Florida doctor tells Obama supporters: Go elsewhere

[lejeunesage]

How would he know? It's 2,700 pages of beauracratic crap that won't be implemented for 4 years. Nobody knows. At best, a few privileged people can make educated guesses. What he does know is that a power shift took place that he's uncomfortable with. (Unfortunately, I don't know how sincere he is given his wife's run for a GOP position. Might be coincidence, might not.)

The number of pages is completely irrelevant. How many pages was the Medicare bill? Does anyone know? More importantly, does anyone care? I bet no one does. Focusing on the number of pages is a distraction. As for knowing what's in the bill, there have been countless pages of analyses written in countless publications. There is ample opportunity to inform yourself about how the bill will affect you. As for the bill's implication on the practice of medicine, well, we're at least as well informed as people were before the implementation of Medicare before. Opponents then as now portrayed it as something that would destroy medicine and when the storm of paranoia passed, people adapted to the new changes and even learned to like them (for one thing, Medicare became a cash cow for physicians very quickly).

Be that as it may, I'm glad he decided to post what he posted. Good for him. We have freedom of speech in this country and I'd rather have a physician who makes me know up front that he'd rather not treat me than force him to take care of me and subconsciously give me sub-standard quality treatment.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[tncekm]

The number of pages is completely irrelevant. How many pages was the Medicare bill?

It's relevant if you're trying to figure out what the hell it all means. Do you think anybody who isn't being paid massive amounts of money to do so will have a strong understanding of the 2,700 page bill, which consists of intentionally twisted bureaucratic-legalese? If not, please master it and then enlighten us.

 

[lejeunesage]

Also, for anyone who thinks that Republicans will gain majorities in congress next fall, I'd advise you to take a look at these maps:

http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/senate

http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/house

Republicans will likely make gains, but I would temper my expectations if I were expecting a reversal of the current congressional majorities.

 

[tncekm]

Also, for anyone who thinks that Republicans will gain majorities in congress next fall, I'd advise you to take a look at these maps:

http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/senate

http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/house

Republicans will likely make gains, but I would temper my expectations if I were expecting a reversal of the current congressional majorities.

Maybe, maybe not. You'll just have to wait and see. Ideological media outlets tend to publish data that supports their preferences. It happens on the left and the right. You posted one from the left.

 

[lejeunesage]

It's relevant if you're trying to figure out what the hell it all means. Do you think anybody who isn't being paid massive amounts of money to do so will have a strong understanding of the 2,700 page bill, which consists of intentionally twisted bureaucratic-legalese? If not, please master it and then enlighten us.

I'm not a health care policy analyst myself, but I have read several articles about what the reform project would do. I suggest you do the same. You can google "health care reform bill" and a plethora of articles will appear, some bashing it, some lauding it, and some explaining it. These articles do a much better job of explaining things than I could.

 

[lejeunesage]

Maybe, maybe not. You'll just have to wait and see. Ideological media outlets tend to publish data that supports their preferences. It happens on the left and the right. You posted one from the left.

I will wait and see, then.

 

[tncekm]

I'm not a health care policy analyst myself, but I have read several articles about what the reform project would do. I suggest you do the same. You can google "health care reform bill" and a plethora of articles will appear, some bashing it, some lauding it, and some explaining it. These articles do a much better job of explaining things than I could.

And yet, probably none of the authors writing those articles have an idea what the reform bill actually does! They're publishing talking points from the left and the right. They DID NOT read the 2,700 page bill.

 

[Parts Unknown]

Seriously, who cares?

I find it rather disturbing. A citizen of this country should be able to vote his/her conscience and not be subject to this BS by a friggin' doctor. Dr. Cassell is clearly very upset that his side was unable to prevent something he doesn't understand from becoming law, and now he's taking out his frustrations in a most puerile fashion. He's not breaking any rules, per se, but he does get a major D-bag award for this crap.

 

[tncekm]

I find it rather disturbing. A citizen of this country should be able to vote his/her conscience and not be subject to this BS by a friggin' doctor. Dr. Cassell is clearly very upset that his side was unable to prevent something he doesn't understand from becoming law, and now he's taking out his frustrations in a most puerile fashion. He's not breaking any rules, per se, but he does get a major D-bag award for this crap.

