Off Topic USA 2012 Elections Thread

[gymgal]

Statistcally its more valid to compare percentages per population or amount.... Of course the us has more but it has more people and therefore more non immigrants. Canada and Australia have more immigrants per capita.... I'm baffled to explain this. With all do respect have you taken a statistics class? Its not valid to compare sheer numbers with different sample sizes without looking at porportion. Its like saying the US is the best ski country in the world based on how many athletes they produce. Meanwhile austria has a smaller population but a much higher per capita rate of world cup racers. Therefore, one would assume they have a strong program if not more so tham the us.

No offense taken... Yes, I have taken statistic courses. I majored in Special Ed and minored in math, both of which required different stat courses.

I only figured out your percentages to make the point that using just percentages does not tell the whole story in any situation. But I am not understanding your rational - "Of course the US has more people so it has more non-immigrants." I was not comparing citizens, I was comparing immigrants. Having more citizens does not explain why a country has more immigrants than other countries. The per capita percentages can only be used to show the ratios of citizens to immigrants. It is not an indication of immigration trends between countries.

Take smaller numbers. one country has 100 total population with an immigration rate of 20% and another has 1000 with 10%. Which is more successful in pulling people to their country? Well, you can't really know from these figures because you don't know how many actually come in on a yearly basis. But you can make an educated guess that seeing as though you have only 20 immigrants living in the first and 100 living in the second, then the second has been more successful. Again, it makes no difference that the second has more citizens, only that it has more people who have immigrated in...

So, it is completely valid to compare sheer numbers in this case because we are trying to figure out which country has had the most success in pulling people in. It doesn't matter how many people are in the country to which they are immigrating. The ski analogy is not correct. What would be correct would be "which country has the best ski locations in the world?" Would you use a per-capita figure of the individual countries to figure that out or would you use the actual numbers of people going to each country to ski?

The figures I gave are actual numbers of people entering each country each year - that is much more valid than per capita immigration "in this situation". But even that doesn't tell the whole story, because like I noted, BG has a high emigration rate, which affects immigration numbers. I am sure other countries have emigration factors too.

 

[gymgal]

OK - so let's get back on topic with actual election topics....

What do you all think are the top three critical issues that need to be addressed in the election and with the new presidential term? Just lists, no debates - just want everyone's opinion and maybe some of the shy lurkers will come out and participate.

1. tax reform (I'm leaning toward the fair / flat / national sales tax )

2. health care, including medicare (less regulation and more competition/choice across state lines)

3. balance the budget and create a plan to pay down the debt (this is actually my #1 priority)

 

[jago]

Not to get in the middle of this interesting discussion ... but, I thought I'd highlight the obvious.

If "in select areas of the country", a "too high salary" is being paid to a teacher, I can guarantee it is because the cost of living is high.

As far as the number of students in a classroom, here in Southern California (Orange County), 1st grade-5th grade classes have 31-37 students per class. No teachers aides. I'm speaking specifically of a public elementary school in an upper-middle-class neighborhood. The only reason this school has a nurse at all (4 hrs/day) is because of a highly dedicated PTA that fundraises all year long to provide the nurse along with music, art, p.e., science & computer lab. The list goes on ... And this school community is very lucky to have parents that are able to devote the time necessary to allow for these programs (both fundraising and volunteering in the school).


The cuts are severe indeed!

Edit:
Just wanted to add/clarify how much we parents truly appreciate and love the teachers for teaching our children because they love their job (our kids!), not because of the salary they receive!!!

 

[wandrewsjr]

I live in what would be considered an upper middle class area of northern California, and our class sizes are up to 30 for k-2, 35 for 3-5. No art programs, no librarian, no new computers, no counselors. Kids at the hogh school must pay $200 to $400 to participate on a school sports team, because that has been cut, too.

 

[gymcoach26]

My original point still stands. More immigrants continue to come to America than any other country in the world.

