A question for anyone regarding healthcare systems...

[Fishmanpa]

Another aspect in the US are the insurance companies themselves. My current insurer is incredibly difficult to deal with. We tried to get umbrella coverage so my wife and I could see the doctors and tests we need as they were not covered in the network and were flat out refused. It goes back to the $$ and it's truly the bottom line. To truly have coverage with pre-existing conditions you're looking at a monthly premium that cost nearly double rent or mortgage payments.

Positive thoughts

[ErinKC]

I think social media has a lot to do with our parties splitting from its more moderate constituents. I hate to be the guy who blames tech and or new things, but I've just noticed how people are on Facebook, Twitter and the others. I think social media has given people with far left or far right ideologies a HUUUGE platform and the person with the most outrageous things to say is the one who gets the spotlight. And I think that is in part because they say it so often and with such an intensity that it's impossible to ignore. So, I think our parties are misreading where the public actually sits politically because of this. That's my opinion anyway.

This is such a good observation. I've long blamed social media for radicalizing both sides - it's much easier to be extreme/hateful/etc... when you're behind a screen. But, I had never even thought about how it drives the perceptions of politicians. Really insightful. I think it's also a big reason Trump won the election. No matter my thoughts on him, his strategy was genius - he appealed to all those people who feel totally silenced in today's atmosphere of extremes. If anyone hopes to beat him they have to understand this and find a way to address those people instead of demonizing them and making them feel even less relevant and heard... but I'm not super hopeful about it. I'm already cringing as people start announcing their presidential runs... The election is almost 2 years away. It's going to be a long 2 years!!

---------- Post added at 13:59 ---------- Previous post was at 13:53 ----------

With things lurching further apart it makes it even harder to vote now. Neither party is attractive if you class yourself a moderate. And we're back to voting for the least worst or the "anybody but xyz candidate" which I expect you know plenty about given your last election was heavily dominated by that on both sides!

Yes. It was a tough one for the moderates! I ended up voting 3rd party because I live in a state where there's really no contest, so my vote didn't mean anything anyway. (Though, if you get into the nitty gritty, voting for a third party can help that party get on the ballot more easily in the next election, so it's worth a bit more than voting R or D in a state where one side wins by 30% anyway.)

[jray23]

I can't agree more with the conclusions on here. (US here) Social media is definitely a key problem. Most issues are way too complex (especially healthcare!) to be discussed in the brief-ness of social media, but that's what nearly everyone wants to do. Simpletons will cry "socialism is evil!" or "big insurance companies are evil!" without offering any explanation and millions will smash the like button.

And the two-party system here. I vote third party about 90% of the time. I don't care if they have a shot at winning. Who to cast a vote for is not like placing a bet, you're supposed to pick the person you like best, not who you think will win.

Interesting topic OP. I've always been pretty well entrenched behind a single payer system but being on here and seeing a lot of the NHS posts have made me realize nothing's perfect. But at least it's mostly fair. No one should have to deal with what FishmanPA and many other Americans have to deal with. I'm one of the fortunate ones to be employed at a place that offers stellar insurance coverage but everyone should have that.

But, and maybe I'm just cynical already (36), I think we are far from single payer happening here. Because of the polar opposite two party system we would need probably 53% Democrat advantage (some Dems in Republican districts like may not support it to save their jobs) in the House and it has to be 60, maybe 61% in the Senate to avoid the filibuster. Look at how hard Obamacare struggled and Democrats had 59 - 40 at that time with Senator Kennedy being #60, a Democrat, but seriously ill and not really there. It got completely watered down from its original goal before it got through. And that wasn't anything like single payer. And even if that all shakes out, it needs a Democrat President (although that seems likely soon) but also the now strongly conservative Supreme Court might find a way to shoot it down, and we're likely a long way from the Court turning sides.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

[Drisque]

This is such a good observation. I've long blamed social media for radicalizing both sides - it's much easier to be extreme/hateful/etc... when you're behind a screen. But, I had never even thought about how it drives the perceptions of politicians. Really insightful. I think it's also a big reason Trump won the election. No matter my thoughts on him, his strategy was genius - he appealed to all those people who feel totally silenced in today's atmosphere of extremes. If anyone hopes to beat him they have to understand this and find a way to address those people instead of demonizing them and making them feel even less relevant and heard... but I'm not super hopeful about it. I'm already cringing as people start announcing their presidential runs...