Yeah, he gets a d-bag award. And, it's reasonable for people to be disturbed about his actions. But, still... who cares? Ultimately, what will be the impact of this mans actions? There will be nothing of significance. Some people just might go see a urologist they like better and Dr. Cassell will lose some business.

 

[Parts Unknown]

Yeah, he gets a d-bag award. And, it's reasonable for people to be disturbed about his actions. But, still... who cares? Ultimately, what will be the impact of this mans actions?

Once the stars all die out and the universe cools to under 3 degrees Kelvin, nobody's actions will have had much impact on anything, period. But we're all still chugging away here...

 

[tncekm]

Once the stars all die out and the universe cools to under 3 degrees Kelvin, nobody's actions will have had much impact on anything, period. But we're all still chugging away here...

I like the statement, but I think I'm dull and I'm missing the relevance.

 

[Cleavername]

Also, for anyone who thinks that Republicans will gain majorities in congress next fall, I'd advise you to take a look at these maps:

http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/senate

http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/house

Republicans will likely make gains, but I would temper my expectations if I were expecting a reversal of the current congressional majorities.

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU(&)%#$@$&&*&$^#, i just realized democrats run NY. no wonder the schools here suck.

 

[tncekm]

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU(&)%#$@$&&*&$^#, i just realized democrats run NY. no wonder the schools here suck.

Try California. We're horrible, yet Californians have this elitist idea in their heads that everybody else is more stupid than we are. LOL. The irony kills me.

 

[lejeunesage]

And yet, probably none of the authors writing those articles have an idea what the reform bill actually does! They're publishing talking points from the left and the right. They DID NOT read the 2,700 page bill.

I have not read Adam Smith's the
Wealth of Nations, but I know what it's about. I have not read Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, yet I know what it's about. One needs not necessarily have read something in its entirety to know what it's about. And if you really don't think so and if you really care that much, it's all available online to read.

 

[lejeunesage]

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU(&)%#$@$&&*&$^#, i just realized democrats run NY. no wonder the schools here suck.

Non sequitur + ad hominem.

 

[tncekm]

I have not read Adam Smith's the
Wealth of Nations, but I know what it's about. I have not read Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, yet I know what it's about. One needs not necessarily have read something in its entirety to know what it's about. And if you really don't think so and if you really care that much, it's all available online to read.

Yet, you claim the doctor doesn't know what the bill is about based on your knowledge of other peoples knowledge? *sigh* Terribly inconsistent.

I agree he doesn't know what's in the bill, but that's because pretty much nobody does. And, the people who may know can say whatever they want about it--i.e. they can cherry-pick.

 

[lejeunesage]

Yet, you claim the doctor doesn't know what the bill is about based on your knowledge of other peoples knowledge? *sigh* Terribly inconsistent.

I agree he doesn't know what's in the bill, but that's because pretty much nobody does. And, the people who may know can say whatever they want about it--i.e. they can cherry-pick.

I'm not claiming anything about that doctor other than the fact that he has the right to express his opinion. Again, I take issue with the "nobody does." It's utterly simplistic. Many people know many different things about the bill. I know many things about the bill, many things that I find very relevant. But again, even if the bill were 100 pages long, the great majority of people would still not read it, not you, not me, not that physician. That's why the number of pages is irrelevant. The implication is that because it's 2700 pages long, it must be 10% health care and 90% pork, or something of the sort. While there is some pork in the bill (as in every bill, unfortunately), I'm assuming, unless there is proof the the contrary, that most of the bill concerns itself with issues of reforming the system, increasing access to those who don't have it, providing subsidies for middle and lower class people, banning insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, and raising revenues to accomplish all of this. If it takes 5,000 pages, so be it. If it takes 20 pages, so be it. I frankly couldn't care less.

 

[tncekm]

I'm not claiming anything about that doctor other than the fact that he has the right to express his opinion.

My bad, I confused your response to someone else's.

Again, I take issue with the "nobody does." It's utterly simplistic. Many people know many different things about the bill. I know many things about the bill, many things that I find very relevant. But again, even if the bill were 100 pages long, the great majority of people would still not read it, not you, not me, not that physician. That's why the number of pages is irrelevant.