And what is your point exactly? Why is this as big a problem as republicans make it out to be? This country was founded by immigrants. Immigrants are what made up the history of our country. The first large wave of immigrants to the U.S. were from Northern Europe. At the beginning of the 20thC. the majority were Eastern and Southern European. Today we are seeing more from Asia and South America. This is a pattern of history and I bet most republicans would have far less of a problem with immigration if the current wave of immigrants were still coming from Europe.

I would never vote for a president or vice president who wanted to prevent same sex marriage, voted against repealing the Don't Ask Don't tell Policy, or against the Matthew Shepard Act. Why would there even be debate over any of these things?

 

[SkiBumGymMom]

No offense taken... Yes, I have taken statistic courses. I majored in Special Ed and minored in math, both of which required different stat courses.

I only figured out your percentages to make the point that using just percentages does not tell the whole story in any situation. But I am not understanding your rational - "Of course the US has more people so it has more non-immigrants." I was not comparing citizens, I was comparing immigrants. Having more citizens does not explain why a country has more immigrants than other countries. The per capita percentages can only be used to show the ratios of citizens to immigrants. It is not an indication of immigration trends between countries.

Take smaller numbers. one country has 100 total population with an immigration rate of 20% and another has 1000 with 10%. Which is more successful in pulling people to their country? Well, you can't really know from these figures because you don't know how many actually come in on a yearly basis. But you can make an educated guess that seeing as though you have only 20 immigrants living in the first and 100 living in the second, then the second has been more successful. Again, it makes no difference that the second has more citizens, only that it has more people who have immigrated in...

So, it is completely valid to compare sheer numbers in this case because we are trying to figure out which country has had the most success in pulling people in. It doesn't matter how many people are in the country to which they are immigrating. The ski analogy is not correct. What would be correct would be "which country has the best ski locations in the world?" Would you use a per-capita figure of the individual countries to figure that out or would you use the actual numbers of people going to each country to ski?

The figures I gave are actual numbers of people entering each country each year - that is much more valid than per capita immigration "in this situation". But even that doesn't tell the whole story, because like I noted, BG has a high emigration rate, which affects immigration numbers. I am sure other countries have emigration factors too.

Canada and Australia were the countries I meant to highlight. I brought up GB just because the numbers of immigration are close to the US, and many Americans don't associate GB with immigration. Many of the GB emmigrants wind up in Australia actually.

While the US has higher numbers, once again it has a higher population. If you use sheer volume as your standard, the US, India and China would lead almost any discussion just because of their population. I'm very familiar with Canada, Vancouver is almost entirely Asian immigrants (especially Chinese, many emigrated from Hong Kong right before GB handed over control to China, while they still could more easily as Commonwealth citizens). Toronto is almost entirely Sikh, Pakistani, Jamaican, etc. Montreal has a very high Franco- Caribbean population as well as North African. The reason being as a Commonwealth people can immigrate there from other Commonwealth nations. Canada does not have the emigration you point out with GB. While there are fewer numbers, there are fewer numbers of native citizens, and proportionately they have the services associated with a smaller population, and therefore are dealing with more immigrants in their system. And they manage much better (IMO) than the US. There are undocumented immigrants in Canada as well. I'm not as familiar with Australia, but from what I am, the same applies.

But back onto the US election...

 

[gymgal]

Not to get in the middle of this interesting discussion ... but, I thought I'd highlight the obvious.

If "in select areas of the country", a "too high salary" is being paid to a teacher, I can guarantee it is because the cost of living is high.

As far as the number of students in a classroom, here in Southern California (Orange County), 1st grade-5th grade classes have 31-37 students per class.

Too late... please stay. More is better...

I don't know much about CA and I am honestly shocked to hear that your class ratio is that high, particularly considering how progressive CA is.

As for salaries, this is not true. While teachers tend to start out with lower salaries, if they stay in the system, they end up with far higher salaries and better benefits (including in retirement) than people working in the private sector (not just talking private sector teacher- I mean anyone who has similar college experience, hours worked).

