical? Well, it isn't exactly "free" (in particular, dental and prescription drugs are not covered), but to USAnians it is. That's a holdover from - oh yes, right, the NDP and its first leader, Tommy Douglas. And as I wouldn't be alive without it (or under crippling debt load and possibly not stabilized), I kind of like the idea. As I am a respected(?) TD and a useful IT drone, I believe it is a net win for society, too.

 

Free college? Well, when I went to University (not 50 years ago, but 30), tuition started at $350/term; when I left, it was $500/term. Oh, and that was the "20% extra rate" because I was in Engineering where students expected to make more money after graduation (Medical studies had yet a higher cost, maybe 10% more?) Now, post-secondary education was and is subsidized more in Canada than the U.S. (again, thanks primarily to the NDP and other left-leaning parties), but what is it now in the US? 50 to 100x (not percent) increase? And wages have increased what - 2 times?

 

Free roads, policing, a floor to how far you can fall if you are unable to work, whatever environmental protections (like asbestos regs, tobacco, PCBs, dioxins, tailing ponds,...) and structural protections (construction guidelines, work health regs, time and other labour law) haven't been gutted by the Conservatives either by allowing industry capture of the regulators or just starving them for funds so the chance of being audited is effectively zero - I like all of that, too. If you look at the (no longer Progressive, thanks Preston!) Conservative Party of Canada policy ideas (by far the farthest right of mainstream Canadian Politics), you'll find them happily ensconced in the Democratic Party's world (okay, maybe not with "The Harper Government" Harper, and there is as much underground rumblings of the Social Conservatives here as in the U.S., but they won't *act* on their beliefs anymore, and it's still political suicide to *say* them).

 

As far as my personal politics goes, I don't trust companies. Or rather, I do trust companies to do whatever we don't forbid them to do to exploit their workers, their customers, and the environment. When the conditions that make free-market capitalism effective for all exist, I am happy for it - but I want the government around to make sure that the companies don't have their fingers too hard on the scales - because it's been proved, time and time again, they will try anything and see what they can get away with. And like bridge, if you don't clamp down hard on what is imProper, those that follow the Laws and Proprieties get pushed down. Unlike bridge, they can't just find another game.

[barmar]

To take this further, the most cost-effective healthcare is sometimes said to be preventative. If everyone did an hour of intensive exercise a day, it could potentially save health services an enormous amount of money. Add in initiatives such as reducing smoking and drinking, or improving diet and you are talking about a huge impact that does not involve any doctors at all.

I'm not sure: are you arguing for free health care that includes gym memberships and smoking cessation programs? Or saying that people should take better care of themselves so that health care would be more affordable for everyone, and the government wouldn't need to provide it (except for the indigent, who cant' afford most necessities of life)?

[kenberg]

If everyone did an hour of intensive exercise a day, it could potentially save health services an enormous amount of money.

 

Definitely. Burials are fairly cheap.

 

Joking of course (we always have to say this online). But I sometimes have to explain to over-enthusiastic people who lead exercise classes that I am not planning on a career professional sports.

[Zelandakh]

I'm not sure: are you arguing for free health care that includes gym memberships and smoking cessation programs? Or saying that people should take better care of themselves so that health care would be more affordable for everyone, and the government wouldn't need to provide it (except for the indigent, who cant' afford most necessities of life)?

I realise you are American but not all health initiatives have to be about money or providing services with a monetary incentive. Simply motivating people to do things for themselves is often a much more successful strategy. Of course there is a cost in providing the marketing, one that you expect to recoup many times over in less strain on the primary healthcare side of things.

 

I was not arguing for or against any specific programs with my previous post and certainly not suggesting that the government should not provide healthcare. Indeed I am at a loss to see how you could possibly have gleaned that idea from my words! :blink:

[Elianna]

I realise you are American but not all health initiatives have to be about money or providing services with a monetary incentive. Simply motivating people to do things for themselves is often a much more successful strategy. Of course there is a cost in providing the marketing, one that you expect to recoup many times over in less strain on the primary healthcare side of things.

 

 

Interesting that you say this. One of the health care providers in CA seems to do just this - Kaiser Permanente (an HMO in CA - I don't know if they're nationwide) airs commercials promoting walking and other exercise.

[kenberg]

Interesting that you say this. One of the health care providers in CA seems to do just this - Kaiser Permanente (an HMO in CA - I don't know if they're nationwide) airs commercials promoting walking and other exercise.

Kaiser Permanente is here in Maryland and I have always thought of them as nationwide. They are often cited as a source for statistical studies.

 

Although retired, I still get my health insurance through the University. It has some different features from what the active faculty have, the most obvious being that Medicare is primary, Blue Cross- Blue Shield picks up where Medicare leaves off. This works very well, except that paperwork moves very slowly through Medicare. By the time Medicare sends something saying what they have paid I have often forgotten what it was about. But BC-BS seems on top of it so I can relax.

 

I pay a decent amount of money for all of this, but the coverage is very good so I largely ignore it all. Recent example: I got bit by a neighbors dog last Monday (my fault, the dog had made it clear that he was in a bad mood). I got a same day appointment with the doc, a shot, the wound cleaned out, stitches, no charge. I got antibiotics. Ten dollars. I had to go back Wednesday for more cleansing, no charge. I am to see him onThursday, but I may call and ask to see him earlier.

 

So for me, the health system works just fine and dandy. The choice that I have in docs is particularly important to me. When I attended the Univ. of Minn in the 1950s we had free access (or very low cost, I forget which) to the medical care at the Univ hospital. Fine enough, but you walked in and got the doc that they gave you. Every profession has a range of talent in it, and this fact was on clear display.