It's not over simplistic. Find me people writing articles on the bill who have read and understood the whole bill. The fraction of people who have read this bill and have the knowledge to understand it likely number 0.0001% or less. Sure, they may know. But, what of the 2700 page bill do they report? Most likely, what they WANT to report. That's why nobody really knows.

The implication is that because it's 2700 pages long, it must be 10% health care and 90% pork, or something of the sort. While there is some pork in the bill (as in every bill, unfortunately), I'm assuming, unless there is proof the the contrary, that most of the bill concerns itself with issues of reforming the system,

Why assume that the government is being honest in this case, for once? To me, that's a much bigger leap of faith.

increasing access to those who don't have it, providing subsidies for middle and lower class people, banning insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, and raising revenues to accomplish all of this. If it takes 5,000 pages, so be it. If it takes 20 pages, so be it. I frankly couldn't care less.

Oh, sure. Those are the talking points everyone is familiar with. I'm sure it DOES do those things. But, that doesn't take 2700 pages.

 

[lejeunesage]

My bad, I confused your response to someone else's.

It's not over simplistic. Find me people writing articles on the bill who have read and understood the whole bill. The fraction of people who have read this bill and have the knowledge to understand it likely number 0.0001% or less. Sure, they may know. But, what of the 2700 page bill do they report? Most likely, what they WANT to report. That's why nobody really knows.

Why assume that the government is being honest in this case, for once? To me, that's a much bigger leap of faith.


Oh, sure. Those are the talking points everyone is familiar with. I'm sure it DOES do those things. But, that doesn't take 2700 pages.

Well, that is the case with every bill, though, whether you're talking about the Bush tax cuts, the Iraq War bill, the Patriot Act, the TARP bill, the Obama stimulus, or any large bill for that matter. The great majority of people does not read them entirely, if at all, but that doesn't mean that we know nothing of what those bills are about. Your argument amounts to saying that nobody knows anything about the bills government passes, which is simply not the case.

 

[Parts Unknown]

I like the statement, but I think I'm dull and I'm missing the relevance.

Well, the argument "who cares?" isn't much of an argument. Aside from the reductio ad absurdum angle, it simply isn't true. Google "Jack Cassell Obama" and you will find 212,000 hits. This little stunt has made it all over the news, and it's not good publicity for our profession.

 

[DMD Trumps MD]

bwahahahahaha
Dr. Jack Cassell is the man!!!!

so long suckas!!!!!!!!!

 

[tncekm]

Well, the argument "who cares?" isn't much of an argument. Aside from the reductio ad absurdum angle, it simply isn't true. Google "Jack Cassell Obama" and you will find 212,000 hits. This little stunt has made it all over the news, and it's not good publicity for our profession.

Okay, I take it back. THAT is a good reason to care.

 

[lejeunesage]

bwahahahahaha
Dr. Jack Cassell is the man!!!!

so long suckas!!!!!!!!!

What's a DMD anyway?

 

[tncekm]

What's a DMD anyway?

Doctor of Medical Dentistry

 

[lejeunesage]

Doctor of Medical Dentistry

Danke!

 

[cpants]

I'm not claiming anything about that doctor other than the fact that he has the right to express his opinion. Again, I take issue with the "nobody does." It's utterly simplistic. Many people know many different things about the bill. I know many things about the bill, many things that I find very relevant. But again, even if the bill were 100 pages long, the great majority of people would still not read it, not you, not me, not that physician. That's why the number of pages is irrelevant. The implication is that because it's 2700 pages long, it must be 10% health care and 90% pork, or something of the sort. While there is some pork in the bill (as in every bill, unfortunately), I'm assuming, unless there is proof the the contrary, that most of the bill concerns itself with issues of reforming the system, increasing access to those who don't have it, providing subsidies for middle and lower class people, banning insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, and raising revenues to accomplish all of this. If it takes 5,000 pages, so be it. If it takes 20 pages, so be it. I frankly couldn't care less.

Why on Earth would you assume that? More likely, 100 pages of the bill attempt to enact those changes, and 2600 pages cover peoples' asses, provide pork and concessions in exchange for votes, create loopholes for lobbyists and special interests, and generally muck up the waters and make it impossible for the average voter to have a clue what the bill actually does.

 

[CoffeeCzar]

It's great to see physicians who are lobbying for their most fundamental right, self-preservation. No matter what politicians claim, health care is not a right. No person has the right to another's services.

