Advertisement
Columns

Trump’s Surprising Coalition: Not Just “Deplorables”

Share
Tweet
email Email
Print
Advertisement

James T. Hogkinson, the crazed gunman who fired at Republican congressmen in early June, hardly fits the common image of a militant Bernie Sanders Democrat. He was 66, married for 30 years, a proud gun-owner, working in construction and living in a small Midwestern town. In fact, he came close to stereotypes of one of Trump’s blue-collar “deplorables,” which only highlights the dishonest nature of common media narratives.

Actually, Trump’s core support wasn’t the downtrodden working class: he did better among the third of voters who earned more than $100,000 a year than among the two-thirds who earned less than that. Among the one-third of voters who earned below $50,000, Trump lost to Clinton by 12 points. Nor were his supporters overwhelmingly uneducated: he actually won white voters with college degrees, 37 percent of the overall electorate. The Trump coalition was far more varied and complex than simplistic analysis and conventional wisdom suggest.

Share
Tweet
email Email
Print

Comments (34)

Leave a comment
  1. Ty  •  Jun 22, 2017 at 12:59 am

    I remember you mentioning this on the radio Michael a week or two ago about the results of Trumps support in the general election. I think the key is that it was the general election. Most of the upper income/crust conservatives, the potty trained conservatives that don't fling feces at the wall were NOT pro Trump during the primary, but when it was a choice between catching a ride on the Trump train vs a Hillary train, they fell in line behind the clown. Even the evangelicals. Trump could have had an actual piss take released and they'd still vote for him over Hillary. Because pure tribalism, because democrats are evil, not merely wrong, evil. They want to drive the nation into a ditch, have totally open borders, run up the debt, raise taxes, provide healthcare by making YOU pay for some minority/brown person who just wants to sit on their @ss and TAKE from GOOD and hard working people, which are primarily conservatives. Liberals don't work hard, they are just lazy.

    I have gotten all of this bile and hatred and nihilism from listening to conservatives talk from their own mouths on talk radio. There can be no compromise with this attitude, split ticket voting is dead, and it's pure nihilism.

    Parting shot to fools on the right. k-12 education is… wait for it… an entitlement.

    • Helping ty  •  Jun 24, 2017 at 12:49 am

      Nearly everything you say is projecting your own feelings onto other people. Conservatives donate more money and time to charity than liberals. That is a fact that totally destroys your worldview.

      • Ty  •  Jun 24, 2017 at 9:07 pm

        Conservatives donate more
        liberals advocate for policies that use taxes to provide baseline services for people in need.

        Donations and charity is fickle, it rises and falls with the fortunes of men, with the economy, with the attentions of people. Government entitlements, like social security, are stable and constant. They do not shift with the tides, so long as they are funded.

        Social Security has done more to lift the fortunes of the elderly than charity ever could. Same with medicare, before that poor families that could not afford care for grandma, usually watched her wither. Not after the liberals came through and created something that was NOT so fickle and brittle a foundation of help as you conservatives.

    • Rizzo  •  Jun 24, 2017 at 8:22 am

      Ty…
      Tribalism? Really, again?
      Who is it, that groups tribes by skin-color, sex, sexual orientation, ethnic background, etc.
      You libs are obsessed with splitting-up people into superficial categories.
      You encourage immigrants to reject Americanism… to reject the concept of a melting pot.
      Your grasp on reality is pathetic.

      • Ty  •  Jun 24, 2017 at 9:33 pm

        I do not focus on skin color, I hate the antics of black lives matter, I do not treat racism as something only applicable to people in "power" like some radicals on the left do, I am not obsessed with splitting people up. I think it's a good thing for all immigrants and citizens to buy into a larger common American culture. Your grasp on what liberals are and are not for is astonishingly skewed. But that makes sense, the talk radio crowd hears everything you laid out on the radio and repeated a thousand fold.