[Zelandakh]

Interesting that you say this. One of the health care providers in CA seems to do just this - Kaiser Permanente (an HMO in CA - I don't know if they're nationwide) airs commercials promoting walking and other exercise.

German health insurance also provides a financial incentive for membership of some sports clubs. That is a little different from free healthcare including gym membership and the like as advanced in Barry's post.

[barmar]

German health insurance also provides a financial incentive for membership of some sports clubs. That is a little different from free healthcare including gym membership and the like as advanced in Barry's post.

Many (most?) US health insurers also do. The insurance programs I've had will reimburse up to $150/year.

[kenberg]

German health insurance also provides a financial incentive for membership of some sports clubs. That is a little different from free healthcare including gym membership and the like as advanced in Barry's post.

 

I saw this television show where one of the characters said "I joined a health club and it didn't help a bit. Apparently you also have to go".

 

I got a kick out of that, but also there is a point to it. Becky and I belong to the Y, the cost is minimal. I am pretty sure they would give reduced rates to someone in tough financial straits. I also enjoy walking, in the neighborhood, in the woods, wherever, and that's free.

 

Incidentally I find the Y preferable to some of the more expensive clubs. The equipment is all I need, and I prefer the social atmosphere. There aren't any people discussing abs.

 

We have various programs here sponsored by local government and by hospitals that try to get people moving. You can lead a horse....

 

All of which leads to a piece in https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2016/07/15/pokemon-go-an-honest-review/

 

I select a part:

 

Pokemon Go's innovation is that instead of going indoors to play video games, you have to go outdoors to play video games, but we are already getting around it by having people volunteer to drive you around in their cars and negate any fitness value the game might have had. Usually, if someone approaches you and says, "Hey, get into my car, and we might catch an imaginary knockoff dragon!" you telephone the police. Now you get in — and you pay them.

[onoway]

Couldn't believe there was actually a local ad for $20 someone will drive you around to find the pokemon hotspots or whatever they are. I suppose that's better than running over cliffs and ramming police cars but really.

[barmar]

Can Pokemon Guber be far behind?

[barmar]

So what do people think of Melania Trump apparently plagiarizing bits of Michelle Obama's speech to the 2008 DNC convention?

 

The points she was making were pretty generic, "mom and apple pie" ideas, so there was nothing partisan about it. But some entire sentences were verbatim matches to what Michelle said.

[PassedOut]

So what do people think of Melania Trump apparently plagiarizing bits of Michelle Obama's speech to the 2008 DNC convention?

 

The points she was making were pretty generic, "mom and apple pie" ideas, so there was nothing partisan about it. But some entire sentences were verbatim matches to what Michelle said.

Her speechwriters are to blame, but there should have been some oversight. The chaos in the Trump campaign is telling.

[shyams]

So what do people think of Melania Trump apparently plagiarizing bits of Michelle Obama's speech to the 2008 DNC convention?

 

The points she was making were pretty generic, "mom and apple pie" ideas, so there was nothing partisan about it. But some entire sentences were verbatim matches to what Michelle said.

Does her speech really matter? Melania will (technically) play no role in administration, if Trump were to become president. What she says is IMO irrelevant to the outcome of the elections.

[Winstonm]

So what do people think of Melania Trump apparently plagiarizing bits of Michelle Obama's speech to the 2008 DNC convention?

 

The points she was making were pretty generic, "mom and apple pie" ideas, so there was nothing partisan about it. But some entire sentences were verbatim matches to what Michelle said.

 

What Melania said or did not say is irrelevant, IMO.

 

What is horrific, again, IMO, is that self-respect and common decency did not act as governors.

 

If anything is frightening, it is that there is so much blind white fury aimed at anything and everything non-white.

[kenberg]

Even as a retired person I do not have time to listen to Melania Trump. I listened to Cotton for a while. There are many fine people who I have no plans to listen to, either at the R convention or the D convention. I get tired of Sanders very quickly. And I hope HC tells BC to stay home and fix her a good meal.

 

 

I was watching one of the channels before the convention opening. People in the background were holding signs. "Jesus said you must be born again". "The Pope is the Anti-Christ". "Socialism sucks".

 

It's seriously embarrassing is what it is. I originally used a different modifier than "seriously" but it got changed to asterisks.

[barmar]

Her speechwriters are to blame, but there should have been some oversight. The chaos in the Trump campaign is telling.

 

Does her speech really matter? Melania will (technically) play no role in administration, if Trump were to become president. What she says is IMO irrelevant to the outcome of the elections.

Isn't PassedOut's point why it matters? If she'd written the speech herself, then it wouldn't matter because she's wouldn't be part of the administration (although there have been plenty of First Ladies who had significant influence on their husbands, e.g. Nancy Reagan and Eleanor Roosevelt, but I doubt Melania has such plans).

 

But her speechwriters are part of Donald's campaign team, and what they do reflects on Donald. Some will likely be part of his administration should he win, so they'll have a part in his policy-making. They're not as irrelevant as Melania.

 

Obama once was caught making a speech that copied from former MA Governor Deval Patrick. When this was noticed, he owned up to it and apologized for not attributing the source, he didn't claim it was a conspiracy by his political opponents.

 

Harry Truman was famous for saying "The Buck Stops Here". When someone on your team commits a faux pas, it's your fault. Hillary is responsible for her IT people's sloppy handling of the emails, and Trump is responsible for the content of Melania's speech.