Doctors have gone out of their way over the past few decades to ensure their patients get the best access to care possible. There is a limit, however, to what physicians should take from the government, and from society. You can't cut physician pay in light of ever increasing education costs, increase regulation, insure 30 million more Americans and do nothing about medical liability, then, expect doctors to go along as if it's no big deal. Enough is enough.

How are people disgusted by this man? He completely has the right to decide who he treats and who he doesn't treat. If people support using force, via government, to further take control of his salary and tell him how to practice, then he is morally justified in responding with force to suggest that those people seek care elsewhere.

I think it's a wake up call. Physicians are very noble people, but they are not (yet) indentured servants of the state.

 

[lejeunesage]

It's great to see physicians who are lobbying for their most fundamental right, self-preservation. No matter what politicians claim, health care is not a right. No person has the right to another's services.

Doctors have gone out of their way over the past few decades to ensure their patients get the best access to care possible. There is a limit, however, to what physicians should take from the government, and from society. You can't cut physician pay in light of ever increasing education costs, increase regulation, insure 30 million more Americans and do nothing about medical liability, then, expect doctors to go along as if it's no big deal. Enough is enough.

How are people disgusted by this man? He completely has the right to decide who he treats and who he doesn't treat. If people support using force, via government, to further take control of his salary and tell him how to practice, then he is morally justified in responding with force to suggest that those people seek care elsewhere.

I think it's a wake up call. Physicians are very noble people, but they are not (yet) indentured servants of the state.

He most certainly does not!

He does, however, have the right to voice his opinion.

 

[lejeunesage]

Why on Earth would you assume that? More likely, 100 pages of the bill attempt to enact those changes, and 2600 pages cover peoples' asses, provide pork and concessions in exchange for votes, create loopholes for lobbyists and special interests, and generally muck up the waters and make it impossible for the average voter to have a clue what the bill actually does.

Because I am generally inclined to believing in government, while you are obviously a government-skeptic. While there is corruption in the system, I take the Humean (as in David Hume) view that it's a necessary evil. People work for their own selfish interests of re-election, and that interest if partly served by doing things that benefit the electorate. I'm under no illusion that the system is perfect -to me that would mean curbing the influence of money from corporations and unions- but it's been a remarkably effective government. Having lived under a dysfunctional government, I am very grateful for the one that we have here. To me, the good that government does is much greater than the corruption we have to suffer, and that's a trade I'm willing to make. Because of these views, I'm more inclined to thinking that a 2,700 page bill is mainly health care with some pork, while you're more inclined to thinking that it's mainly pork with some health care. But data in this case backs me up. In any given year, the amount of pork is a fraction (less than 1%) of the overall cost of legislation. I'm assuming that the amount of space it takes in bills is somewhat equivalent.

 

[tncekm]

Because I am generally inclined to believing in government, while you are obviously a government-skeptic.

I'd venture to say that there is much more history which warrants distrust of government than trust.

While there is corruption in the system, I take the Humean (as in David Hume) view that it's a necessary evil.

I think we all agree there. Anarchy would be, well, anarchy.

People work for their own selfish interests of re-election, and that interest if partly served by doing things that benefit the electorate. I'm under no illusion that the system is perfect -to me that would mean curbing the influence of money from corporations and unions-

I agree with you here. Especially with the unions, which have TONS of weight in politics.

but it's been a remarkably effective government. Having lived under a dysfunctional government, I am very grateful for the one that we have here.

Great, but trusting our government will only allow them to become more like your previous government. It's our skepticism that has kept the government in check. As people become comfortable and complacent, they have lost skepticism and our country is slowly going down hill.

To me, the good that government does is much greater than the corruption we have to suffer, and that's a trade I'm willing to make.

Well, you're assuming here that their good/evil ratio doesn't change. But, it does.

Because of these views, I'm more inclined to thinking that a 2,700 page bill is mainly health care with some pork, while you're more inclined to thinking that it's mainly pork with some health care. But data in this case backs me up. In any given year, the amount of pork is a fraction (less than 1%) of the overall cost of legislation. I'm assuming that the amount of space it takes in bills is somewhat equivalent.

Whose data?