 

[gymgal]

And what is your point exactly? Why is this as big a problem as republicans make it out to be? .....and I bet most republicans would have far less of a problem with immigration if the current wave of immigrants were still coming from Europe.

I would never vote for a president or vice president who wanted to prevent same sex marriage, voted against repealing the Don't Ask Don't tell Policy, or against the Matthew Shepard Act. Why would there even be debate over any of these things?

I'm not sure where you're going with the immigration topic. My point was in response to others saying that this country is not as great as we think it is. I mentioned that we have consistently had the largest immigration rate past and present. That's where the stats are coming from. It has nothing to do with Republicans against immigration. They are not against it - only illegal immigration, which we should all be against. And they want to make sure that immigrants coming here are able to support themselves and not become burdens on our society. That's just good national policy.

As for the last section, there should always be a debate when people differ in opinions. Those topics you mentioned are not as straight forward as you would like to make them. There are real pros/cons on both sides of those issues. If one cannot see that, then that person hasn't taken the time to really understand the topics, prefering to just go on gut instinct... That's how we got NCLB.... (sorry, couldn't resist... NCLB is not that simple, I know)

 

[SkiBumGymMom]

In response to gymgirl's post on page 14 saying the problem in education is not budget cuts and that class sizes are small, etc. (CB is being strange with posts)

If I'm not mistaken you said there is nothing wrong with the education in low socio-economic schools. Not the teaching. But thank you for clarifying.

There is a problem with the teaching. Low income schools have much higher teacher turnover, usually have younger teachers (who get paid far less) and have less access to educational materials. You claim that there are no problems with textbooks and other materials in poor urban school districts. I know for a fact from teaching in Aurora Public Schools and having friends and colleagues in low-income school districts across my state, this isn't true. I've seen the 80s era textbooks students use with my own eyes. I've seen students have to pay for copies of worksheets, and those who can't, copy by hand. It exists.

You also claim they get the most money. This isn't the case, at least in Colorado. Colorado school districts get very little state funding and mostly get their funding from schools levies in bonds from their district areas. For example, the mountain resort district I teach in now has very high property taxes form tourism, second homes, etc. This gets fed into a school district with a much smaller population of students. Denver Public Schools have far more students and lower property values (but yes, there still in money from wealthy areas in Denver). Aurora Public Schools, directly adjacent to the east of Denver and Adams 5 Star, directly north of Denver in an area with heavy oil commerce, are both very impoverished, high density areas. Their funding per student is extremely low. The federal funding to these school districts is minimal.

http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdereval/download/PDF/AvgTeacherSal/2011AvgTeacherSalary.pdf The average teaching salaries in our state. The starting is much lower. In APS and DPS entry level teachers get paid around $20,000 (sometimes less) while those in suburban areas adjacent that are more wealthy, get paid starting around $35,000. The cost of living is the same.

And to continue, I was in classes with 40+ kids. My son was too in both DC public schools and APS. The school district where I am now has about 30 kids on average at the high school level, 25 at middle and 20 in elementary. I'm a special ed coordinator now and even in my wealthier district, very few integrated students have aids in the classroom. We don't have the budget. I was the sole interpreter in APS before, and it was the district magnet school for Deaf children. Sometimes students went without a terp for certain classes.

And also you pointed out an academic study about Head Start isn't non-partisan. If it were done by Head Start I would agree. But it was done by the University of Chicago, a private, well respected university. If this sort of research isn't valid, very little research is, considering high level universities produce most major research and studies.

OK - so let's get back on topic with actual election topics....

What do you all think are the top three critical issues that need to be addressed in the election and with the new presidential term? Just lists, no debates - just want everyone's opinion and maybe some of the shy lurkers will come out and participate.

