2020 Elections

[Economizer]

Code Select Expand

Speaking of Joe Public and insurance, the issue should be the cost of healthcare to the individual, no matter who, goverment [?] insurance firm [?] employer [?] magnanimous benefactor [?] WHOEVER [?], pays for the service. As I understand it, each organization making payments negotiates billing or billed rates while uninsured individuals probably pay higher rates for services. My suggestion would be for uninsured patients to be billed for no higher amounts than the lowest negotiated prices with healthcare coverage providers. Individuals and government could then work on finance assists. Should be easy enough to do, huh?

[Parasaurolophus]

Speaking of Joe Public and insurance, the issue should be the cost of healthcare to the individual, no matter who, goverment [?] insurance firm [?] employer [?] magnanimous benefactor [?] WHOEVER [?], pays for the service. As I understand it, each organization making payments negotiates billing or billed rates while uninsured individuals probably pay higher rates for services. My suggestion would be for uninsured patients to be billed for no higher amounts than the lowest negotiated prices with healthcare coverage providers. Individuals and government could then work on finance assists. Should be easy enough to do, huh?

Easier not to bill individuals at all!

[ciao_yall]

Is the only concern here "what someone wants to do" with their education? If I'm putting my money into the mix, perhaps to the extent that this education is free, are my wants and needs at 0%? Is it crazy for me to say that when we are importing nurses from Africa and Engineers from India while every barista at Starbucks has a Sociology or English lit degree, perhaps the monetary incentives of education in those fields should not be the same.

In short, you can study whatever you want, but if society is putting their money on the line, society should get some say about the desired outcomes. If society values waiting less time in an ER after being shot than they do having a service worker whose subpar attitude is coupled with a knowledge of Foucault, that seems like a reasonable decision that someone footing the bill should have an input on. What I find from almost every Joe Public is that they value education in fields they consider to be "real" and discount fields they consider to be of little value to society.

My understanding, (but I stand to be corrected), is that the system in Germany works somewhat like this. Education is free, but the number of spaces in a discipline is based on the number needed to fit the economy. So if you get into a program, you're pretty likely to be employed in that field soon after graduation.

Seems like a smart system to me.

Maybe... but then doesn't it become stifling and self-fulfilling?

For example, the economy needs data-entry clerks, so it trains lots of keypunch operators. Then, why computerize or train computer scientists? You have a huge infrastructure of keypunchers, people who train and certify keypunchers, and a bureaucracy and labor union in place to protect the jobs of keypunch operators.

Or stenographers with wonderful shorthand. Who needs typewriters? Or with all the scribes, who needs a printing press? We have flat rocks and clay, why start making paper?

[marshwiggle]

My understanding, (but I stand to be corrected), is that the system in Germany works somewhat like this. Education is free, but the number of spaces in a discipline is based on the number needed to fit the economy. So if you get into a program, you're pretty likely to be employed in that field soon after graduation.

Seems like a smart system to me.

Maybe... but then doesn't it become stifling and self-fulfilling?

For example, the economy needs data-entry clerks, so it trains lots of keypunch operators. Then, why computerize or train computer scientists? You have a huge infrastructure of keypunchers, people who train and certify keypunchers, and a bureaucracy and labor union in place to protect the jobs of keypunch operators.

If all industries were state-owned, that may work. However, automation is still much cheaper than labour with ongoing costs. For a private company, automation will still be cheaper in the long run.

Also, presumably whoever is allocating spaces for programs is going to be looking at trends for employment, so the number of spaces will be anticipating the need a few years later. It wouldn't be entirely static. Once a profession starts to decline, the spaces will decline faster.

Or stenographers with wonderful shorthand. Who needs typewriters? Or with all the scribes, who needs a printing press? We have flat rocks and clay, why start making paper?

One printing press will replace dozens (hundreds?) of scribes; as I said, unless the business is state-owned, and so "full employment" is constitutionally required, the printing press wins in a heartbeat.

[mamselle]

Today's the day.

Praying/thinking all good thoughts for the Electoral College and its members, now and up until Jan 6th.

   https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/14/politics/electoral-college-donald-trump-joe-biden/index.html

If we get through this, the careful, patient, courageous journalists who have picked through this administration's offal and exposed its undigested lies to the sunlight deserve all the credit.

There are 126 Republicans that I wonder about, too. They probably think they are doing a good thing as they look at themselves in the mirror each morning.

What will it take for them to learn?

This is very much an issue of higher education....or education and learning in the upper branches of the social and civic hierarchy.

At least from my perspective, it is.

Who taught them logic? They have something to answer for....

M.

[marshwiggle]

Today's the day.


There are 126 Republicans that I wonder about, too. They probably think they are doing a good thing as they look at themselves in the mirror each morning.

What will it take for them to learn?

Do you seriously think it would be better if members of the electoral college just did whatever they felt like, rather than doing what they were appointed to do?

If that's not a recipe for civil war, I don't know what is.

[mamselle]

Sorry, I don't know what you're talking about.

That's nothing like what I said.

I'm hoping the EC does follow the will of the voting public, as supported over the past month by all the state and national judicial decisions against the doofuses seeking to change that.

Do you concatenate the most unlikely possible interpretation of something to pick a fight over, and then sit back to watch/join in the fray?

If you hadn't directly misrepresented my own words, I'd have ignored it and gone on, but just in case there was the tiniest possible chance I wasn't clear, I thought I'd better address it now.

Sorry, you're busted.

All the pessimism, and no obvious evidence of Puddleglum's redeeming qualities...

M.

[marshwiggle]

Sorry, I don't know what you're talking about.

That's nothing like what I said.

I'm hoping the EC does follow the will of the voting public, as supported over the past month by all the state and national judicial decisions against the doofuses seeking to change that.