        You have this caricature of what we are and what we believe. Painted in the worst possible light. I turned that same bile and uncharitable vision RIGHT Back to you and yours when it comes to attitudes on healthcare, and you know what? I think I am closer to the mark on your true feelings than you are about mine.

      • Rizzo  •  Jun 25, 2017 at 7:34 am

        Ty…

        That's great… but your party has abandoned you. Leftists, the leftists you support, are for sanctuary cities, they constantly play racial politics, Hillary's entire presidential campaign was "vote for me… I'm a woman". Can you name one elected leftists that supports English as our official language? Can you name one leftist in the last 10 years, who hasn't run a campaign based on identity politics?
        You people are sick…. I get it, it's a political tactic to get votes, but you are destroying the country. This is NO CARICATURE, I wish it were. You might hate the antics of Black Lives Matter, but your Messiah Barrack, totally supported BLM.
        Are you blind, or just dumb? The left has become a sickened, violent group. You have allowed the radicals to take over and define who you are.
        Pelosi, Schumer, Obama, etc. Is there EVER any dissent with the leftists? Once the orders go out, every leftist is goose-stepping.
        I don't always like it, but Republicans/Conservatives are always fighting it out with each other … Politically, it's a problem, but it shows that they are not the mindless-drones that are the left.

    • Rizzo  •  Jun 24, 2017 at 8:30 am

      And by the way Ty… If you want to see TRUE nihilism on display, go to any libtard rally.
      You people want to destroy everything that has before you. You reject America from its very founding.
      You really need to learn what words mean, and do a little introspective analys of yourself and the group you represent.

    • Pat Allen  •  Jul 2, 2017 at 5:23 pm

      Troll – go back to living under a bridge – in Cuba or Venezuela.

  2. kevin meechan  •  Jun 24, 2017 at 12:12 am

    Wow, another hate filled Ty diatribe! (google the phrase "the pot calling the kettle black….."). I didn't vote for Trump or Clinton and he can certainly be a clown but has it ever occurred to you that there are at least as many folks on the left that would vote for ANYONE that is not a R? Hillary is not a clown? Seriously? Is not your description of conservatives feelings toward Democratic voters EXACTLY your attitude towards conservative voters like me? I guess assuming I fling feces on the wall is not bile and hatred as long as it comes from someone enlightened like yourself. Nice touch to throw in the "minority/brown" insult as well. It must be awesome to be so superior to me, I don't think I could handle the responsibility.

    • Helping ty  •  Jun 24, 2017 at 12:52 am

      I don't even think it is worth debating Ty. He is so full of hatred and so sure of his own superiority that I don't think he can be helped.

      • Ty  •  Jun 24, 2017 at 9:27 pm

        My comments are not a FRACTION of the hatred and bile spit out by people like Mark Levin and Dennis Prager and David Horrowitz towards people on "the left"

        My tirade above is something every single one of you has heard, has read in conservative comments sections.

        Some conservatives are genuinely just confused about healthcare. They actually bought into the idea that a free market will lift all boats there. But others? I absolutely believe they do not give a damn about helping people get well if it costs them money. ME and MINE. I got Mine, so what's it to me if you don't have the money for your own care. I will advocate policies that will move us further and further away from socializing the cost of care to take care of those that cannot do it themselves.

        They absolutely want a free for all. And tossing in charity is just an excuse to allow free riders who don't give a damn to skate on the generosity of others for the maintenance of a decent civil society.

        People are unequal in innumerable areas of life, but even when it comes to life and death, as a man lay dying they cannot be moved to approve of having them treated with known treatments if it would cost them money out of their pocket. I think people with that attitude are vicious amoral human beings. Does that bother you? Tough.

