I AM WHITE/AMERICAN PRIVILEGE

[ptatc]

I agree that many people vote against what we would perceive to be their best interests, but I think that's only if we consider people's financial best interests to be the sole basis of casting a vote. I know plenty of union members who are staunch Republicans. Doesn't make much sense to me since the Republican platform is pretty much anti-union, but they have their reasons, I'm sure.

 

If they value guns and believe Republican religious values represent them best, and they cast their votes for the Republican. Who am I to question their reasons?

 

Do we question rich people like Bill Gates, Oprah, Warren Buffet or the "liberals" in Hollywood who vote against their personal best financial interests? I don't ever see that (FYI - I'm not even certain Gates & Buffet vote Democratic, but I know they have talked about paying higher taxes).

Mostly because they can afford it. Their finances are their strengths. It doesn't hurt them as much as the taking away the guns and such that others value. taking away some money vs. taking away all of the guns.

[Jerksticks]

Why is it when someone disagrees with a specific belief they have to answer for a whole political party who they may or may not agree with or identify with? At the least, why is it someone who disagrees with something has to respond to all of your irrelevant tangents? It's a deflection.

 

It's pretty simple here. I, and many others who have come out of the woodwork to speak out against your's and Reddy's opinions, believe in equality of opportunity. You and Reddy believe there is not equality until the outcome is entirely equal. That will never happen. You and Reddy are not fighting a losing battle, you are fighting for something that has no basis in reality. It's not going to happen. You are looking to get others on your side, but in action, you are just pretentiously arguing an altruistic, utopian dream is attainable (it's not) and the first step in achieving it is putting down others based on their race, gender and orientation is essential to achieving this. This contributes to divisiveness and makes white people who have relevant life experience, we know you two have had most provided for you, very much questionable to their unjust systemic discrimination based on race as opposed to wealth.

 

Unfortunately, institutions have followed suit in contributing to the race and sex based discrimination but at the end of the day, it's a blatant departure from equality. No holier than though standing and personal opinions of yours is going to change that.

 

You're slaying it in here right now. Super on point, calm and in control. It's quite pleasurable reading and as a grown man in this world with a big ass heart for everybody, I completely agree with every point you've made I think. Rockit

[greg775]

Just more flippant comments. Biden runs for president, despite his family's personal difficulties, and he beats Trump, we're not having this conversation. Merrick Garland is still probably blocked by the GOP for some other lame excuse, though.

 

Then again, Rabbit investigative journalism on the Biden sons' marital relations might have turned the tide to the GOP.

Biden couldn't run for gosh sakes, he'd have been lambasted by all Demos. It was Hillary's turn, it was Hillary's time, it was Hillary's right to be President and she had to be the nominee. Biden would have been seen as the creep who ruined the Demos chances of winning by splitting the party during the primaries. Bernie was seen as too clownish to be a real threat. The Democrats put up with him for a while.

[caulfield12]

How would Biden be "a creep" when he's arguably the most popular DEM politician today?

Either him, Sanders or Michelle Obama. Liz Warren MIGHT be 4th.

 

Hillary Clinton, white privilege, lol...you got me there. Her husband, not so much.

 

 

[caulfield12]

You're slaying it in here right now. Super on point, calm and in control. It's quite pleasurable reading and as a grown man in this world with a big ass heart for everybody, I completely agree with every point you've made I think. Rockit

 

LOL.

 

If you think it's compelling stuff to put down the poor/immigrants/Muslims and anyone seeking the American Dream that's NOT white, okay.

 

He sounds exactly like Mick Mulvaney. It's going to result in a disastrous mid-term election for the GOP in 2018. But who knows, 40% of the people in America believe that illegal immigrants TODAY IN AMERICA (under the Trump regime) actually have a MUCH easier time than whites born as American citizens.

 

 

Edited May 31, 2017 by caulfield12

[Jerksticks]

LOL.

 

If you think it's compelling stuff to put down the poor/immigrants/Muslims and anyone seeking the American Dream that's NOT white, okay.

 

He sounds exactly like Mick Mulvaney. It's going to result in a disastrous mid-term election for the GOP in 2018. But who knows, 40% of the people in America believe that illegal immigrants TODAY IN AMERICA (under the Trump regime) actually have a MUCH easier time than whites born as American citizens.

 

Dude. I just said I have a big heart for all people. Who the heck do you think you are telling me that I think it's "compelling stuff to put down the poor/immigrants/Muslims and anyone seeking the American Dream that's NOT white".