I 100% agree and my hope for this is dwindling every day, as well. The parties seem to be hyper focused on appealing solely to their base instead of focusing on the issues that need to be addressed, which is very frustrating. I'm going to have to start entertaining the idea of voting third party, because the two main parties are letting me down :(

[nomorepanic]

Hi

This is just a courtesy reply to let you know that your post was moved from its original place to a sub-forum that is more relevant to your issue.

This is nothing personal - it just enables us to keep posts about the same problems in the relevant forums so other members with any experience with the issues can find them more easily.

Please also read this post:

http://www.nomorepanic.co.uk/showthread.php?t=213239

[ErinKC]

And the two-party system here. I vote third party about 90% of the time. I don't care if they have a shot at winning. Who to cast a vote for is not like placing a bet, you're supposed to pick the person you like best, not who you think will win.

Agreed. I voted Libertarian in the last two presidential elections. I like to vote 3rd party both because I feel more comfortable conscience wise and also because it helps promote more choice. I live in Maryland, so it doesn't matter anyway! But, I like to think I'd do the same even in a swing state.

[MyNameIsTerry]

Yeah, social media is like networking for soap boxes. Now they are all connected and no longer need to rant in the town centre.

We have echo chambers for the like minded to rant all day. Some politicians join these online groups and it's a very good point they seem the fringes rather than the views of the masses because we are busy going to work, doing our shopping and just getting on with life. We don't have time for hours at night wittering on about conspiracy theories and the same for politics.

Social media is massive boon to activists. By their nature activists are going to be further from the centre.

An example is Brexit. Read the media and the UK is in meltdown. Do our US members get the impression, from out media, that it is a massive issue that we spend a lot of time talking about? But you can go about your day and never hear anything. People being people, are too busy working to pay the bills. That's why so many are sick of hearing about Brexit in the news. But it's a great thing for many a politician because it is masking other areas of society that they would normally be getting a good kicking over e.g. the NHS, the homeless, the scandal that is disability benefits. etc.

It's a good point about the lesser parties. If they don't get votes how do they know they have support? And the need a certain number to get on a ticket in some systems.

Erin, there is saying over here. You could stick a rosette on a donkey and it would win. You hear that about party strongholds. They can put up any old useless idiot and they still win. But part of this is about the party winning for the main election and another part is about how the past has formed opinions of certain parties e.g. the Scots have a dislike of the Conservatives because of Margaret Thatcher as do the ex coal mining regions.

Couldn't you like that to Obama getting in? The black vote increased as they believed they had someone who would pull their issues along. That vote decreased when Clinton became the candidate. Was that because of her or because of voter apathy at another rich suit with nothing in common with them?

[jray23]

I'm in Illinois so also the same, where it's too strong Democrat for my vote to matter anyway. I think I'd still vote 3rd in a swing state because I tend to be pretty contrarian by nature, but who knows?

Terry from what you describe it doesn't seem all that different US to UK. And you nailed it with the soapbox quote - instead of being the crazy guy yelling on a street corner all of a sudden everyone seems legit because they're face is hidden? I don't get why anyone takes it seriously.

Re: Brexit, I imagined that it probably is a big deal to about 5% of people, maybe their job/business might be affected by whatever agreement (or none?) is drawn up if they have European customers or employees or whatever but I can't imagine most people are seriously fretting about it because they likely don't have a lot of international interaction. But I don't think I'm super-informed about it. European news isn't covered nearly as much here as US news is there.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

[ErinKC]

Terry from what you describe it doesn't seem all that different US to UK. And you nailed it with the soapbox quote - instead of being the crazy guy yelling on a street corner all of a sudden everyone seems legit because they're face is hidden? I don't get why anyone takes it seriously.

My brother once observed that people sitting alone in their living rooms watching cable news was like a country full of one-man angry mobs! Social media is very much the same.

---------- Post added at 16:11 ---------- Previous post was at 15:55 ----------

Couldn't you like that to Obama getting in? The black vote increased as they believed they had someone who would pull their issues along. That vote decreased when Clinton became the candidate. Was that because of her or because of voter apathy at another rich suit with nothing in common with them?