        And hatred? Here is my hatred. If I lived to a 120, earned hundreds of millions of dollars, never used a dime of healthcare, paid tens of millions of taxes to the government in part to fund universal health care, and died in a ball of fire having never gotten anything back, and even had I used the care would not have gotten my own moneys worth because of how much more I paid in.. I would feel… FINE about that. It does not BOTHER me, HATEFUL liberal that I am, that others care is funded by my tax dollars. I think that is a great thing. I don't care if the person that is sick is conservative, worked hard, was lazy, had an easy life, had a rough life, I do not care and do not want to have some meritocratic measuring stick of worthiness to determine the availability of care.

        THAT is pro life. Not merely pro FETUS. THAT is an attitude that holds to an intrinsic value to the life of a human being, and not just toss them onto a pile if they do not measure up to your standards. You have MOST spheres of life to subject people to such standards, you want to treat their EXISTENCE on that rotten scale as well?

        And I am the hateful person? Please. Look in the mirror people.

        You don't want to pay for others care. I do. So stop pretending you care whether people live or die. The reality is that for many people that cannot pay, they will not get the care that is needed to live, unless we as a society picks up the tab. To that project, conservatives, in their INFINITE generosity and goodness, say no, except in cases where they are personally moved to donate, some of the time, for some of the people, which still leaves a trail of DEATH. Better that than we AWFUL liberals just normalizing a baseline level of care through taxes. Can't have that.

      • Rizzo  •  Jun 25, 2017 at 7:44 am

        Ty… really? Who's the caricature NOW? IT'S YOU!
        I have NEVER ENCOUNTERED a person, left or right, that fits your description.
        The description of "ME, ME, ME… GIVE ME MINE, AND I DON'T/WON'T HELP ANYONE".
        Is this your idea of a joke, or do you actually believe this?
        Conservatives most definitely want to help people…. The sick, the poor, the unborn, etc.
        We just don't believe MORE GOVERNMENT BUREACRACY AND CONTROL is the answer.
        Until you can wake-up from you caricature of a dream about what conservatives are, you will NEVER SEE AND UNDERSTAND REALITY.

  3. kevin meechan  •  Jun 24, 2017 at 10:07 pm

    Ty I don't think you're hateful because you're liberal, I just think you're hateful and angry period, unlike the rest of the commentators on here. Nobody is advocating not providing medical care for the poor (can you name one?), the question is how to do it and how much the federal government needs to be involved in health care, especially for everybody else that can afford it. One needs no look no further than the VA to have serious doubts about single payer. You have a really twisted and sick and incorrect view of conservatism unfortunately but debating that would be a lost cause. Yes there are certainly over the top tirades online from the right as well and they are just as unfortunate and unproductive as yours. I too am fine paying taxes that in part support social safety nets including health care for the poor, again the question is how to deliver it and how much and do we need to lower everyone else's health care quality to take care of the poorest. And since ACA is imploding it needs to be at a minimum revamped which will be difficult while you and everyone on the left including lawmakers are screaming that Republicans want people to die. Not helpful. Lastly it's ironic that you are spewing your venom on a blog from one of the most civil and moderate Republicans on the radio. Anyway thanks for the reply, I guess I will go back to flinging feces on the wall and hating brown people now…(that's a joke Ty)

    • kevin meechan  •  Jun 24, 2017 at 10:10 pm

      Kudos for not reflexively supporting BLM however, i wish more on the left would speak out against divisive identity/victim class politics

    • Rizzo  •  Jun 25, 2017 at 7:48 am

      Kevin…

      Well said.

      Kudos

  4. Rizzo  •  Jun 25, 2017 at 9:15 am

    Ty
    Checkout how selfish we are… and how uncaring we are.
    How much more Ty? At what price point will we reach Utopia?
    When will government deliver us? Just one more regulation, just one more law.
    At what point do leftists FINALLY look in the mirror?
    When will they realize that doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, is the definition of insanity… aka leftist/liberals.
    At least say "Thank you"!

    In 2008, Medicare accounted for 13% ($386 billion) of the federal budget. In 2016 it is projected to account for close to 15% ($683 billion) of the total expenditures. For the decade 2010–2019 Medicare is projected to cost 6.4 trillion dollars.

