Dr. Ben Carson for V. P. in 2016 and for President in 2024?!

The number you're referring to, "U-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force" currently stands at 10.8% and has been steadily declining since it peaked at 17.1% in 2009. By election time next year, it could be below 8%. I don't think Republican's will have much luck trying to get elected on that argument.

 

You realize that those who entirely stop looking for work are not counted as unemployed right? And you've seen the recent polls indicating how large a number of people without jobs have dropped out of being unemployed because they've stopped looking? Sure you have you seem like an educated person

 

Here is some education for you compliments of the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

 

Yes and of those that spend more than 12 months out and not looking? They drop off the stats. Those that fit the same marginally attached stats except they HAVE totally given up and are not available to work because they no longer give a (*)(*)(*)(*) (and many are now in the black market in some fashion to make ends meet)? They drop off too.

Can you honestly not see the loopholes in those sentences?

 

As a pragmatist, I must respect the empirical reality that all advanced nations have now settled on a very similar approach - at around half the cost of the US on average - and it is, overwhelmingly, those who profit off the current inefficiencies and ideological dogmatics that resist, nitpicking and emphasizing inevitable shortcomings whilst blithely ignoring the overall, inherent superiority. Meanwhile, the medical costs of the uninsured (20% of Texans) are routinely dumped on the taxpayer.

Are there flaws in Medicare that covers 50 million Americans, the highest-cost demographic? Of course. Do the nations physicians "routinely abuse" that system? Of course not.

As a matter of fact, despite the worshipful attitude towrd the almighty free market by its zealots, The traditional Medicare program allocates only 1 percent of total spending to overhead compared with 6 percent when the privatized portion of Medicare, known as Medicare Advantage, is included.

Out of every health care dollar must come the enormous executive salaries, the huge marketing, advertising and political lobbying budgets, the agency commissions and clerical support staffs. Then there are the repeated duplications of every member of the private insurance cartel by every other member. Spread the risk by maximizing the size of the risk pool, standardize all data collection and processing for optimal efficiency and minimal cost. Eradicate the need for massive taxpayer subsidies to employer-administered plans. Free America's businesses of the bureaucratic burden of administering such plans so that they can compete in the global marketplace without that handicap.

The principle hindrance to the superior approach is the wealth of the parasitic self-interested that treat and/or cure no one. The power they wield prevents the progress that would destroy their cash cow. Follow the money.


.

 

We do not know what will be the hot issues for 2016. There is too much time between now and then. There will be events and happenings that none of us can forecast at the moment. After 2010 and through much of 2011 with ACA running around 58-60% against, I thought it would be one hot issue for 2012. But it was hardly mentioned during the general election campaign. That probably made both sides happy, Obama didn't have to defend it and Romney didn't have to defend Romneycare.

I think 2016 will be about something or things yet to come.

 

And you measure that how?

 

yes I'm rather aware that people are self interested. I'm not denying that.

Yes the traditional medicare program which doesn't have the entirety of the nation sucking on its tit. You're really going to try to compare those apples to oranges natty? You're usually sharper than that so maybe I've missed your point. Feel free to get me back on track.

By maximizing the risk pool you don't spread the risk. You add the risk of EVERY SINGLE PERSON YOU ADD. Insurance is legalized gambling and a single payer system is not any different in that respect. Sure, some folks are going to be healthy for years and years, others are going to seem like a safe bet and dovetail into the (*)(*)(*)(*)ter. You don't fix that problem by betting more often. That compounds the problem. I also think you're missing the plethora of horror stories that come out of things like the NHS, and the funding problems they're having these days.
Gov services are by the lowest bidder. I don't want the lowest bidder picking my dr. For an example of american gov run healthcare see the VA. Both my grandfathers served and were treated for various ailments by the VA and my mother had to do clinic hours at the VA for her NP. Eventually both quit going to the VA because the service was lousy, documents got lost, wait times were terrible, it was extremely difficult to get an appointment in any sort of reasonable time frame. My mother was offered a fairly well paying job doing what she wanted to do as an NP at the VA (and she's a staunch republican, so treating veterans stirred her patriotic heart) but she flat refused to take the job because of the (*)(*)(*)(*)ty clerks, staff, general attitude, plethora of redtape, and the absolutely dehumanizing way the employees went about their duties.

I'm simply not comfortable with the government having this much power. I'm not saying things can't be done to improve our system, or that reform is not needed. But a single payer system is not puppy dogs and rainbows and in my opinion would be worse all things considered than what we had before the abortion that is ACA

 

Now you're getting it! They only count the ones that report the way that fits into how the stat is set up. Any others go into the trash can and go unreported while the gov in power (iirc bush's dumbass pulled this same (*)(*)(*)(*)) proudly points to how the unemployment rate is going down!! You can go google various polls if you'd like to see some self reporting on "(*)(*)(*)(*) it i've totally given up" stats.

