> I don't know, is everyone's LinkedIn experience as miserable as mine was?
I just ignore my feed and rely on it as an address book of people I can contact in my industry / previous places of employment. I don't really want 3000+ phone numbers without the related metadata of where we overlapped.
> I don't understand why we're talking about spending trillions so flippantly and none of it has anything to do with health care.
Private health insurance has its bribes paid up.
The corporations this bill has a negative impact on are pinning their hopes on Joe Manchin because they can't afford to bribe the entire Democratic party.
Did you ask this question about all the partisan bills passed by the GOP when they were in power? And if so, was the answer not the same?
> I don’t have any sources, but I thought a sizable segment of the voting public in the US favored bipartisanship.
In the abstract, yes. In reality, politicians get punished for failing to deliver on campaign promises and the GOP obstructs campaign promise success using any means possible. So its political suicide for a Democrat to rely on that. Which leads to:
> Just wishing we weren’t so polarized…. Also wishing I better understood what interests were pushing the polity towards polarized ideologies. I’m not convinced it’s a completely organic phenomenon (rather, that there are special interests benefiting from the polarization).
Yup. Its called oligarchy and its the real government model of the US at this stage. Polarization is really just two camps of rich people fighting it out with PR/political campaigns. More polarization leads to better viewing and better base turnout.
One group of rich people who think the rich should be taxed more, that climate change should be tackled, etc.
And one group of rich people who want lower taxes and to obstruct the first group.
> In the abstract, yes. In reality, politicians get punished for failing to deliver on campaign promises and the GOP obstructs campaign promise success using any means possible.
A similar phenomenon. Polls show that everybody hates Congress, but everybody likes their own congresspeople.
> He embezzled millions of dollars from his brother and co-owner, who later sued him, and him taking a pay cut and increasing his employees' pay was nothing short of a settlement.
That is not correct. You cannot claim this guy embezzled millions of dollars when his brother lost his lawsuit.
> Gravity Payments' Dan Price--who made headlines around the world last year when he instituted a $70,000 minimum wage at the company he founded--won a resounding victory in a lawsuit brought last year by his brother and co-founder, Lucas Price.
> Judge Doyle wrote in her ruling that "[t]he court finds that Daniel's compensation decisions in 2013 and 2014 were a reasonable business judgment made in good faith," and "[t]he Towers Watson report corroborated the reasonableness of Daniel Price's compensation."
> In her ruling, Judge Doyle said, "There was evidence that Daniel Price used the company credit card for expenses that were not subsequently reimbursed. However, Lucas Price has not proven this claim"--along with many others he made in his lawsuit, judging from her decision.
I don't understand why this was downvoted. Are the cited articles incorrect? Is context missing? I came to this sub-thread to learn about the guy, and this comment seemed to have the most authoritative quotes and links.
But it's been downvoted to the bottom, as if something is wrong with it. Why?
> In almost every way measurable, millennials in the U.S. at 40 are doing worse financially than the generations that came before them.
> Now, if predictions of a long, post-Covid economic boom are to be believed, this may be the last opportunity an entire generation has to build wealth before heading off into retirement.
Eh, Millennials are measurably worse off than boomers or Gen X were at their age.
> 1. I don’t want my healthcare to be provided by the same people who brought me a lifetime of experiences at the Department of Motor Vehicles.
The public option still doesn't create that situation because its health insurance. They still aren't going to be healthcare providers.
> 2. Healthcare is expensive. I’m already paying for healthcare for my family; why would I want to pay for healthcare for others as well?
You already are through Medicare, Medicaid, and the Hospital System. In the articles example, you have people waiting until 65 to get more expensive surgical intervention that is less likely to preserve their life due to the wait.
> 3. Good healthcare is expensive and I can afford and buy the best health insurance. I don’t want the best to be unavailable to me and my family because we’re all on a “just OK” government system.
Under a public option system, you'd still be able to buy private insurance. No one is banning this.
I think its misguided because the quality of insurance doesn't guarantee the quality of doctor and frankly, unless you are a specialist in their field, its unlikely you'll be able to accurately gauge the quality of care you receive. I've known plenty of people in the profession of manufacturing dental implants/equipment who thought they could judge the quality of their dentists and failed miserably to the point of needing to switch dentists due to poor workmanship.
> 4. I’m a medical professional and think that I will make less money under a government-provided system of care.
Alright, how do you feel about lowering the federal tax rate for me personally? Not everyone else, just me.
Seems a bit unreasonable when phrased that way doesn't it?
>"if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."
Which was always a stupid line because it's not "your" doctor, it was never your doctor. It was your insurance's doctor. If you get a new job and "your" doctor isn't in the insurance network, they're no longer your doctor.
> Under a public option system, you'd still be able to buy private insurance. No one is banning this.
Of course not. A public option obviously implies there is a private option. But a public option isn't the only thing being suggested. This was in the Medicare For All draft bill that Sanders introduced:
> SEC. 107. PROHIBITION AGAINST DUPLICATING COVERAGE. (a) IN GENERAL.—Beginning on the effective date described in section 106(a), it shall be unlawful for— (1) a private health insurer to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits provided under this Act; or (2) an employer to provide benefits for an employee, former employee, or the dependents of an employee or former employee that duplicate the benefits provided under this Act.
You can say "well, he's only one senator and he got toasted by Biden in the primary anyway", but he's a very influential and powerful figure and it's unfair to say that nobody is suggesting banning it.
Cool, let’s pull out of all of our military bases globally and really speed up Chinese unipolar hegemony. Sounds fun! We can’t remove ourselves from the position we inherited in 1946 without disrupting the global power balance on a massive scale.
Idealism and global geopolitics don’t mix. There’s no supranational organization to mediate disputes between countries, at least yet. Without that, brute force/power projection is how it works.
Is it not? It’s possible that the amount of funding required scales exponentially with relative military power, as you have more nations that would be willing to dethrone you, so you must be able to withstand your opponents’ cumulative military strength.
Even with as much as we spend, China is a formidable military threat.
Debatable. R&D funding, job creation (including at overseas bases and embassies), massive economic benefits from being the world reserve currency, etc.
I just ignore my feed and rely on it as an address book of people I can contact in my industry / previous places of employment. I don't really want 3000+ phone numbers without the related metadata of where we overlapped.