 

I have absolutely no beef with you or anyone on this board Caulfield. Why on earth would you just call me a racist piece of crap? Why do that?

[caulfield12]

Dude. I just said I have a big heart for all people. Who the heck do you think you are telling me that I think it's "compelling stuff to put down the poor/immigrants/Muslims and anyone seeking the American Dream that's NOT white".

 

I have absolutely no beef with you or anyone on this board Caulfield. Why on earth would you just call me a racist piece of crap? Why do that?

 

First of all, I never said that. Why is the default defense position always the same?

 

Why can't all of those groups I listed AND white males all enjoy success in America? Are they mutually-exclusive eventualities?

Must one group (or more) fall while the others rise, or vice-versa?

 

I keep reading all these stories laced with anti-Affirmative Action themes, it just makes me wonder when did everyone in America become so individually-oriented (I won't say selfish). As long as the policy goal isn't "the greatest good for the greatest number" (meaning all Americans, collectively), then everyone just gets put in these neat little boxes of interest groups and factions, the elderly vs. the Millennials, whites vs. non-whites, healthy vs. non-healthy, etc.

 

I'm not even clear reading such posts that people are asking for 1) an end of Affirmative Action, because they believe it's inherently unfair, or 2) they're just upset they're no longer the recipient of any special benefits/support?

 

What is the point of vilifying immigrants to the US when the rate at which they commit crimes is considerably lower than those born as Americans? (And this makes sense, logically, that you have to watch your P's and Q's in order not to do anything to jeopardize your citizenship/Green Card track.)

 

Does everyone in this thread really want to round up every single family (even children, because it's unfair to separate them) in the US that has been here 5, 10, maybe even 20 years or more and send them back to Mexico? To create a police state where every single immigrant (with citizenship or not) lives in fear of a virtual police state??? I think the Gang of 8 might disagree on that count. It's just not the humane, Christian thing to do...and that's not even taking into account all the adverse economic impacts that will result. Lots of jobs that no Americans are willing to do. Tremendous crime/gang problems all pushed to the other side of the border (temporarily), with no realistic way to contain it, despite building all the ways in the world.

 

I've never seen a single person give an account of all the many who benefited from Affirmative Action policies...and how their lives, and their families' lives were changed for the good or better? Does that have no intrinsic value, if it doesn't benefit you directly (and, in your idea, perhaps has an adverse effect)?

 

 

http://money.cnn.com/interactive/technolog...diversity-data/

 

And if Affirmative Action has provided all these benefits to minorities, why is it not reflected at all by the employment numbers of those working in Silicon Valley at Cisco, Dell, ebay and Intel? Or representation in venture capital firms? Congress? Heads of major corporations?

 

The main group succeeding is Asian-Americans, and they're succeeding in the face of the same "reverse discrimination" that is apparently debilitating to white Americans. What is it that's preventing all of those kids from succeeding in the American economy today, and why don't the same factors equally affect Asian-Americans (in fact, you can argue they have to work 2-4X as hard for the same rungs on the ladder as whites, yet they hardly ever complain, they just deal with the circumstances and overcome the competition.)

 

And what would the numbers of minorities working in those above-surveyed companies WITHOUT Affirmative Action?

Edited May 31, 2017 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

Quote anyone in this thread other than Reddy who has put down the "poor/immigrants/Muslims and anyone seeking the American Dream." No tangents, no italics, no yahoo blog links or lists of countries or 90's Sox players. Back your claim up. No puking of random sentences. Back your claim up of people dissenting those groups or admit you're full of it and a bully.

 

I'm sick of this bulls***. People like you are why Trump got elected in the first place. The complete rejection of this SJW culture, the snarl words, the verbal shutdowns, everyone's racist, everyone's sexist, everyone's gender insentive, etc. If you cannot substantiate your claim, it will be clear as day that you are a weak minded individual who stoops to low places in a baseless attempt to try and malign the character of others when you can't articulate your house of cards argument effectively on its own merit. It's despicable.

 

So nowhere in this thread (or any in the Filibuster) have you maligned any of those groups...you're only "pro-white," right?

 

That's not how it comes across at all.

 

The most amusing part was trying to twist everything around and paint Reddy as a "closet racist."