 

[CoffeeCzar]

He most certainly does not!

He does, however, have the right to voice his opinion.

I believe this depends on the local legislation and the medical situation (emergencies vs primary care).

However, refusing to see patients who choose to use force against you via the government can be ethically justified, which really was more in line with my point than the current realities of medical practice.

 

[lejeunesage]

I'd venture to say that there is much more history which warrants distrust of government than trust.

I think we all agree there. Anarchy would be, well, anarchy.

I agree with you here. Especially with the unions, which have TONS of weight in politics.

Great, but trusting our government will only allow them to become more like your previous government. It's our skepticism that has kept the government in check. As people become comfortable and complacent, they have lost skepticism and our country is slowly going down hill.

Well, you're assuming here that their good/evil ratio doesn't change. But, it does.


Whose data?

Anyone's data. Look it up where you want. Earmarks constitute about 1% of total spending. It's much ado about not very much.
Again, I see corporations as a much bigger nuisance to the system than unions. But that's a reflection of our two diverging ideologies.

 

[lejeunesage]

I believe this depends on the local legislation and the medical situation (emergencies vs primary care).

However, refusing to see patients who choose to use force against you via the government can be ethically justified, which really was more in line with my point than the current realities of medical practice.

Force? What are you talking about. It's this type of thinking that fosters extremism. Why is it that conservatives go nuts whenever there's a Democrat in the White House?

 

[RogueUnicorn]

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU(&)%#$@$&&*&$^#, i just realized democrats run NY. no wonder the schools here suck.

have you been to mississippi?

 

[cpants]

Anyone's data. Look it up where you want. Earmarks constitute about 1% of total spending. It's much ado about not very much.
Again, I see corporations as a much bigger nuisance to the system than unions. But that's a reflection of our two diverging ideologies.

1% of 3 trillion is 30 billion dollars. Not exactly chump change. Anyway, I wasn't just talking about pork or even spending. Most of the favors that legislators do aren't technically pork. It's much more subtle than that. It's loopholes in the legislation which allow corporations, unions, and special interests to get tax breaks or a competitive advantage. It's concessions to lobbying groups for continued support and fund-raising.

 

[MisterVeil]

I have not read Adam Smith's the
Wealth of Nations, but I know what it's about. I have not read Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, yet I know what it's about. One needs not necessarily have read something in its entirety to know what it's about. And if you really don't think so and if you really care that much, it's all available online to read.

Tell me you're not serious

 

[lejeunesage]

Tell me you're not serious

It's funny, isn't it? I've read Hamlet (my favorite), Julius Caesar (my favorite-er), Macbeth, Measure for Measure, The Merchant of Venice, but never Romeo and Juliet.

 

[lejeunesage]

1% of 3 trillion is 30 billion dollars. Not exactly chump change. Anyway, I wasn't just talking about pork or even spending. Most of the favors that legislators do aren't technically pork. It's much more subtle than that. It's loopholes in the legislation which allow corporations, unions, and special interests to get tax breaks or a competitive advantage. It's concessions to lobbying groups for continued support and fund-raising.

I'm not saying that it's insignificant, but there has never been a perfect system of government and this one is as good as any. I don't like the corruption, but please, fight the corruption, not the government. The solution is to try to diminish corruption in government, not to try to abolish government, which is what I feel that the tea-party crowd and their admirers are trying to do.

 

[bigmike7104]

Why on Earth would you assume that? More likely, 100 pages of the bill attempt to enact those changes, and 2600 pages cover peoples' asses, provide pork and concessions in exchange for votes, create loopholes for lobbyists and special interests, and generally muck up the waters and make it impossible for the average voter to have a clue what the bill actually does.

I remember a drug from a company a politician was connected too was responsible for multiple deaths. He put in a few pages in a bill right before the deadline that kept the company from being responsible. Below isn't the healthcare bill but the climate change bill, which gives an example (300 pages we're added just before the deadline).

"I haven't read it yet, I've read summaries though," he said.
Asked how he would vote, he replied, "Against."

"Almost all of the House members surveyed Friday by CNSNews.com had not read the entire 1,200-page climate-change bill before they were to cast their vote Friday evening. But almost all of them knew how they were going to vote."
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=50234

 

[lejeunesage]

I remember a drug from a company a politician was connected too was responsible for multiple deaths. He put in a few pages in a bill right before the deadline that kept the company from being responsible. Below isn't the healthcare bill but the climate change bill, which gives an example (300 pages we're added just before the deadline).