Obama was definitely an anomaly for a lot of reasons. He was fresh, new, exciting. Being black did really galvanize a lot of voters to get out and vote for a number of reasons (black voters were excited, people wanted to be part of history, etc...) He also came on the heals of 8 years of George W Bush, the recession, etc... so people were very much ready for a change. Plus, McCain, while appealing in a lot of ways was just so, so boring compared to Obama. I think that our presidential elections are often very reactionary. Every time the other party comes in there are commentators who are like - "This is the end of the Republican Party!" or "This is the end of the Democratic Party!" But, very rarely have we had the same party in power for more than 8 years. It's happened, but it's less common.

I think Hillary lost for a few reasons:

(1) She doesn't come close to the excitement of Obama, so if the Democrats expected the same voter turn out they were definitely mistaken.
(2) Based on her leaked emails from the campaign, they were more concerned with moderate millennials voting for someone like Rand Paul, so they focused too much on that and even mentioned they welcomed Trump being nominated because he'd be easy to beat.
(3) They took their long-time base (blue color union workers) for granted and didn't spend any time out in states like Ohio and Michigan. They were SHOCKED to lose those states.
(4) Hillary is really unlikeable, even to lots of liberals.

But, I don't think they've learned their lesson yet. They kept blaming others instead of their own mistakes, so I don't know that they will be able to beat Trump in 2020... but there's a long time to go until then!

[MyNameIsTerry]

I'm in Illinois so also the same, where it's too strong Democrat for my vote to matter anyway. I think I'd still vote 3rd in a swing state because I tend to be pretty contrarian by nature, but who knows?

Terry from what you describe it doesn't seem all that different US to UK. And you nailed it with the soapbox quote - instead of being the crazy guy yelling on a street corner all of a sudden everyone seems legit because they're face is hidden? I don't get why anyone takes it seriously.

Re: Brexit, I imagined that it probably is a big deal to about 5% of people, maybe their job/business might be affected by whatever agreement (or none?) is drawn up if they have European customers or employees or whatever but I can't imagine most people are seriously fretting about it because they likely don't have a lot of international interaction. But I don't think I'm super-informed about it. European news isn't covered nearly as much here as US news is there.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

With Brexit there is a potential it will hit us all because employment may fall and imports may be affected. We have so many foreign employers who use the Single Market (the Japanese car firms use us as a way into the SM) but also if we add import tariffs back in it will cost them to bring the parts in to then export the cars back out.

Much of our manufacturing is gone and we bring a lot of food in too. We are mainly a services economy since Thatcher. That's where the EU lose out, the London Stock Exchange, which they can't replace very easily.

But despite this you are going to struggle to find people discussing it in daily life. Many people are just sick of hearing about it. The fact it's been two years of endless moaning and political game playing, again the self serving nature of politicians, has just made so many sick of it and they just want it done however it is going to go.

I have read some of your media about Brexit and found it so basic in understanding. Loads of mistakes and misconceptions. I'm not criticising Americans here, although your journalists should do a better job, but highlighting how it can be hard to understand foreign politics. Which brings me onto our understanding of yours and how we are also likely to have so little understanding if our media aren't working hard enough to understand it. Even then, they won't gauge the opinions of the public beyond often pointless biased polling.

I have respect for people who vote with their conscience. You & Erin make good points about this (sorry if I've missed anyone) and some do the same here. But we also have that situation where you have to hold your nose and vote for one major party to keep the other out when it comes to marginals.

The more the parties swing away from the centre at the same time I think it is going to distort voters like yourselves because you may be tempted to vote strategically. The same can be said for more moderate voters who can't bring themselves to vote for the party they normally would so see the opposition as least worse option for the country. We are suffering a lot of this now and the media are loving it.

---------- Post added at 02:50 ---------- Previous post was at 02:40 ----------

Obama was definitely an anomaly for a lot of reasons. He was fresh, new, exciting. Being black did really galvanize a lot of voters to get out and vote for a number of reasons (black voters were excited, people wanted to be part of history, etc...) He also came on the heals of 8 years of George W Bush, the recession, etc... so people were very much ready for a change. Plus, McCain, while appealing in a lot of ways was just so, so boring compared to Obama. I think that our presidential elections are often very reactionary. Every time the other party comes in there are commentators who are like - "This is the end of the Republican Party!" or "This is the end of the Democratic Party!" But, very rarely have we had the same party in power for more than 8 years. It's happened, but it's less common.