    Historical NHE, 2015: NHE grew 5.8% to $3.2 trillion in 2015, or $9,990 per person, and accounted for 17.8% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Medicare spending grew 4.5% to $646.2 billion in 2015, or 20 percent of total NHE. Medicaid spending grew 9.7% to $545.1 billion in 2015, or 17 percent of total NHE.

    • Ty  •  Jun 26, 2017 at 5:11 pm

      Why do you keep assuming that a US UHC model will cost the same? The Israelis are below 10% gdp

      http://www-tc.pbs.org/prod-media/newshour/photos/2012/10/02/At_17.6_percent_of_GDP_in_2010_blog_main_horizontal.jpg

      As are most nations on that list. What is it about being a conservative that makes you all want to CONSERVE that OBVIOUSLY inflated cost structure? Why is it so hard to get it through those THICK conservative skulls that based off NUMEROUS REAL WORLD EXAMPLES (as opposed to your PRESUMPTIONS about where a universal healthcare model will lead) we could have dramatically lower costs AND cover everyone?

      Do you not believe that is possible? Or you do think it's possible but don't want it just because "government?" Too socialist? So Is you boy Bibi a socialist? No different from some banana republic/dictatorship like Venezuela? No difference? I'm asking because I do not see what possible leg conservative dogma has to stand on here.

      • Rizzo  •  Jun 26, 2017 at 8:38 pm

        Give me an example of when government takes over something and quality improves, overall effectiveness gets better and costs are lowered.
        We have one, very real example of government-run, single-payer healthcare… it's called The VA. It sucks! Now… what is it that makes you believe that government will improve anything?
        Now, what leg does your dogma stand on?

      • Ty  •  Jun 26, 2017 at 10:43 pm

        I posted a link to the costs for other countries, here is another that puts up a metric of life expectancy.

        https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-sQPEh8Zzcts/WIJexjcNKGI/AAAAAAABR6U/fgLPzRCqN8Idy6Gbr38tn05ZdYNObxSAgCLcB/s1600/percentGDPhealthandlife.JPG

        wait times? Canada is long to see specialists? Ok, what about Germany

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/07/canadawait.jpg

        This is not some black box where we have zero alternative examples. There are examples of UHC models with longer wait times, and shorter wait times. What does that imply to you? The constant is UHC across wait times, so could it be possible… that different implementations of a universal healthcare system could yield different results?

        Now go back to your example. You gave one data point, the VA. Distance to a VA hospitals can be an issue, especially for more rural locales… but if most of the countries hospitals were funded by a universal healthcare model, than all those people using the VA would have the same access as private insurance.

        And did you forget about medicare? That is single payer universal healthcare for older people. Is that trash? Why did you refuse to highlight that Rizzo?

        If I was an ideologue, I would look at the entire set of possible outcomes, find the worst sliver of an example that confirms my dogma, and presume that was the only real outcome possible. That is what you just did. That is what your conservative brethren do every week and every day. The VA is not an argument that universal healthcare can't work well, it might be an argument that some VA locations during certain times for certain people is not or was not as good as it could be.

        And if none of this moves you, then be consistent Rizzo. k-12 education is an ENTITLEMENT. The federal/state funding source is not a meaningful distinction since it's a constant across all 50 states. We tax the citizenry to fund universal baseline education for all children. Whether their parents can afford that educational expense or not. Whether what their parents pay in taxes each year covers the cost or not. Does that bother you? And running like a coward to vouchers does not remove the problem, still tax money going to pay for the vouchers for school choice. STILL an entitlement. Still the GOVERNMENT involved. Still the GOVERNMENT paying. If government involvement ALWAYS makes things worse, why not argue against public funding of education Rizzo?