“I haven’t read it yet, I’ve read summaries though,” he said.
Asked how he would vote, he replied, “Against.”

"Almost all of the House members surveyed Friday by CNSNews.com had not read the entire 1,200-page climate-change bill before they were to cast their vote Friday evening. But almost all of them knew how they were going to vote."
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=50234

You don't need to have read any bill in its entirety to vote for or against it. I think people misunderstand the legislative process. On any given bill, there are a plethora of things that you're going to like and a plethora of things that you're going to dislike. People for various reasons insert various sort of amendments and in the end the lawmaker has to decide whether the he likes the things he likes more than he dislikes the things he dislikes in the bill. If that's the case, he votes for; if not, he votes against. It would be utterly impossible to read every single bill before you voted on it. There are simply too many of them.

 

[tncekm]

Again, I see corporations as a much bigger nuisance to the system than unions. But that's a reflection of our two diverging ideologies.

Here is the difference, IMHO. Unions = votes. Public unions fund politicians; politicians expand, empower, and spoil public unions. And, the whole thing is one big fat circle jerk making public unions bigger and politicians more secure.

Corporations are primarily lobbying and providing cash. So, while both are a nuisance, I still stand by the public unions being a bigger one.

 

[UnlonelyRoad]

Here is the difference, IMHO. Unions = votes. Public unions fund politicians; politicians expand, empower, and spoil public unions. And, the whole thing is one big fat circle jerk making public unions bigger and politicians more secure.

Corporations are primarily lobbying and providing cash. So, while both are a nuisance, I still stand by the public unions being a bigger one.

I think it completely depends on the union and the corporation.

Corporations have more cash and unions have more votes, not sure it's totally clear to me which is more of a problem. If you remove either of them there is trouble, if one gets too powerful there is also trouble.

 

[tncekm]

I think it completely depends on the union and the corporation.

Corporations have more cash and unions have more votes, not sure it's totally clear to me which is more of a problem. If you remove either of them there is trouble, if one gets too powerful there is also trouble.

Yeah, I guess so. But, SEIU--for example--is still worth a quarter billion dollars, has 2 million members, and is "surprisingly" (or not) 94% democrat. Bad, bad, bad stuff, IMHO.

Difference of opinion I guess.

 

[lejeunesage]

Here is the difference, IMHO. Unions = votes. Public unions fund politicians; politicians expand, empower, and spoil public unions. And, the whole thing is one big fat circle jerk making public unions bigger and politicians more secure.

Corporations are primarily lobbying and providing cash. So, while both are a nuisance, I still stand by the public unions being a bigger one.

The reason union members tend to be Democrats is because Republicans despise unions. On the other hand, it's hard to argue with the fact that the corporate world leans Republican, so I guess that evens things out somewhat, even though corporations have much more financial power than unions.
I will say though, uncharacteristically for someone from the left, that I don't think public unions should be legal. They have a financially crippling effect on local and state government in the form of the generous pensions that they're able to force out of them.

 

[tncekm]

The reason union members tend to be Democrats is because Republicans despise unions.

No, union members vote democrat because of back scratching. Look to California politics if you want to see the most overt examples of this.

On the other hand, it's hard to argue with the fact that the corporate world leans Republican, so I guess that evens things out somewhat, even though corporations have much more financial power than unions.

But, corporations don't control the votes of their employees. It's a bit different. Union propaganda drives union members to vote democrat.

I will say though, uncharacteristically for someone from the left, that I don't think public unions should be legal. They have a financially crippling effect on local and state government in the form of the generous pensions that they're able to force out of them.

I'm glad you're very rational about this. In CA many of our public sector employees will retire with 90% of their salary! In addition, the average public union employee is making $80k/yr before benefits, $120k/yr after benefits for relatively low skill workers. It's absolutely insane. The democrats will secure this lifestyle for the public unions, and the unions will secure seats through massive spending and tons of votes.

I'm not trying to absolve republicans of any wrong-doing here, just ignoring them because the topic at hand is unions. Republicans are 50% of the problem in Washington

 

[lejeunesage]

No, union members vote democrat because of back scratching. Look to California politics if you want to see the most overt examples of this.