Do you concatenate the most unlikely possible interpretation of something to pick a fight over, and then sit back to watch/join in the fray?

My mistake. I assumed the 126 Republicans referred to members of the electoral college.

[pgher]

Sorry, I don't know what you're talking about.

That's nothing like what I said.

I'm hoping the EC does follow the will of the voting public, as supported over the past month by all the state and national judicial decisions against the doofuses seeking to change that.

Do you concatenate the most unlikely possible interpretation of something to pick a fight over, and then sit back to watch/join in the fray?

My mistake. I assumed the 126 Republicans referred to members of the electoral college.

No, it's the list of House Republicans, including my own representative, who signed on to the Texas case. Mine posted on Facebook, "Democrats believe that voter suppression happens but voter fraud doesn't!" To which someone responded, essentially, yes--because there's proof of one and not the other.

[mamselle]

Sorry, I don't know what you're talking about.

That's nothing like what I said.

I'm hoping the EC does follow the will of the voting public, as supported over the past month by all the state and national judicial decisions against the doofuses seeking to change that.

Do you concatenate the most unlikely possible interpretation of something to pick a fight over, and then sit back to watch/join in the fray?

My mistake. I assumed the 126 Republicans referred to members of the electoral college.

OK. Forgiven.

Maybe you do know Puddleglum, after all...

M.

[lightning]

One would think that the Republican shenanigans would be done, after today's electoral college vote, but no. The more they lose, the more insane the shenanigans become.

They are sending up the votes of an "alternative" slate of Republican electors. This is already happening.

Based on the ridiculous shenanigans so far, I predict that the Republicans will try to appoint the senate as a sort of "Supremer Court" that will hear the Trump campaign's case, judge it, and offer relief in the form of invalidating the votes of the electoral college and installing Trump, with this "alternative" slate of electors.

However, this will fail because ultimately, both the house and senate have to "object" and "accept" the objection. That's not going to happen with a House of Reps. controlled by the Dems (although this raises an interesting option for future sore losers of a presidential race, if the candidate's party controls both chambers).

If they don't get what they want, I would predict that Pence would refuse to recognize and would not announce and would not declare Biden as the winner. Republicans would seize on that as an opportunity to declare an impasse and an excuse to overturn and replace the election results. Where it would go from there is beyond shenanigans, but I'm sure the Republican fantasy would involve armed "patriots." It usually does.

[mamselle]

One would think that the Republican shenanigans would be done, after today's electoral college vote, but no. The more they lose, the more insane the shenanigans become.

They are sending up the votes of an "alternative" slate of Republican electors. This is already happening.

Based on the ridiculous shenanigans so far, I predict that the Republicans will try to appoint the senate as a sort of "Supremer Court" that will hear the Trump campaign's case, judge it, and offer relief in the form of invalidating the votes of the electoral college and installing Trump, with this "alternative" slate of electors.

However, this will fail because ultimately, both the house and senate have to "object" and "accept" the objection. That's not going to happen with a House of Reps. controlled by the Dems (although this raises an interesting option for future sore losers of a presidential race, if the candidate's party controls both chambers).

If they don't get what they want, I would predict that Pence would refuse to recognize and would not announce and would not declare Biden as the winner. Republicans would seize on that as an opportunity to declare an impasse and an excuse to overturn and replace the election results. Where it would go from there is beyond shenanigans, but I'm sure the Republican fantasy would involve armed "patriots." It usually does.

I so long to celebrate the end of this election saga in a positive, hopeful way.

I very much hope we get to do so.

M.

[marshwiggle]

One would think that the Republican shenanigans would be done, after today's electoral college vote, but no. The more they lose, the more insane the shenanigans become.

The thing that has to be acknowledged is the twisted symbiosis with the media. (And I'm not just talking Fox news.) After the inauguration, there will no doubt still be a fringe that won't accept the result. As there always has been a fringe that doesn't trust any government. However, they will still get media coverage, because the more fringy they are the more eyeballs they will get. And that's what drives the media.

If the media would focus more on what is important, even when it isn't flashy or controversial, rather than on what is  shocking, the world would be a better place. (Sometimes what is important is shocking, but that's the exception rather than the rule.)

The media should not be long-format Twitter.

[ergative]

If they don't get what they want, I would predict that Pence would refuse to recognize and would not announce and would not declare Biden as the winner. Republicans would seize on that as an opportunity to declare an impasse and an excuse to overturn and replace the election results. Where it would go from there is beyond shenanigans, but I'm sure the Republican fantasy would involve armed "patriots." It usually does.

The media circles I read say that in the event of such an impasse we get President-by-default Pelosi. But that is so unprecedented that it would be pretty ugly no matter what the official constitutional line of succession says anyway.

[lightning]

One would think that the Republican shenanigans would be done, after today's electoral college vote, but no. The more they lose, the more insane the shenanigans become.

The thing that has to be acknowledged is the twisted symbiosis with the media. (And I'm not just talking Fox news.) After the inauguration, there will no doubt still be a fringe that won't accept the result. As there always has been a fringe that doesn't trust any government. However, they will still get media coverage, because the more fringy they are the more eyeballs they will get. And that's what drives the media.

If the media would focus more on what is important, even when it isn't flashy or controversial, rather than on what is  shocking, the world would be a better place. (Sometimes what is important is shocking, but that's the exception rather than the rule.)

The media should not be long-format Twitter.

Agreed. Trump played the media with antics (he is a reality TV celebrity, after all), and that's why he got (gets) so much free publicity. Biden, Clinton, Cruz, Rubio, Kasich, and Bush, are too boring for eyeballs, clicks, and ratings, other than as targets of derision for Trump. In other words, in terms of publicity & coverage, "the media" is beneficial to Trump and his party.