 

You have never presented a single solution to any of these problems, just a litany of complaints. I'm more than happy to discuss common areas of agreement such as charter schools (reserving judgment on going to vouchers exclusively), vocational/technical programs, support for particularly effective non-profit/charitable organizations, etc. You quite rarely discuss substantive political policy when you're throwing out your conspiracy theories without any evidence to back it up. Don't you understand that there are MORE people on the RIGHT side of the political fence these days who are becoming disgusted that they're being peddled "non-facts" and obfuscations instead of something close to fact or reality? How can you explain why more and more Republicans are leaving Fox News? Why former Bush speech reader and lifelong Republican Michael Gerson asserts that Republicans today "have a diseased mind" and carrying the water for Trump is not doing anyone any favors?

 

By the way, weak-minded, baseless allegations, malign, "house of cards," despicable, such provocative language. That's all you got?

 

 

So I'll just chime back that it's despicable to to support a party whose leaders say things like "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president (Obama) no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax ... [M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives." Mitt Romney

 

Because that's exactly the message you're sending with every single post you write. It's part and parcel with every comment made on these threads about Democrats or Affirmative Action.

 

Do you disagree with a single word that Mitt Romney said back in 2012? You should. Because it's not even accurate. The fact of the matter is that nearly 54 million Americans are now receiving Social Security retirement benefits. The USA population is around 307,006,550, so roughly 17.6% of the population is receiving SS payments. (One out of five retired couples and four out of ten unmarried individuals derive 90 percent or more of their income from Social Security.) 55.3 million receive Medicare benefits. (http://www.ncpssm.org/Medicare/MedicareFastFacts). So Mitt Romney is talking about every American over age 65/67.5 in that anti-government diatribe of his.

 

That's despicable. To posit the theory that anyone receiving benefit from the Federal government is "stealing" from everyone else...that those people are all the "common enemy" along with illegal immigrants/Muslims, etc.

 

So the Dems will call Trump's true believers "deplorables" (another group roughly half the size of Mitt Romney's 47%). You'll bring up that Hillary called repeat offending/violent crimes convicted African-American men "superpredators" in the 1980's and we'll keep going around and around again in more circles of insults back and forth (completely glossing over the context of that particular era of American politics, where to be "weak or soft" on crime was a death sentence for Democratic candidates for national office.)

 

Rinse and repeat.

Edited May 31, 2017 by caulfield12

[Reddy]

Quote anyone in this thread other than Reddy who has put down the "poor/immigrants/Muslims and anyone seeking the American Dream." No tangents, no italics, no yahoo blog links or lists of countries or 90's Sox players. Back your claim up. No puking of random sentences. Back your claim up of people dissenting those groups or admit you're full of it and a bully.

 

I'm sick of this bulls***. People like you are why Trump got elected in the first place. The complete rejection of this SJW culture, the snarl words, the verbal shutdowns, everyone's racist, everyone's sexist, everyone's gender insentive, etc. If you cannot substantiate your claim, it will be clear as day that you are a weak minded individual who stoops to low places in a baseless attempt to try and malign the character of others when you can't articulate your house of cards argument effectively on its own merit. It's despicable.

 

People like you are also why Trump got elected, FYI.

 

[caulfield12]

And Russian "bots." Or were they Macedonian?

 

Honestly, I'm willing to bet 90% of Trump voters never even bothered to read those vast left wing conspiracy articles that popped up at Infowars, Wikipedia, FB, etc...they simply believed the headlines. Confirmation bias. It's like Greg listening to Limbaugh all day and then being shocked/surprised he parrots the Republican viewpoint on a topic.

 

Those that did ended up storming Pizza Shoppes in New Jersey. And turned out to be one of the main "advocates" out there pushing that "pedophiles in the basement" story, none other than General Flynn's own son. Sean Hannity was still bring up Seth Rich THIS week after promising not to do so (again).

 

 

Edited May 31, 2017 by caulfield12

[Reddy]

Still excited to hear SS2K defend why what I do marginalizes blacks, but his work doesn't.

 

Do the kids you work with need you? Do they depend on your organization? Does your work improve their lives? Inquiring minds want to know.

[southsider2k5]

Still excited to hear SS2K defend why what I do marginalizes blacks, but his work doesn't.

 

Do the kids you work with need you? Do they depend on your organization? Does your work improve their lives? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

Translation: I need to use talking points, please provide me with something I can use to trigger those talking points.

[Reddy]

Translation: I need to use talking points, please provide me with something I can use to trigger those talking points.