        Will you be a man and stand up here and now and go all the way? Follow the logical conclusion of your arguments? Why NOT just let the cost of childrens education be up to the parents who had the kids to fund? Or let private charities "fill the gaps." Is that a solution to you Rizzo? Is it?

  5. Ty  •  Jun 26, 2017 at 10:44 pm

    I posted a link to the costs for other countries, here is another that puts up a metric of life expectancy.
    https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-sQPEh8Zzcts/WIJexjcNKGI/AAAAAAABR6U/fgLPzRCqN8Idy6Gbr38tn05ZdYNObxSAgCLcB/s1600/percentGDPhealthandlife.JPG

    wait times? Canada is long to see specialists? Ok, what about Germany

    This is not some black box where we have zero alternative examples. There are examples of UHC models with longer wait times, and shorter wait times. What does that imply to you? The constant is UHC across wait times, so could it be possible… that different implementations of a universal healthcare system could yield different results?
    Now go back to your example. You gave one data point, the VA. Distance to a VA hospitals can be an issue, especially for more rural locales… but if most of the countries hospitals were funded by a universal healthcare model, than all those people using the VA would have the same access as private insurance.
    And did you forget about medicare? That is single payer universal healthcare for older people. Is that trash? Why did you refuse to highlight that Rizzo?
    If I was an ideologue, I would look at the entire set of possible outcomes, find the worst sliver of an example that confirms my dogma, and presume that was the only real outcome possible. That is what you just did. That is what your conservative brethren do every week and every day. The VA is not an argument that universal healthcare can't work well, it might be an argument that some VA locations during certain times for certain people is not or was not as good as it could be.
    And if none of this moves you, then be consistent Rizzo. k-12 education is an ENTITLEMENT. The federal/state funding source is not a meaningful distinction since it's a constant across all 50 states. We tax the citizenry to fund universal baseline education for all children. Whether their parents can afford that educational expense or not. Whether what their parents pay in taxes each year covers the cost or not. Does that bother you? And running like a coward to vouchers does not remove the problem, still tax money going to pay for the vouchers for school choice. STILL an entitlement. Still the GOVERNMENT involved. Still the GOVERNMENT paying. If government involvement ALWAYS makes things worse, why not argue against public funding of education Rizzo?
    Will you be a man and stand up here and now and go all the way? Follow the logical conclusion of your arguments? Why NOT just let the cost of childrens education be up to the parents who had the kids to fund? Or let private charities "fill the gaps." Is that a solution to you Rizzo? Is it?

    • Rizzo  •  Jun 27, 2017 at 7:43 am

      Yes, public education is a government-funded entitlement, and guess what… It sucks!
      And guess what else, you leftist oppose school choice. If my government-assigned school sucks, which is not uncommon, you leftist will force me to go there. Is there any doubt that if I could take MY TAX MONEY, and spend it on whatever education I choose (public, private, whatever)… that would be a good thing? But, you leftists can't allow that… You won't allow competition… You must enforce top-down, uniformity and conformity.
      So, I'm still looking for that elusive example of where government takes over, and drives down cost, improves quality, enhances overall effectiveness, and doesn't create an unsustainable deficit. And speaking of unsustainable deficits, let's look at your Medicare example… Based on their most recent 75-year projection, the staff at the Office of the Actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) estimates that Medicare’s stunning unfunded liability—the dollar value of promised benefits that are not paid for—will range between $28 trillion and $37 trillion, depending on the assumptions. Medicare annually pays more than 1 billion claims. In 2014, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that Medicare’s “improper” payments—incorrect or erroneous payments—amounted to $60 billion. Former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder indicated in 2012 that Medicare fraud alone ranged between $60 billion and $90 billion annually.
      Not to mention… I have yet to meet a Medicare recipient, who is satisfied with it.
      So, if I showed you the worst "sliver" of an example, give me your best example.
      Where does government out-perform a private option?
      And just so you know, and so you quit embarrassing yourself, life-expectancy is almost universally accepted as a worthless metric.