1. tax reform (I'm leaning toward the fair / flat / national sales tax )

2. health care, including medicare (less regulation and more competition/choice across state lines)

3. balance the budget and create a plan to pay down the debt (this is actually my #1 priority)

1) I support a national sales tax. Canada has a GST as does Australia and it works fine. It goes back to the people in a variety of social programs. I don't agree with a flat tax, as it affects the middle class proportionately. 10% may be more from someone making $250,000 a year (which whatever people say, is the upper end of the spectrum) but affects their quality of life less than a family making $40,000 a year.

2) I support the private and public option. Obamacare in my opinion, is a great start, not perfect, but a start. No one should be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions and everyone should have access to affordable health care. If that means expanding Medicare and Medicaid, so be it.

I know that news articles aren't the best stories, but this does paint a great picture of the major problem with states having control. http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_21313761/anti-medicaid-states-earning-11-000-is-too

3) With a GST, more organized social programs (going back to the health care issue, in essence having more people covered for preventative care and doctors visits would lower the government costs shouldered by people accessing emergency care when health problems become so severe. Preventative care is far cheaper).

I'm not a big fan of the states deciding a lot of things, to limit education spending, health care (as seen in the , taxes, jobs, etc. I know the idea of federal regulation on these issues isn't ideal, but the way certain state governments are going about it isn't right. Alabama didn't legalize interracial marriage until 2000. So much for states deciding everything. Schools weren't desegregated (including Colorado! which had de facto not like the South but still) until the federal government stepped in. Yes cost of living and other standards should be taken into effect (less money for food stamps will buy you more in Mississippi than Massachusetts for example).

I'm leaning towards the idea states should be required federally to raise more money for public works, such as transportation and education. The federal government pays more per capita to states like Montana and Alaska with very few taxes. And those areas aren't hubs for major businesses, the argument many use to support areas with low taxes to grow the economy. That would relieve the burden of the federal government and allow it to focus financially on the debt and other national financial issues. Also stop with the bailouts of dying industries and instead put money into growing industries that will be sustainable into the future (energy, not auto work, that will provide long term, growing jobs for Americans).

I know some of that might seem a bit extreme, but I'm being idealistic here

 

[Pineapple_Lump]

1) I support a national sales tax. Canada has a GST as does Australia and it works fine.

I don't have much to add to the debate, but I love political cartoons and the mention of GST and taxes is a reminder of this favourite.

 

[bogwoppit]

Hahahaha! The UK has one too, it is called V.A.T.. Value added tax.

 

[Andersonortho]

2) I support the private and public option. Obamacare in my opinion, is a great start, not perfect, but a start. No one should be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions and everyone should have access to affordable health care. If that means expanding Medicare and Medicaid, so be it.

Whoa! From a health care provider's perspective, this is easier said than done.

It is not easy (and rarely profitable) to be a Medicaid provider. The administrative complexities, patient compliance problems and low fixed reimbursement rates makes treating such patients very challenging. Often my costs to provide the care exceed the reimbursement from Medicaid (which my small, non-tourist state cannot afford to expand). How can any business survive like this? Adding more people to this already abused and misguided system could be disasterous. More providers may choose to not accept Medicaid patients (as is already the case in many states) thus limiting the number of doctors available to these patients.

More than just my opinion... this is my everyday life. Many of my patients who are given their medical services for free do not value these services and are less likely to cooperate with instructions and policies. After all, they have nothing invested in the service. Apparently the "something for nothing" philosphy is acceptable to many.

In our state approximately 35% of the children covered by Medicaid sought preventive dental services in 2011. However, nearly 80% of children covered by CHIP sought such services. There is access to care here. They choose not to access the care. We can provide "free" health care but we cannot assume that people will utilize it appropriately.

(Also... my brothers are ER physicians... I don't have the patience to discuss unnecessary ER visits by Medicaid patients.)

Off the soap box ... back to treating my patients.

 

[bogwoppit]

Coming from two countries with socialised health care I find it astounding that there is even a discussion of not being able to get care/coverage for pre-existing conditions. I also found is nauseating to think of families with no health care as they are low income and not covered by insurance or medicaid.