I think Hillary lost for a few reasons:

(1) She doesn't come close to the excitement of Obama, so if the Democrats expected the same voter turn out they were definitely mistaken.
(2) Based on her leaked emails from the campaign, they were more concerned with moderate millennials voting for someone like Rand Paul, so they focused too much on that and even mentioned they welcomed Trump being nominated because he'd be easy to beat.
(3) They took their long-time base (blue color union workers) for granted and didn't spend any time out in states like Ohio and Michigan. They were SHOCKED to lose those states.
(4) Hillary is really unlikeable, even to lots of liberals.

But, I don't think they've learned their lesson yet. They kept blaming others instead of their own mistakes, so I don't know that they will be able to beat Trump in 2020... but there's a long time to go until then!

That happens here too. One party gets in, often swept to power promising stuff after the other party has been in decline as the government, and after 2 or more terms people start getting sick of them and it happens again.

I also find not only complacency but the sleaze seems to start coming out in later governments.

But like you say, this can be overlap between changing governments because of changes in the economy that take time. Has Trump benefitted from that?

I found Clinton arrogant. She was going through the motions expecting to win. I expect that only galvanised the disenfranchised voters who she wouldn't typically represent? And that's where Trump was clever as he chased these types of "forgotten people". He ended up becoming a bit of an everyman but once you get into power that falls to pieces very quickly in such a divided country.

You had Obama and I think they thought this was the year of the woman. They wanted a woman no matter what but they pushed a really bad candidate with a lot of baggage..and then there is Bill. Women's groups, we were told, were all behind her which felt a bit strange given her husband. It should be about the best candidate but also the candidate should be representative of you all as much as they can and not pushing from angles like this. It felt like popularism on both sides in their own ways.

We heard quite a bit about Sanders too.

Didn't she release her book about why she lost and still blamed the public?

---------- Post added at 02:53 ---------- Previous post was at 02:50 ----------

They get in, the role switches. We are pretty much a two party system so it just goes back & forth with the opposition moaning when part of their moan was created by them in a previous government. Is it the way for you guys?

This is definitely how it is here. I can't really put it better than Erinkc did. There's a lot of passing the buck between the former and current presidents/ parties and then there's also a lot of luck in the game, as well. For example, the economy might be slowly entering a downturn at the end of president A's term and won't be really noticeable until president B takes office, thus president B takes the blame.

Another thing I can't stand is how the two parties play chess with our lives via shut downs. Government shut downs are awful and selfish political tactics and every president partakes. The shutdown becomes a game of"No! You first" and the "winner" thinks they'll be perceived as strong and that they will ride that perception into the next election. Meanwhile, the real loser is both the federal workers who work without being paid and the economy. It's ridiculous. Does this happen in your system?

I think social media has a lot to do with our parties splitting from its more moderate constituents. I hate to be the guy who blames tech and or new things, but I've just noticed how people are on Facebook, Twitter and the others. I think social media has given people with far left or far right ideologies a HUUUGE platform and the person with the most outrageous things to say is the one who gets the spotlight. And I think that is in part because they say it so often and with such an intensity that it's impossible to ignore. So, I think our parties are misreading where the public actually sits politically because of this. That's my opinion anyway.

I agree, this has been a breath of fresh air. Usually when politics are brought up it gets pretty ugly. I cant seem to wrap my head around the childish antics. The name calling, the blame game and the violence. It seems like maturity is tossed to the wind the second politics rears its ugly head. I suppose that's human nature?

Drisque,

Is anyone working towards a change in your law about those shutdowns? It just find unreal and we would have campaigns, marches, etc over here. In France they would be rioting, they love a good riot over there!

I agree with you too about social media. It's very toxic when it comes to politics. I wonder if we will reach a point where they try to curb the nastier stuff? I realise this may be an issue for you guys due to free speech but we don't have that here anyway so it's perhaps a different battle for us?