      • Ty  •  Jun 27, 2017 at 1:14 pm

        I'm less concerned about vouchers compared to others, but you just dodged a KEY fact of vouchers. Where does the money come from to fund vouchers Rizzo? Answer. ANSWER !!!!!!!!!!!!

        Medicare covers only older people. Costs for that population are expected to be higher. And medicare costs are not constrained enough because we do not have a truly UNIVERSAL healthcare system, we have over a dozen different hodge podge healthcare systems in the US. One guy clocked them at 19.

        I GAVE you examples you deceit filled man, you CHOSE not to accept them. Israel. Germany. Sweden. We have CHARTS showing total cost to gdp ratios and life expectancy. But… that does not align with a conservative narrative of reality, so like all good ideologues, you IGNORE it, pretend it's false.

        You're like Trump, some total post modernist monster where reality ITSELF is defined by your perceptions and narrative of that reality. Objective truth and facts are dead. Welcome to the republican party, these are your adherents people. Truth is irrelevant, examples that undercut your beliefs pop up, ignore them, discount their relevance.

        Total lost cause.

  6. Rizzo  •  Jun 27, 2017 at 4:02 pm

    Ty… see if you can follow the bouncing ball.

    Let’s do a little hypothetical thought experiment. It will be my healthcare system vs. yours, ok?

    You can design, and utilize whatever healthcare system you would like. You can force people to go see their docs. You can restrict which docs they get to see. You can even deny them expensive end-of-life care/meds… Whatever crazed, leftist plan you’ve ever dream of, is yours! You will implement your plan over the lifetimes of 5 individuals. I will do the EXACT same thing… but, I will utilize my healthcare plan. And, after a lifetime, we will compare… got it?

    However, there are a few caveats…

    First, your 5 individuals are from very diverse, ethnic/racial backgrounds. Second, 3 of them are obese. Next, 2 of them smoke. Also, 4 have poor eating habits and rarely exercise. Oh, and did I mention… a few of them are heavy alcohol drinkers and drug-users? Lastly, 1 has joined a gym and is starting to lose weight, but only because his Dad died at the age of 52, from a massive heart-attack.

    My patient population is very different from yours. They are all of Japanese descent. They all have an appropriate body mass index. None of them smoke, and they all eat a very healthy, traditional Japanese diet. They walk or bike to work every day, and have additional workouts 3-4 times per week. 1 patient, has even opted out of health insurance all together. They, on very rare occasions drink alcohol, but never use drugs. On average, they live what could only be described as a healthy lifestyle. As their healthcare provider, I will only implement our current US-style healthcare system to provide them with care.

    Fast-Forward 100 years… All our patients are dead? My patients had an average lifespan of 92 years, and cost the healthcare system only pennies compared to any other system ever devised.
    Your patients lived to an average age of 80 years old, and cost the system more than most.

    Between you and I, who has devised a better healthcare system?

    Get the picture, GENIUS?

    • Ty  •  Jun 27, 2017 at 6:38 pm

      Those are terrible healthcare systems in both cases because the sample sizes are too small. That is one of the main arguments of creation a NATIONAL pool of coverage. Then you have less insurance shopping of younger and healthier people to pad insurance company profits while actively trying to avoid insuring sicker people. Putting EVERYONE into the pool makes it so that you don't get local spikes of affordability or insolvency.

      Your point about differences in populations leading to different health outcomes is true. That life expectancy chart I posted with the gdp figures is not ENTIRELY fair because Americans are FATTER and less healthy than the average european population, so that could easily be one of the variables that skew our average life expectancy below theirs. But it also suggests that having a universal healthcare system does NOT lead to some widespread DEATH spiral of chaos and despair. The numbers and results do not show that. And if a side perk of their system is not only being cheaper overall, but being able to cover all of your citizenry, why are you against that?

      If we split the country and had a pure liberaltopia on one side for healthcare and pure conservatopia on the other, here is what would result.