The whole "medicaid patients" tone is a little ugly.

Tell me more about this "health care" system, in quotation marks as the words do not seem to fit the service provided.

 

[SkiBumGymMom]

Whoa! From a health care provider's perspective, this is easier said than done.

It is not easy (and rarely profitable) to be a Medicaid provider. The administrative complexities, patient compliance problems and low fixed reimbursement rates makes treating such patients very challenging. Often my costs to provide the care exceed the reimbursement from Medicaid (which my small, non-tourist state cannot afford to expand). How can any business survive like this? Adding more people to this already abused and misguided system could be disasterous. More providers may choose to not accept Medicaid patients (as is already the case in many states) thus limiting the number of doctors available to these patients.

More than just my opinion... this is my everyday life. Many of my patients who are given their medical services for free do not value these services and are less likely to cooperate with instructions and policies. After all, they have nothing invested in the service. Apparently the "something for nothing" philosphy is acceptable to many.

In our state approximately 35% of the children covered by Medicaid sought preventive dental services in 2011. However, nearly 80% of children covered by CHIP sought such services. There is access to care here. They choose not to access the care. We can provide "free" health care but we cannot assume that people will utilize it appropriately.

(Also... my brothers are ER physicians... I don't have the patience to discuss unnecessary ER visits by Medicaid patients.)

Off the soap box ... back to treating my patients.

You bring up Medicaid... what about Medicare? What's the difference as a service provider? Both are government health care programs. What about Tricare? (US military health insurance) Another government run program. What makes Medicaid unique as abused, misguided and bad for doctors? I'm curious.

It seems like many of the problems you brought up could be addressed with better funding and organization. Also I know many people who want to access the care but can't. It also won't happen overnight. Education on preventative care needs to be given to low-income communities and over time things can change (IMO). Problems aren't fixed over night, years of habits aren't fixed in a day. In the long run, with more people accessing preventative care Medicaid ER visits would be down. You said it yourself there are limited doctors who take Medicaid and the ER becomes the only option. There's no incentive to go to the ER, except it's often the only place that will take the un and under insured. No one wants to wait hours and hours at midnight because they can't afford to go to a regular doctor.

My experience with Medicare and having family with a spinal cord injury who depends on it for basic needs is no picnic. Took 6 months originally to get a wheelchair. Many PTs and specialists wouldn't take him, which would have allowed him to get back to work faster. We had to pay out of pocket to get adaptive controls on a van for him to drive (he was ineligible for the state program). When my son was on CHIP I didn't qualify for Medicaid. When I was pregnant with my daughter, I was in school to finish my bachelors and working as a paraprofessional at school where I was paid hourly with no benefits. My husband had injured himself before (torn shoulder muscle) and was unable to work. We didn't qualify for health care or unemployment (because of my wages). I was covered by WIC for pre-natal and standard pregnancy things, but then became very ill, had to have an emergency c-section and was hospitalized and unable to work for a short period. My husband was finally able to go back to work, but we were in debt for a long time because of medical expenses.

My family in Canada doesn't have these problems and they have socialized health care (it was implemented after I moved). I see it work in Australia, Canada and GB. Not perfectly, but better than what's happening in the US (unless you don't have pre-existing conditions and can afford high priced, high quality private insurance).

But I think proper health care is a basic human right and not a capitalist good, so that may be what drives my opinion.

 

[Geoffrey Taucer]

Coming from two countries with socialised health care I find it astounding that there is even a discussion of not being able to get care/coverage for pre-existing conditions. I also found is nauseating to think of families with no health care as they are low income and not covered by insurance or medicaid.

The whole "medicaid patients" tone is a little ugly.

Tell me more about this "health care" system, in quotation marks as the words do not seem to fit the service provided.

THIS x over 9000!

As I've said before, I don't think I will ever understand the mindset that leads people to be morally offended at the idea of taking care of people in need. The dry, callous, lack of compassion required just blows my mind, and yet people seem not only capable of feeling this way, but proud of it.

