patrick.net

Not sure if I mentioned this already but oh well. I'll mention it again. The biggest problem I see facing the Republican party is their failure to attract younger, more diverse voters. Want proof? Take a look at pretty much any video at a Republican event. The entire crowds at these things looks like the same crowds that probably leave afterwards and head to all-you-can-eat-buffets in middle America. They're all pushing their 50's-80's.

Hardly anyone I know in my age (30's) is a Republican. That's a problem.

The Republican party needs to get off of the same social issues they choose to pick because they're after a very select and diminishing demographic. If they want to be relevant to younger people they'll need to find things we actually care about.

Evard --

It's not an illusion.

"The dirty little secret of conservative talk radio," says Vanity Fair, "is that the average age of listeners is 67 and rising, according to Sinton -- the Fox News audience, likewise, is in its mid-60s: 'What sort of continuing power do you have as your audience strokes out?'"

See: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/05/rush-limbaugh200905?currentPage=2

m1ckey6 says

Patrick I have contact with the inner workings of CA politics and I can assure you that not caring about the working class and the poor is equal opportunity between the parties.

As I am sure you know making generalizations from your own personal experience does not always translate to a larger "truth". While I agree that there are significant problems with both D and Rs there has been some recent study that seems to suggest that Republican policy is "worse" for the middle, working and poor classes.

http://www.slate.com/id/2266025/entry/2266030/

Under Republican administrations, real income growth for the lower- and middle-classes has consistently lagged well behind the income growth rate for the rich—and well behind the income growth rate for the lower and middle classes themselves under Democratic administrations.

"Yeah, and some us aim not to return to those historical anomaly days.

We were the second lowest taxed nation in the European sphere of influence when the Revolutionary War broke out. Americans don't like high taxes."

You can't have historically low taxes AND a massive defense budget. One of them has to give.

shrekgrinch says

No it isn't, because the youth vote is unreliable. Old people outvote them 4-1 and it isn't just because of numbers...its because they fucking show up on voting day.

And as America ages, this will become even more pronounced.

That certainly wasn't the case the last election and I can guarantee that it won't be this time around either. Either way you missed my point, which is that composition of the Republican party in regards to its constituents is of older people- and they are growing older, meaning the party is having a problem attracting younger people or replenishing their base for obvious reasons.

shrekgrinch says

No it isn't, because the youth vote is unreliable. Old people outvote them 4-1 and it isn't just because of numbers...its because they fucking show up on voting day.

And because voting day is on a Tuesday, and most polls are open for only a couple of hours after the work day.

Made sense 200 years ago when Tuesday was the day before market day in most towns by widespread custom; and the end of the harvest season.

Most people today aren't farmers, work 9-5, and Saturday tends to be the day everybody is out shopping.

Let's move the voting day to Saturday, but it'll never happen. Having elections on Tuesday is a great vote suppressor.

I disagree. SS will not be eliminated. It is in need of some changes in order to save it, if indeed it's worth saving. The elderly today have nothing to worry about, and any comments to the contrary are just scaremongering or misguided. It is those who are younger, 40s and below, perhaps, who should wonder, as I do, why I am flushing my money down the SS toilet and am almost certain not to get it back because I will be means tested or die before I reach the ever-increasing eligibilty age. A ways back, the GOP had a reasonable suggestion to let THOSE WHO WANTED TO invest PART of their SS funds in private mutualy fund/IRA/401k like arrangements, to achieve a superior return versus what the money 'earns' now. This was such a baby step to improving the system it's a no brainer, but was opposed and demagogued by the Democrats. Personally, if I could, i would opt out of SS entirely, either retroactively form day one (preferably) or going forward, take the money, and be responsible for my own retirement, signing away any right to rely on the government for support in my old age. So the elimination of SS in this sense isn't a fatal weakness, it's a great idea! (BTW, how can a weakness be 'fatal' to a party that is not only not going away, but will probably take the White House in 2012?)

Nomograph says

TMAC54 says

Cab Drivers make the same income as Doctors in SOCIALIZED countries.

Show me one country where cab drivers earn the same as doctors. Just one.

Anybody? Beuller?

Let other pens dwell on guilt and misery -- Jane Austen

Show me a patient who'd go to that doctor if they had the cash to see one in another country.