No. Translation: you're being massively hypocritical and you know it, so you're avoiding answering the question.

[southsider2k5]

No. Translation: you're being massively hypocritical and you know it, so you're avoiding answering the question.

 

You are bitter about the way I view your points of view, so you want to find something on me to "trap" me on. You just admitted as much right here. You wonder why people don't respect your opinion, well here you go. You are more worried about sticking it to someone than the topic at hand. It isn't the first time you have tried the time held questioning of credentials to disqualify technique.

[Reddy]

You are bitter about the way I view your points of view, so you want to find something on me to "trap" me on. You just admitted as much right here. You wonder why people don't respect your opinion, well here you go. You are more worried about sticking it to someone than the topic at hand. It isn't the first time you have tried the time held questioning of credentials to disqualify technique.

 

If proving your hypocrisy is trapping you, I plead guilty.

 

You're so transparent. Answer the question.

 

[Reddy]

And for the record, YOU are the one who made this personal. I was speaking about the issue, YOU used it to paint me as a "racist".

Edited May 31, 2017 by Reddy

[caulfield12]

The problem I have is the Republicans don't want to actually expose themselves to providing actual solutions to real problems like poverty.

 

They still don't have a health care fix after 23 years, other than "privatization/buying across state borders." So we just receive these talking points and generalities.

 

Can't Southsider2k5 talk about his wife's anti-poverty program in a way that we can actually weigh the merits of that approach...instead of just going back to the point that Democrats/Reddy "cripple" the future of minorities by paying lip service to helping them but up doing a disservice by making program assistance recipients dependent/reliant and often simply perpetuate stereotypes (the White solutions to non-white community problems, which are well-intentioned but often not constructive in the eyes of the GOP.) Can you quantify or measure its success as an anti poverty program, and how?

 

The above paragraph, just my take and not a reflection on Reddy in particular...just the typical back and forth on govnt social program spending.

[ptatc]

The problem I have is the Republicans don't want to actually expose themselves to providing actual solutions to real problems like poverty.

 

They still don't have a health care fix after 23 years, other than "privatization/buying across state borders." So we just receive these talking points and generalities.

 

Can't Southsider2k5 talk about his wife's anti-poverty program in a way that we can actually weigh the merits of that approach...instead of just going back to the point that Democrats/Reddy "cripple" the future of minorities by paying lip service to helping them but up doing a disservice by making program assistance recipients dependent/reliant and often simply perpetuate stereotypes (the White solutions to non-white community problems, which are well-intentioned but often not constructive in the eyes of the GOP.) Can you quantify or measure its success as an anti poverty program, and how?

 

The above paragraph, just my take and not a reflection on Reddy in particular...just the typical back and forth on govnt social program spending.

This as well as limiting lawsuits are actually the two most important thing to drive costs down.

[caulfield12]

This as well as limiting lawsuits are actually the two most important thing to drive costs down.

 

The fact of the matter is that hospitals are charging people (entering an ER without insurance) four times as much as the going Medicare rate. That's crazy.

 

Until you also do something to limit hospital charges, as well as the profit margins of pharmaceutical companies and the insurance industry, you're going to inevitably have rising health care costs.

 

There's also a lot of conflicting evidence about cross-border shopping not leading to the automatic "slam dunk" competition gains that many Republicans are banking on.

 

Tort reform? Sure, as long as you don't rebalance the equation so much that patients lose their rights and doctors/hospitals are insulated too much (think of it as the equivalent of those on the right shouting about teacher's unions and lifetime tenure)...there has to be a compromise available in the middle. (Of course, the idea of limiting the "freedom" of lawyers to sue and earn as much money as possible from potential lawsuits goes against the American capitalistic system as well...although it often conflicts, because the victims of those lawsuits are often multinational corporations, so the Dems side with the lawyers and the GOP with the corporations and everyone loses in some way, shape or form.)

[ptatc]

The fact of the matter is that hospitals are charging people (entering an ER without insurance) four times as much as the going Medicare rate. That's crazy.

 

Until you also do something to limit hospital charges, as well as the profit margins of pharmaceutical companies and the insurance industry, you're going to inevitably have rising health care costs.

 

There's also a lot of conflicting evidence about cross-border shopping not leading to the automatic "slam dunk" competition gains that many Republicans are banking on.

