Iowa Republican Debate

[Bond]

Originally Posted by thatmariolover

But really, many of the things he's instituted have had (preliminarily) positive results. It might be a bit early, but S&P reported just two weeks ago that Medicare spending has slowed down considerably (lowest growth rate in 6 years), aside from that cancer rates are down and many people who couldn't get health insurance now can. Working in a clinic, we're definitely noticing a positive shift with all of the preventative health services we're now required to offer.

Do you work at Mayo (just curious)? Those cost declines are probably more a short-term change than anything substantial. Costs will continue to increase as our population ages, unless there is a change to the status quo.

I guess what I hear is a lot of complaining without any solutions or suggestions. What do you think the president should be doing? What would/could conservatives do better?

He needs to focus on growing the economy, which starts with creating a predictable, and frankly boring, economic environment. Reform the tax code, lower rates, broaden the base. Lock-in everything for several years. Those things alone will drive up tax revenue far more than any tax increase on the super wealthy (also will do more to solve the deficit issue than anything else).

Or how about the general lack of understanding or willingness to accept scientifically proven ideologies?

Climate change? I'm with you, but there are bigger fish to fry with 9.2% unemployment (~15% real unemployment).

[thatmariolover]

Originally Posted by Bond

Do you work at Mayo (just curious)? Those cost declines are probably more a short-term change than anything substantial. Costs will continue to increase as our population ages, unless there is a change to the status quo.

I do, yes (though in the context of political discussion, disregard my affiliation with Mayo). You may be right, all I'm reporting is what we've seen thusfar. But I think the benefits may be more long term than you think. The idea is that now we're forced to keep track of when patients have had important tests (Colonoscopy, Lipid Panel, PSA, Mammogram, Pap Test, etc). If we find they're due for something important, even if we're not they're primary care provider, we offer to schedule it for them. If we don't, we don't get Medicare reembursement. I realize we have a very streamlined process, and it may be a more ideal implementation than many health organizations.

He needs to focus on growing the economy, which starts with creating a predictable, and frankly boring, economic environment. Reform the tax code, lower rates, broaden the base. Lock-in everything for several years. Those things alone will drive up tax revenue far more than any tax increase on the super wealthy (also will do more to solve the deficit issue than anything else).

I only support a tax increase on the super wealthy in that it's smarter than getting rid of social services offered to the poor or raising taxes on the middle class. I don't think that it's going to solve our budget crisis at all. But when Republicans say they want 'everybody to pay their share' and that includes taxing the middle class while extending cuts for the rich, I have a problem.

The progressive flat tax you guys have discussed seems quite fair.

Climate change? I'm with you, but there are bigger fish to fry with 9.2% unemployment (~15% real unemployment).

Climate change has to be the really big one. There's a clear intent to deny and discredit climate change filtering down from somewhere in the Republican party. I haven't really seen much from the GOP regarding what to do about unemployment, aside from a Bachmann calling down from on high to axe the minimum wage.

I can't reconcile my social differences with the party either.

Texas is facing a huge teen pregnancy problem thanks to Rick Perry's abstinence only sex education program. He's also under fire for his crude vaginal sonogram laws he passed for the anti-abortion camp (judge just threw it out). Not to mention the $500 million he's accepted from AT&T and then surprisingly voted in favor of their merger.

Republicans are supposed to be the ones cheering for limited government. But most of them can't even agree on that. You've got the gay haters, the Christian fundamentalists who can't understand separation of church and state (or worse, Bachmann/Perry Dominionism brand crazy), people who want to continue an unconstitutional drug war (granted, some are smarter).

Republicans are only conservative when it suits them.

And I don't want this to be a bash the Republican party post, like so many of mine seem to be. Because I'm feel quite disillusioned to politicians in general. I'm not impressed with the Obama or the Democratic party as a whole, but it is socially far more progressive.

I've written several long, well worded letters to the President. I've pointed out his inconsistencies, his hypocrisy, and in several instances I voiced concerns that his actions belie his actual agenda. I never expected or received a reply.

Right now, I'm at a total loss for where my vote should go.

[Bond]

Originally Posted by thatmariolover

I do, yes (though in the context of political discussion, disregard my affiliation with Mayo). You may be right, all I'm reporting is what we've seen thusfar. But I think the benefits may be more long term than you think. The idea is that now we're forced to keep track of when patients have had important tests (Colonoscopy, Lipid Panel, PSA, Mammogram, Pap Test, etc). If we find they're due for something important, even if we're not they're primary care provider, we offer to schedule it for them. If we don't, we don't get Medicare reembursement. I realize we have a very streamlined process, and it may be a more ideal implementation than many health organizations.

I know a lot of people from Rochester (some who work at Mayo), which is why I asked.

The progressive flat tax you guys have discussed seems quite fair.

It's good ... fair, efficient, and increased revenue. Probably politically problematic though.

Climate change has to be the really big one. There's a clear intent to deny and discredit climate change filtering down from somewhere in the Republican party. I haven't really seen much from the GOP regarding what to do about unemployment, aside from a Bachmann calling down from on high to axe the minimum wage.

I can't reconcile my social differences with the party either.

That's fair. Unfortunately, when the Republican party sold out to the evangelicals after the Goldwater-era, that included selling out to their extreme social views. The problem is that there isn't a party that sides with most Americans: economically conservative and socially liberal.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by thatmariolover

I only support a tax increase on the super wealthy in that it's smarter than getting rid of social services offered to the poor or raising taxes on the middle class. I don't think that it's going to solve our budget crisis at all. But when Republicans say they want 'everybody to pay their share' and that includes taxing the middle class while extending cuts for the rich, I have a problem.

The progressive flat tax you guys have discussed seems quite fair.

Your full comment here shows how damaging demagoguery is to political discussion. The truth is that installing a progressive flat tax is technically a massive tax cut to the rich, and any opposing party would paint it as such. Now this is only a cut to their rate, and has nothing to do with $ paid, but it is so easy to attack anything that even remotely looks favorable to the wealthy. This is what many refer to as "class warfare".

The truth is the super rich would likely pay more with a lowered rate with few loopholes, but a complicated truth is often far more difficult to present to voters than a simple lie.