JG1 says

Show me a patient who'd go to that doctor if they had the cash to see one in another country.

They could ride their carriage made of marsmallows pulled by unicorns...

Millions of elderly people depend on Social Security and Medicare for their survival.

But oddly that was not the original intent. FDR received his ideas mostly from Bismark of Germany. Bismark created everything that the modern western state has: unemployment insurance, social security, medicare, disability insurance. But these were created to stem the tide of communism (not the soviet union but actual upheaval) That was the time when angry anarchists were still around (violent too).

When FDR made social security it can be argued that intent was to help elderly people during the great depression as those would be the people least likely to do the work of the new deal programs.

When Bismark made these systems life expectancy in germany was 45..and he set the age at 65. Meaning that this was more of an incentive to live longer. When FDR created it life expectancy was about 64/65..so as a concept he did not anticipate tens of millions of people on this.

One could argue that LBJ passed medicare as a way to win back southern dixiecrats after the passage of the civil rights act.

Ironically the creation of programs to create dependency is not new. JFK created the peace corp with money from his own department (EOP). So when congress saw this program JFK could claim it was already operating in a number of countries so it would show bad intent to other countries and employment to simply kill it off.

Life expectancy now is about 79 years. We can roughly assume that they will be on these systems for at least 15 years. Raising the age to qualify for these programs would be political suicide. If we want to bring down costs I would say to put a time frame for the duration of the program. If it's a 30 year plan then the plan could end at age 95. If it's a 35 year plan then end at 100.

We also have to clamp down on fraud. By doing that we can help maintain benefits without having to raise taxes.I can't count how many devices are advertised with "We bill medicare, no cost to you". Shouldn't a doctor be recommending products for medicare rather than commercials?

There's already policy in place to raise the retirement age to 67 for baby-boomers. Medicare eligibility age stays the same.

It's hard to get health insurance when you're old - Medicare is important. People need to have acces to preventative care, then they wouldn't have as many (expensive) catastrophic illnesses later on.

Reality says

The "cash on the sidelines" phrase never makes any sense. Whenever someone buys a stock or buys a piece of machinery, the seller of the stock or machinery gets the cash! So "cash" is always there, just pass from one person to the next.

But they don't. That's why it's cash on the sidelines, they don't buy stock with it or reinvest. They just put it in money market accounts that are backed by buying short-term government notes that are basically for covering cash flow.Dan8267 says

Science advances one funeral at a time, and so do social issues.

That's priceless.

mdovell says

But these were created to stem the tide of communism (not the soviet union but actual upheaval) That was the time when angry anarchists were still around (violent too).

Exactly. The big wigs feared the angry masses, which is what brought reforms.

Tear Gas, a big step backward for civilization - the ability to sweep away protests without having to maim or kill people.

If the politicians would have kept their hands out of Social Security there would be plenty of money for everyone. You are going to tell these people they cannot have their money after they faithfully paid into Social Security and Medicare for 40 or 50 years. I don't know where this Patrick comes up with the idea that older Americans are racist. Is he just pulling this out of his rear end. Americans vote with their wallets or purses. President Clinton proved that "it is the economy stupid"

I don't believe that Patrick said that older Americans are racist... but the majority of those that make up the t-party are older, and they're racist. There's a difference.

There's a difference. Not every older American is a member of the t-party.

The best way to save Medicare is to allow younger people to join and have themselves or companies pay half of what they pay in health insurance in the form of Medicare premiums; then you could also lift the cap of self employment tax from $106K.

You would have fewer claims per enrollee since younger people use less health care and you could have coverage for a lot more people. People don't love Social Security, but right now, it will be fully funded for another 20 years without any deficit and with some tweaks, for another 75 years. Same concept for Medicare could work.

Coming from an "insider," Medicare needs to offer better rewards for reporting fraud and to protect those who report financial fraud, abuse or neglect.

Currently, people who report are in danger of losing their jobs but aren't protected in any way. While it's the right thing to do, everyone is afraid of losing their job, especially in this economy.

Medicare D shouldn't pay market rate for medications - with the purchasing power of more than 40 million recipients (2002 numbers, I didn't feel like researching any further).