      The liberal side would have access to quality healthcare for all, paid for through taxes.
      The conservative side would have access to quality healthcare for those that could afford to pay. For those that could not? Social darwinism, a state of nature, unless some of those "more generous" conservatives with their higher donation rate chipped in. And if donations were not enough to pick up the slack? Increased misery and death, more people that could not afford cancer drugs while poor dying, their lives deemed less worthy of existence in conservatopia where a near PURE meritocracy in all things is the basis for goods and services.

      There would likely be mass health refugees trying to get into the liberal areas due to conservatives not building a societal system capable of handling care for the least of them, and it might be the LIBERAL side that had to set up immigration rules to keep conservatopia from dumping their poor and shirking their responsibilities as human beings.

      Galts Gultch is not a viable model for society.

      • Rizzo  •  Jun 28, 2017 at 7:41 am

        You think younger, healthier individuals are shopping for healthcare… to "pad" the system for older, sicker people? What a joke! Why do you think Obama created the mandate? Younger, healthier people, if they had FREEDOM, would choose not to get insurance in many cases… or, if they had FREEDOM, and insurance companies had FREEDOM, they would offer cheaper, catastrophic insurance. But, Obama and his leftist, control-freaks, made sure that insurance companies were not allowed to offer that option.
        Now, lastly, it's interesting you used the word "shop"…. how much shopping around actually happens under a MANDATED, SINGLE-PAYER SYSTEM?
        Why do you leftists hate freedom?
        Why do you not trust individuals to make the best decisions for themselves?
        Why do you believe in top-down, government controlled mandates, that force people to do things they would never choose to do on their own?

      • Rizzo  •  Jun 28, 2017 at 9:08 am

        Moron…

        Give me an historical example of when people, in mass, leave FREE-SOCIETIES, like the US, and migrate to oppressive, GOVERNMENT-CONTROLLED societies like the one you advocate for.
        More people have migrated to the US than any other country in the history of the world… NEWS-FLASH: Historically, it hasn't been to gain government-controlled, Utopian Healthcare. It's because they are escaping societies like the ones you want HERE IN THE US.
        You leftists are either really dumb, or just flat-out pathetic.

      • Rizzo  •  Jun 28, 2017 at 10:07 am

        Lastly Ty….

        Just like ALL clueless leftists, you missed the point of my thought experiment.

        The ONLY reason other countries healthcare systems give the illusion of not being a TOTAL FAILURE, is because they represent much smaller societies, with much more homogeneous populations, that live much healthier lifestyles.

        I may NEVER spend a penny on healthcare, but because of my genetics, and lifestyle choices, I may live to be 100. In your world, you would say that I'm the product of my country's healthcare system… This is a TOTAL FARCE!

      • Ty  •  Jun 28, 2017 at 2:17 pm

        That's not a good metric. There is less reason to migrate from modern western societies en masse to the US compared to third world to US migrations. But when people do immigrate to places like the US, I think it's worth noting that they tend NOT to move to conservative areas. They move to the cities and larger metro areas. Areas with higher taxes, more restrictions on the FREEDOMS of men. The Bay Area and silicon Valley, in CALIFORNIA (a big LIBERAL state) in a big LIBERAL area of the state is a magnet for hyper skilled people from all over the world to migrate to. Not, rural Mississippi. Wonder why? Austin is a magnet inside Texas, a more LIBERAL oasis in a sea of conservative hellscape. Wonder why?

      • Ty  •  Jun 28, 2017 at 2:21 pm

        Rizzo, you are such a lost cause, but I think it's instructive because you are the perfect illustration of the intellectual rot that infects so much of conservatism.

        You have a specific narrative, and all facts and realities observed and ground up to fit within your assumptions about how the world REALLY works best. You discount the accomplishments and successes of alternative models to the American system, and highlight our own strengths as the key to success when it's likely something entirely different is at play than what YOU think is at play. You talk, but you don't listen, your mind is completely closed. Welcome to modern conservatism. Where humility about your own knowledge goes to die, and in your case was likely strangled.

