4 ms·
Well, the whole reason why this situation took place is because people in red states are fed up with the influx of blue voters, that end up bringing in the exac
by UkrainianJew 4y ago
Well, the whole reason why this situation took place is because people in red states are fed up with the influx of blue voters, that end up bringing in the exact problems that made them relocate.
This is how empires fall. As people with different political views no longer depend on each other economically, they drift more and more into opposite directions, until they do not want to share the same government anymore.
- hedora 4y agoLook at national opinion polls. The US is incredibly united right now. 70% want medicare for all (53% want single payer health care). Strong majorities object to overturning Roe v Wade and rolling back gun control laws. The issue is that the senate can be filibustered with 5% of the US population's backing. A majority vote requires 8%. A fillibuster-proof majority requires 12%. This implies that it would not take many geographically mobile liberals to end the Republican party forever. Ironically, the Republican party invented this technique back when they were what we would currently call a liberal party. It worked great. Read up on carpetbaggers.
- Dracophoenix 4y agoWhich polls are you looking at? Do they have the sampling data or provide limiting factors for their assessment?
- jimbob45 4y agoYeah, I’ve seen a lot of poll numbers today without citation. To be fair, every existing poll can be safely defenestrated anyway since the SCOTUS ruling will have changed a high fraction of minds.
- hedora 4y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31768611 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31768611
- ch4s3 4y agoNot to overly pick a nit, but if you dig into that Medicare for all poll, only a single digit percentage of Americans support it when you get into the actual details of the plan as presented at the time of the poll.
- UkrainianJew 4y agoWell, yeah. The root of the problem isn't single-payer vs. out-of-pocket. The real problem is too many people competing for too little doctors and hospital beds. Making it centrally-funded won't magically warp new doctors from hyperspace. It will simply shift the pressure from prices to waiting times. The working solution would be to reduce the bureaucracy and make it easier to open new practices, ban anticompetitive behavior by hospitals and address the residency spot bottleneck. But nope, nobody is suggesting that. We keep fighting about the most fair way to split 3 beds between 10 people.
- ch4s3 4y ago> The real problem is too many people competing for too little doctors and hospital beds. Well, that one of the problems and the AMA is very effective as a labor organization.
- dillondoyle 4y agoSure but I think the thrust of OP is correct. single payer alone is close to 70% now. medicare itself is very very popular in that age group. People are easily scared and those that already have good care are afraid of losing it. Look at death panels. but the general idea of healthcare as a fundamental right and a national system of health are very popular.
- ch4s3 4y ago> single payer alone is close to 70% now. Thats only when you don't get into the details of the implementation, and things like the need to pay for it with something like a European style VAT tax. When you dig in to the details in the polls, support plummets. This isn't a critique of the idea, just noting the on the details almost no Americans actually support doing what it would take to implement. > Look at death panels. All healthcare systems have some kind of rationing, in America generally people who don't have employer provided healthcare and are neither especially poor or old get care rationed. This isn't ideal, I agree.
- dillondoyle 4y agoI disagree with what you say. But am commenting on the 'economic ties' of diplomacy theory. Seems pretty debunked given the last decade of geopolitical changes and current war.