Medicare should perform more audits - those providers who consistently bill at higher rates, those who admit more patients than other providers, and those with the highest number of complaints. Also, those with the highest number of patients who leave AMA.

More oversight for hospices, reduction of payments for patients who live in nursing homes and receive hospice, home health agencies who provide more visits than the average agency, equipment providers who do the same.

If I were among the powers that be, I could find tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in fraud.

elliemae says

If I were among the powers that be, I could find tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in fraud.

yup. Medicare is *big*. $500B/yr big, and the baby boom has only started turning 65. The big wave is coming in 2019-2029 where enrollees will be over 4M/year.

If any of you work for CMS, call me! I could save us all some money.

"If I were among the powers that be, I could find tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in fraud."

Ten or hundreds of millions of dollars is a big disparity, and even a $100 million is small compared to the shortfall projected for the soon-to-be retiring Boomers.

Medicare's big problems are structural. You cant have a system like this (or health insurance in general) where many more people take out than put in to the system.

Younger workers with fewer health problems to me is the only thing that will solve it. The health insurance premiums spent by corporations and individuals are being wasted on administrative costs and profits. A true non-profit (unlike Blue Shield where the profits go to employees) like Medicare is what is needed. Yes, fraud can be rooted out of the system, and that would save a decent amount of money, but it won't solve the structural issue. If people want to splurge on private health care above and beyond this, so be it, like they do in parts of Europe.

For 26 points and a pound of oats, can you guess the name of Rick Perry's hunting camp?

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-cain-perry-20111002,0,3601037.story

OurBroker says

For 26 points and a pound of oats...

Would this be Quaker Oats, your standard horse feed, or sweet feed (corn, barley & molasses)? If it's a sack of sweet feed, I'm a-googlin', baby!

What's the answer?

Waiting:
Sure, the main problems are structural. However, let's not forget that Medicare providers are all private and they have ways of scamming the system.

It's possible to do so and not get caught for years; workers are terrified of losing their jobs so no one tells. When state inspectors arrive, workers are watched to make sure that they don't spend too much time with them and are debriefed afterward (in the buildings where fraud occurs).

There needs to be more oversight and inspectors need to watch out for fraud.

Ellie --

Times are tough, we're going for whatever is cheap and at the supermarket....

For the answer, see the link to the LA Times above.

OurBroker says

Ellie --

Times are tough, we're going for whatever is cheap and at the supermarket....

Peter at OurBroker.com

I'm currently paying about $17 for a 50 pound sack, so I'd say that's a good price. Not fit for human consumption, but times are tough...

Oh good, so one pound would be 34 cents. That's nearly affordable.

Give me your address - I'll mail it in one of those flat rate boxes.

Let's see - $0.34 cents plus the flat rate box $9.80, plus the drive to the post office at the IRS mileage reimburement rate of 55.5 cents per mile (round trip) at $21.65; that doesn't count my time.

Still think it's a good deal?

We get 50 lb bags of organic rolled oats for $37.40 with shipping to the pickup point. (They have one place in each city where the truck comes to, and you have to go meet the truck to get your stuff.) That's from Azurestandard.com, which won't tell you the price unless you sign up -- which is a bit scammy, but the oats were good.

elliemae says

I'm currently paying about $17 for a 50 pound sack

How much for oats for human consumption, and organic? If the price is better than $37.40 for human-edible oats, here do you get it?

Back to topic, a great quote I just ran across:

It is the contention of the Republican Party that if the American worker would just work for a dollar a day in polluted factories with no benefits or rewards then the industry to which the political party bows could compete with Third World powers and they wouldn't have to ship those jobs overseas.

It is the contention of the Republican Party that if the American worker would just work for a dollar a day in polluted factories with no benefits or rewards then the industry to which the political party bows could compete with Third World powers and they wouldn't have to ship those jobs overseas.

I'm guessing you didn't find that quote in any actual GOP communication, website, statement, etc. In other words, it's the distorted view of some left winger.

This letter to the editor seems to be the oringal source of that quote:

http://www.mlive.com/opinion/muskegon/index.ssf/2011/10/letters_teapublicans_bent_on_r.html

HousingWatcher says

This letter to the editor seems to be the oringal source of that quote:

http://www.mlive.com/opinion/muskegon/index.ssf/2011/10/letters_teapublicans_bent_on_r.html

Thanks. I guess that's what you call a straw man argument. And repeating a straw man argument, and apparently citing it for its brilliance, well ... that's getting pretty thin in the persuasive and logical argument dept.