      • Rizzo  •  Jun 28, 2017 at 10:45 pm

        Ty

        Really? We gonna go back to your moronic "Big City" argument?
        They go to big cities…. Liberal/Leftist strongholds NOT to pay higher taxes, but to get free shit from a city full of pathetic, white, American guilt… Sanctuary cities, that are more than happy to ignore and break federal immigration law.
        Oooh…. Ty…. are you skilled, or are you Hyper-Skilled?
        Where do you live? Is it a hyper-skilled area? I bet it is.
        How pathetic.

      • Rizzo  •  Jul 1, 2017 at 11:33 am

        Not exactly sure what qualifies as "larger metro areas", but here is a list of the top-50 worst cities to live in… They are spread throughout the US. Most are either liberal, leftists islands, or are a victims of liberal, leftist states. Either way, it's clear… The leftist, Utopian Dream is at best, a NIGHTMARE. IT DOESN'T WORK… BUT THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO EVEN MAKE YOU MORONS PAUSE.
        YOU LEFTISTS SEEM COMPLETELY IMPERVIOUS TO FACTS, LOGIC, REASON, HISTORY, EVERYTHING THAT MIGHT MAKE SOMEONE STOP AND RETHINK THEIR POSITIONS.

        http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/50-worst-cities-to-live-in/ss-BBCKRM1?li=BBnb7Kz#image=19

  7. Rizzo  •  Jun 27, 2017 at 8:09 pm

    Ty

    You are so wrong.
    When has a government takeover, ever resulted in increased quality, more access for all, and lower cost? Give me an example.
    I thought you leftists were against Monopolies? Single-payer is a monopoly, run by perhaps the most inadequate organization EVER to do so.
    You live in a dream world, filled with government-utopian dreams…. with not a single example of why?!? Just pure FAITH. I guess you leftists are religious after all. You just have faith in a different God than I.

    • Ty  •  Jun 28, 2017 at 2:27 pm

      Just a clarification. Single payer would not imply a monopoly, at worst it would imply a monopsony. There would still be plenty of private hospitals and practices, but a single buyer would shift the cost burden down. If they were the primary buyer of drugs or setting uniform drug prices, the costs would go lower.

      I get that you don't want that, you want us to have the freedom to pay more, the freedom to be gouged. Or as you might put it, the freedom to have drugs in the first place because of companies being able to turn a higher profit with the added incentives for a new and successful drug. You might say the unintended consequences of lower drug costs would be fewer drugs made. And that is a possibility, but it's also VERY possible that much like when drug companies make pitches to wallstreet, their R&D costs are shown to be vastly overstated when it comes to public debates and rallying useful idiot conservatives, and that there is a great deal of room for lower costs while still having incentives to produce more drugs. And that much of the pushback is not because it will make the enterprise of developing more drugs unprofitable, but that it would cut into their margins.

      Oh the horror. But I suppose, to conservatives that is the greatest horror.

  8. Rizzo  •  Jun 28, 2017 at 10:38 pm

    No… its a Monopoly.

    The ONLY way to lower cost and improve quality, is to have and promote competition, and to expose businesses/people to REAL market forces.

    Your Government, monopolistic control model destroys all of that.

    It's like your leftist, moronic idea of arbitrary "price-controls". It NEVER WORKS, but you MORONS keep trying it.
    You people just don't get it. It's like dealing with children.

Tell Us What You Think

All fields required. The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this website you agree to accept our Terms of Use.

Medhead

Listen Commercial FREE  |  On-Demand
Login Join
Advertisement
Advertise with us Advertisement
Advertisement

Follow Michael

The Michael Medved Show - Mobile App

Download from App Store Get it on Google play
Advertisement
Advertisement
Michael Medved's History Store Also available on TuneIn