Bog, as somebody who has grown up in the US, I am every bit as baffled as you are that there's even any debate on the "question" of whether or not everybody should have access to good healthcare in a first-world country.

We have the means to to provide adequate food, housing, and healthcare to our entire population, and I find it honestly quite horrifying that such a huge chunk of our population, when faced with a large group of sick, unemployed, impoverished people in our own midst, responds with "eh, the lazy bums deserve it."

 

[wandrewsjr]

I, too view healthcare as a basic human right and not a captalisit good, and I think the gulf in opnions on this is what makes healthcare such a difficult issue in America. Should a baby born to rich parents get to live in a bigger house, ride home from the hospital in a Mercedes instead of a Toyota, and wear designer outfits that cost more than said Toyota? YES. We are a free capitalist society, and I have no problem with people spending their money however they chose. But should a baby born to rich parents have a lower mortality rate and longer life span because they have access to better healthcare? NO. In a nation as wealthy as ours, I think that health care falls under the "life,liberty and pursuit of happines" umbrella.

And as to the Medicaid issue, I think the major health care issue is not what happens to the poorest(as flawed as it is, I know we do at least provide some sort of coverage to the poorest), But what happens to those just about the poverty line, or those in the lower middle class who can't afford coverage. What does a family of 3 or 4 that makes $30,000 to $40,000 (at a job that doesn't prvide health insurance do? and what if you throw in a pre-existing condition?) I truely don't know how people get by.

 

[Andersonortho]

What does a family of 3 or 4 that makes $30,000 to $40,000 (at a job that doesn't prvide health insurance do? and what if you throw in a pre-existing condition?) I truely don't know how people get by.

A family of 4 can make up to $69,000 per year and still qualify for CHIP Premium Plan in my state.


Please don't take my comments as degrading clients of the Medicaid system.


I am one of the "good guys". I willingly and compassionately provide a service for which I should be compensated... right?

Please note that any additional services that I provide or orther "perk" I give to my patients comes directly out of my pocket.


Angry? Direct it at the other docs who refuse to see the kids... not me.

 

[wandrewsjr]

Yes, some states are much more progressive on the health care issue than others. I am no expert, but I believe there are some states where the income standard is MUCH lower to qualify for subsidized care, which is why many argue for National standards.

 

[SkiBumGymMom]

Yes, some states are much more progressive on the health care issue than others. I am no expert, but I believe there are some states where the income standard is MUCH lower to qualify for subsidized care, which is why many argue for National standards.

I posted this article earlier, but here's some states with much lower standards. Anti-Medicaid states: Earning $11,000 is too much - The Denver Post

 

[wandrewsjr]

Would like to take this opportunity to give a shout out to what I think is the best socialized Medical program in the world - the US Military Health care system. My father and husband where both career military, so I grew up going to military hospitals and my children where born in them. And while they have their flaws (I din't see the same doctor twice until I was 25 years old), the care was great. Since my husband retired, we have lived in an area for the past 10 that is far enough from a military base that we use civilian care, through TRICARE.

Was away from home recently and had a chance to need to visit an ER and happened to be close to an Air Force Base, so got to go down memory lane. Amazing. So good, that if anyone in my family had any kind of health issue, I was seriously consider moving close to a military hospital, just to avoid having to deal with insurance issues. Went to the ER to have my daughter checked out for a concussion. Spoke to the check-in nurse(with a sorry to make you wait ma'am for a 3 minute wait), saw the triage nurse, saw the doctor, CT ordered, wheeled to CT, CT results given to doctor,saw doctor again, all clear,walked out the door. This took about 90 minutes.

I truely don't know how much we could apply on a National scale. I know the issue is far more complex. But it does make me cringe when I hear some say "socialized medicine" like it is a dirty word, and talk like the federal government can't do anything right. I have personal experience with these federally funded hospitals, run by federal employees, and my experience has been positive.