But, corporations don't control the votes of their employees. It's a bit different. Union propaganda drives union members to vote democrat.
I'm glad you're very rational about this. In CA many of our public sector employees will retire with 90% of their salary! In addition, the average public union employee is making $80k/yr before benefits, $120k/yr after benefits for relatively low skill workers. It's absolutely insane. The democrats will secure this lifestyle for the public unions, and the unions will secure seats through massive spending and tons of votes.

I'm not trying to absolve republicans of any wrong-doing here, just ignoring them because the topic at hand is unions. Republicans are 50% of the problem in Washington

The topic of public unions is not well known, or I think there would be more push for change, even from the left. I think that liberals feel as reflexively protective of unions as conservatives feel reflexively hostile to them, but I think there could be agreement on this issue, but maybe that's just the optimist in me.

Concerning why union members are Democrats, I think the back-scratching thing is and over-simplification. What, then prevents union from establishing deals with Republicans? Ideology: people who are union members are more likely to want to protect the little guy and less likely to feel sympathetic to corporations.

Now, you seem to see how unions can corrupt the political system but to be oblivious of how corporations can do the same. Corporations can flood the election with money via 527s and give one side an unfair financial advantage over the competition (This will now be worse because of the Citizens United decision). And what do you think they ask for in exchange? Exactly those things because of which Democrats are only 50% of the problem in Washington. Though, in my case, I'm more likely to see Republicans as the greater nuisance.

Anyway, enough for tonight. We can resume tomorrow.

 

[tncekm]

The topic of public unions is not well known, or I think there would be more push for change, even from the left. I think that liberals feel as reflexively protective of unions as conservatives feel reflexively hostile to them, but I think there could be agreement on this issue, but maybe that's just the optimist in me.

Agreed.

Concerning why union members are Democrats, I think the back-scratching thing is and over-simplification. What, then prevents union from establishing deals with Republicans? Ideology: people who are union members are more likely to want to protect the little guy and less likely to feel sympathetic to corporations.

I'm not sure if "protect the little guy" is the right way to look at it. Entitle, and therefore control, the little guy maybe.

But, you're right. At some point it was probably about ideology. Not sure if that's the case anymore. I think now it's just about keeping your "base" satisfied and your bank acct full.

Now, you seem to see how unions can corrupt the political system but to be oblivious of how corporations can do the same. Corporations can flood the election with money via 527s and give one side an unfair financial advantage over the competition (This will now be worse because of the Citizens United decision). And what do you think they ask for in exchange? Exactly those things because of which Democrats are only 50% of the problem in Washington. Though, in my case, I'm more likely to see Republicans as the greater nuisance.

Anyway, enough for tonight. We can resume tomorrow.

Not oblivious to it, I was just focusing on unions

 

[UnlonelyRoad]

Yeah, I guess so. But, SEIU--for example--is still worth a quarter billion dollars, has 2 million members, and is "surprisingly" (or not) 94% democrat. Bad, bad, bad stuff, IMHO.

Difference of opinion I guess.

Certainly true, but if you add up the total wealth of all corporations and all unions, the corporations wind up on top, no questions asked.

I think the problem with unions exist when they expand to be greater than the companies they work for (though I'm faaaar from an expert on the matter). I think smaller unions generally do a pretty good job, but that's sort of true for most organizations.

 

[tncekm]

Certainly true, but if you add up the total wealth of all corporations and all unions, the corporations wind up on top, no questions asked.

True, but the unions entire existence is devoted to political manipulation. A small portion of corporate wealth is dedicated to the same, because they've got to focus on satisfying consumers -- a very expensive matter.

I think the problem with unions exist when they expand to be greater than the companies they work for (though I'm faaaar from an expert on the matter). I think smaller unions generally do a pretty good job, but that's sort of true for most organizations.

I think unions are great so long as they don't receive special political treatment.

 

[FlowRate]

I have not read Adam Smith's the
Wealth of Nations, but I know what it's about. I have not read Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, yet I know what it's about. One needs not necessarily have read something in its entirety to know what it's about. And if you really don't think so and if you really care that much, it's all available online to read.

Sparknotes: HCR Bill