 

2016 will be decided on who wins each primary and whether any 3rd partiers can garner enough attention to hit a big debate.

If paul vs hillary: Civil liberties and small government vs authoritarianism
if christie vs hillary: They'll just hug it out, they aren't appreciably different in most cases.
same thing with jeb.
Walker would be budget cuts and tax drops and hawk vs big gov and hawk

ACA should be a big issue if paul wins the primary. People are finally realizing that thing is a turd in the punch bowl. Of course if SCOTUS finishes off the fed exchanges here soon then maybe it will already be over.

But certainly: Gay marriage, abortion, drug war, taxes, budgets, interventionism vs non, and NSA surveillance are going to be big talking points.

 

Here is list from Gallup of the top issues through the years. Several issues seem to show up almost every year.



Most of the issues you mentioned didn't make Gallup's top 20 issue lists

 

That is what drives the economy. However, when the profit margins, executive salaries, marketing, advertising, political lobbying budgets, and overhead costs are all extracted from every health care dollar rather than being allocated to the care and cure of the patient, it results, demonstrably, in a cost of insurance that is twice as high as it needs to be.

Yes, you do. That's the basic actuarial reality. The larger the risk poll, the more stable, and the more predicable the cost.

Except that, for the privateers, the House takes a huge cut. Their primary incentive is profit.

They do not treat or cure anyone. The objective should be directing as much as every heath care dollar as possible to those that do.

I'm sure we could regale one another with anecdotes, half about the privateers' bottom-line bureaucrats denying necessary treatment that doctors deem medically appropriate because it cuts into the insurer's profit margins.

Treating all those patriotic staunch Democrats who served is admirable.

I prefer democratic control to a cartel focused upon profit wielding such power.

I appreciate that Romney's intent with his "individual mandate" scheme was to achieve universal coverage so that the costs of the uninsured are not dumped on the taxpayer, but the profiteers were accommodated as a political necessity. Yes, as a result, Massachusetts has a higher percentage of its people insured now than any other state, but the national adoption of that system, despite extending health coverage to millions, retains the same flaws. Employer-administered plans are still heavily subsidized by taxes, profiteers that do not provide medical treatment still take their cut, and there remains a conspicuous absence of cost control measures.

Medicare is here to stay because Americans like it.

Could it be improved even as its minimum age requirement is incrementally lowered? I don't see why not.

 

I'm asking you, Reality. How do you measure "true unemployment"? People love to throw around that term but nobody seems to want to define it.

 

The only thing Carson is in contention for is a cushy 7 figure job on FOX News.

 

People without jobs.

 

So you would count students, stay-home parents, the disabled, and retired people as "unemployed"?

 

Disabled and completely unable to work? No. Retired? No. Students? Yes. Stay at home parents? Yes.

 

Why would you count students and stay-home parents? Shouldn't unemployment numbers reflect only those who want to work and can't? Or do you think everyone that is able should have a job?

 

Unemployment is set to track that percentage of the population that can work but for whatever reason does not. Its supposed to show those not bringing in an income. My way doesn't allow for tricky accounting to make yourself look better. And before you say it: Yes this would mean the numbers we normally consider acceptable (somewhere between 5 and 10 IIRC) would need to be tweaked to reflect the new stat.

 

The problem is, when there are 90 million Americans who can work, but 85 million of them wouldn't for whatever reason, such a number would be worthless for determining how many jobs the economy needs. It also fails to support your claim that the economy is not doing fine because you cannot show what the natural level of unemployment should be.

 

Which makes him sympathetic to the pathway to citizenship, a road we shouldn't even be going down, republican or democrat driven.

 

Where are you pulling these numbers from, your ass?

Sigh: I pointed out that you cannot use your number because it leaks like a damn sieve. I may not be able to tell you where my number should fall, but your number does not reflect what you claim it does.

 

It's called research. You should try it some time.
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Why should we be more concerned with how many people can work as opposed to how many people want to work? Do you think students and stay-home parents should be out working instead?

 

You think there are only 5 million in the workforce?
Because you're trying to measure people not employed not people who want to work but don't have jobs and who have looked for work in the last year.
Your number has loopholes and underestimates unemployment. It also allows a politician in a bad economy to say "look I fixed it the number went down " when it went down because the (*)(*)(*)(*) has dragged on so long people have given up hope entirely and either gone black market or started pulling from the government tit or usually both.

 

My wife is from Quito, Ecuador.

She has done an amazing job of adapting to our pretty harsh climate here in Nova SCotia, Canada.

She teaches Zumba, Spanish, Tropical Dance and has had a really good part time job for nine years now.

She has made so many friends here, and she is active with several charitable organizations.

One key to her fitting in so well is that she got fairly good English language instruction when she was in elementary school. We have a wonderful friend here from Cuba who is having a more difficult time adapting ……. but sure enough….. his skill in using English is far far far below what my wife can do. The key is to get their kids into school early and teach them English.