Bellingham Bob says

racist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd#Ku_Klux_Klan

http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1300/who-opposed-civil-rights-act-1964

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln#Republican_politics_1854.E2.80.931860

Yes we all know that democrats used be the home of southern racist politicians. We also know that in the 70s and 80s those who used to be conservative (racist) southern politicians, migrated over to the republican party. With exceptions of those such as Byrd, who later renounced his earlier affiliation with the KKK>

Not only are republicans not who they were in the time of Lincoln, they aren't even the slightest bit like they were in the days of Eisenhower or Nixon. BOth would be labeled RINOs now and driven out of the party.

The Republican and Democratic parties are now essentially polar opposites than what they were prior to 1964 (when the Civil Rights Act was passed). Saying the Democrats of today are racist because they were racist in the 40s is simply not true.

JG1 says

why I am flushing my money down the SS toilet and am almost certain not to get it back because I will be means tested or die before I reach the ever-increasing eligibilty age. A ways back, the GOP had a reasonable suggestion to let THOSE WHO WANTED TO invest PART of their SS funds in private mutualy fund/IRA/401k like arrangements, to achieve a superior return versus what the money 'earns' now.

Social Security gets far better returns, especially for married people:
http://www.angrybearblog.com/2009/03/social-security-return-on-investment.html

There's also no real crisis for Social Security yet and anyone suggesting there is one is mostly playing politics. Based on projections, people are making predictions, but projections that far out aren't always right. If a few variables change, we could be in a completely different position.

JG1 says

A ways back, the GOP had a reasonable suggestion to let THOSE WHO WANTED TO invest PART of their SS funds in private mutualy fund/IRA/401k like arrangements, to achieve a superior return versus what the money 'earns' now.

Yes, I remember this proposal, and as I recall it was right before the market took a huge dive as the bubble burst.

Social Security is insurance, it is not an account where you are depositing "your funds". As others have mentioned it could be easily "fixed" to last forever. One of the worst things that we could do would be to expose it to the volatility, fraud, and risk of Wall Street.

>>>Social Security is insurance, it is not an account where you are depositing "your funds". As others have mentioned it could be easily "fixed" to last forever. One of the worst things that we could do would be to expose it to the volatility, fraud, and risk of Wall Street.

I agree with Leo. Besides, if Social Security accounts were handled by Wall Street there'd be a $5 monthly fee to receive a check....

OurBroker says

>>>Social Security is insurance, it is not an account where you are depositing "your funds". As others have mentioned it could be easily "fixed" to last forever. One of the worst things that we could do would be to expose it to the volatility, fraud, and risk of Wall Street.

I agree with Leo. Besides, if Social Security accounts were handled by Wall Street there'd be a $5 monthly fee to receive a check....

Peter at OurBroker.com

Ah, Ha, Yeah, the $5 check fee would of course be on top of the monthly fees to maintain your account.

OurBroker says

I agree with Leo. Besides, if Social Security accounts were handled by Wall Street there'd be a $5 monthly fee to receive a check....

Yes, and in fact, many 401(k) programs are managed by Wall Street, and they do have inappropriately high fees. The fees on most people's 401(k)s are way too high for the level of service they get. There are not very many transactions (lots of buy and hold), the money that's moved around is moved around in volume, and the administration costs are very low. People would be shocked to figure out how much these things can cost them in a bad plan vs. how much they should cost.

corntrollio says

People would be shocked to figure out how much these things can cost them in a bad plan vs. how much they should cost.

the skim on 401K plans is horrendous. Wouldn't surprise me that plan providers bribe HR people under the table to choose them.

THOSE WHO WANTED TO invest PART of their SS funds in private mutualy fund

you want to gamble in the stock market, gamble in the stock market.

Social Security is designed to be a pay-as-you-go system between retirees and workers. Since this is a one-directional progression (workers -> retirees) it's a beautiful system, no gambling required.

The compounding interest retirement funds get isn't a free-lunch either. For every saver/specuvestor enjoying compounding returns there is a debtor somewhere chained to the wheel.