 

Tort reform? Sure, as long as you don't rebalance the equation so much that patients lose their rights and doctors/hospitals are insulated too much (think of it as the equivalent of those on the right shouting about teacher's unions and lifetime tenure)...there has to be a compromise available in the middle. (Of course, the idea of limiting the "freedom" of lawyers to sue and earn as much money as possible from potential lawsuits goes against the American capitalistic system as well...although it often conflicts, because the victims of those lawsuits are often multinational corporations, so the Dems side with the lawyers and the GOP with the corporations and everyone loses in some way, shape or form.)

Depends on how you look at it. Hospitals charge it because they know the insurance companies will discount it and only pay a portion anyway. The hospitals never get what they actually charge. If you go to a hospital with cash there is usually a 40-60% discount.

 

There will be a discount in the prices if they allow the across state lines shopping. My wife is a VP for a major insurance company. They have laid off 10% of their work force in anticipation of the premiums dropping.

 

 

[LittleHurt05]

This as well as limiting lawsuits are actually the two most important thing to drive costs down.

 

I've always been told that malpractice insurance is the biggest reason health care has become so expensive.

[StrangeSox]

this is more of an "obamacare" post but tort reform has been tried in multiple states and it hasn't been found to drive down costs at all, but it did help drive up profits for doctors.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevecohen/201...w/#2e4b205263ea

[ptatc]

I've always been told that malpractice insurance is the biggest reason health care has become so expensive.

No doubt. But the high cost of malpractice insurance is due to the lawsuits. Limit lawsuits, malpractice premiums go down.

[ptatc]

this is more of an "obamacare" post but tort reform has been tried in multiple states and it hasn't been found to drive down costs at all, but it did help drive up profits for doctors.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevecohen/201...w/#2e4b205263ea

There are a few issues with that article. One significant one is that it discusses only ER docs. Of course, they haven't changed their practice by ordering fewer tests, mostbof the time they are dealing with patients who can't tell them what's going on. They are going to practice defensive medicine. I dont think this applies to everyday medicine where you will see savins.

 

Also, your point about driving up profits for doctors is wrong according to the article. It states the one onethe benefits they did find was that the costs in these states had a slower ibcrease than other states.

 

Tort reform may not make too much of a difference in just the ER setting but I think it would make a difference in the others.

[StrangeSox]

That's just the first general summary I googled up. Tort reform has been discussed for years, and the trials in Texas and other states did not show much of a reduction in overall costs or premiums, 1-2% for some plans but no effect for others. These are just some of the top google results, but I used to follow this more frequently.

 

http://www.nber.org/aginghealth/2009no3/w15371.html

To do so, the authors use a database of employer-sponsored health plans covering over 10 million non-elderly Americans annually for the period 1998 to 2006. The authors focus on four types of reforms-caps on non-economic damages (such as for pain and suffering), caps on punitive damages, collateral source reform (which reduces plaintiffs' awards if they receive public or private insurance benefits), and joint and several liability reform (which limits plaintiffs' ability to go after those parties with "deep pockets").

 

The authors basic approach is to make use of differences in the timing of adoption of these reforms by the states to identify the effect of reform on premiums. In their first key set of results, they find that each of the reforms except for the cap on punitive damages lowers health insurance premiums by 1 to 2 percent. This result applies to self-insured plans, those health plans for which the sponsoring employer directly pays realized health care costs of enrollees rather than paying an insurance carrier to bear this risk.

 

By contrast, the authors find that tort reforms have no effect on premiums of fully-insured plans. Since almost ninety percent of fully-insured plans in their data are managed by Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs), this finding suggests that HMOs may reduce defensive medicine without tort reform through monitoring of care. The authors test this hypothesis directly by comparing the effect of the reform by insurance plan type within the sample of self-insured firms. They confirm that responses to the reforms are concentrated among plan types other than HMOs, such as Preferred Provider Organizations (PPOs).

 

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/new-st...WdJtVa35WvZCCL/

None

A new study found no evidence that health care costs in Texas dipped after a 2003 constitutional amendment limited payouts in medical malpractice lawsuits, despite claims made to voters by some backers of tort reform.

 

The researchers, who include University of Texas law professor Charles Silver, examined Medicare spending in Texas counties and saw no reduction in doctors' fees for seniors and disabled patients between 2002 and 2009.

 

It's possible that tort reform could help on the margins, but the idea that it's the primary or even a main driver of increasing health care costs just doesn't seem to hold to to the data.