A nationwide telephone poll of Republican and Republican-leaning independents conducted by WPA Opinion Research found that while the prospective field remains close Rand Paul and Mike Huckabee are currently leading the pack — tied for first place, each with 13 percent of the vote.
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush followed with 11 percent. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz each got nine percent. Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan (six percent), Florida Sen. Marco Rubio (six percent), Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (five percent), Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (three percent), former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum (three percent), and Texas Gov. Rick Perry followed. Nineteen percent said they did not know or refused to answer.
I'd like to see Cruz. Rand would do. I voted for Huckabee in the 2008 Primary here in South Carolina because of his feigned conservatism, the viral youtube video of him exposing his religious convictions, and the fact he came to my work place with Chuck Norris....which was a pretty cool experience.
ReplyDeleteBut since, he gave clemency to a future cop killer (just Google cop killer paroled by Huckabee) and he has endorsed Lindsey Graham. Of those two, I'm not sure which is worse.
Republicans are pushing hard for Jeb Bush to supplant Rand Paul. Democrats are working hard to see Rand and Cruz removed from the running... both are afraid of further Tea Party representation in congress... Democrats because they will lose power and Republicans because they will lose control of 'their' party.
ReplyDeleteJeb is a good man but bushclintonobama are big spenders. We need to limit governments reach in every part of our lives, cut spending, and reverse the democrat grip on our justice department.
Delete1773-2009 Join us, the country needs real change.
Levin dismantled Jeb today. I guess good is pretty subjective though.
DeleteI was going to leave this with Jumbo's comment but reasons are appropriate to my objection to Bush
DeleteJeb is still hung up on his brothers disastrous 'no child left behind' with is endorsement of common core. I am all for standards but common core attempts to solidify federal authority over education. He says that it would be implemented and controlled by states... Hogwash. You can't say you support charter schools, private schools and homeschooling and the autonomy and diversity that they bring to education on the one hand and support Common Core on the other..
Jeb openly commended Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire for her opposing the fight to cut spending and defund Obamacare.
Jeb Bush speaks about immigration and border control like a real estate agent. One should know when an agent describes a house as 'cozy' you know its gonna be small. Jeb Bush's wording is telling.. is 'enhanced' border control really gonna mean secure ...
Bush describes illegal immigrants as 'risk takers' but of course if I decide to rob a bank or run a red light to advance some entrepreneurial project, I’m taking a risk. We have laws and consequences for robbing banks and running red lights, no matter what they reason, and they are not to reward those who do.
Romney donors highly supportive of Bush. They are also very supportive of 'active' engagement in foreign policy. Strong and well equipped, yes but anyone who believes in pre-emptive intervention should love all that the NSA does and the presidents right to kill someone without due process
In fact, the Republican Party has not won a presidential election since 1928 without either Richard Nixon [Unlink] (Dwight Eisenhower’s vice president) or a Bush on the ticket.
ReplyDeleteNo one is suggesting, of course, that voters flocked to cast ballots for Ronald Reagan [Unlink] in 1980 and 1984 because George H.W. Bush was his running mate, but, as sports fans say, a win is a win is a win. If Jeb Bush [Unlink] seeks and receives the 2016 presidential nomination, he will have a winning tradition in addition to a whole lot of Republican money on his side.
Here's a wasted comment that will be trashed because it's not ideologically pure-
ReplyDeleteGenerally, older people vote Republican, and many younger people vote for the Democrats. No candidate from the right can win without the support of seniors, which means that there cannot be any cuts in benefits to the boomer generation. Paul Ryan actually made one of the more rational plans which was, "F everyone younger than 55 and cut their benefits while keeping intact the benefits of the people who will vote for us now." I get that conservatives believe we cannot afford these benefits. But, they will not say that voters of their base need to accept cuts. It's not going to happen.
As for Democrats, the name Hillary keeps getting floated and that is not a name I want to vote for. Young people, however, vote most, only in the presidential elections and are going to get hooked by language of "we support students" or by a brand name like Clinton. Ultimately, neither conservatives nor progressives will get a candidate that truly matches those ideological perspectives and we will instead continue to get candidates who basically answer to money from wall street, military contractors and PACS who represent secrete money.
It's easy to criticize an opposing party for being the root of evil, but consider sometime the voting base that typically votes in your political spectrum. The boomer generation is going to consume enormous resources in SS, and especially in health care. For the next 30 years, everything in our elections is going to center around what boomers want and their will be no bill for their desires that will be ignored.
"F everyone younger than 55 and cut their benefits while keeping intact the benefits of the people who will vote for us now."
DeleteThe logic behind the 55 was they have time to build a retirement. People older than 55 lack time. The question is what age is the correct age?
It's pretty obvious SS is a pay as you go system with those that have contributed for the lase 40+ years retiring in record numbers.
The choices:
1. Cut benefits across the board?
2. Means testing?
3. Raise taxes
Contributions
Wage cap-has numerous problems
Can the government afford to do nothing?
Medicare not an issue. We now have the ACA to save us.
Part of the problem, IMO, is miscalculation. People are living longer and from the 80's through present, there has been a push to get more people to retire early. Your cynicism about the ACA saving us all is equal to my cynicism that the age of 55 was chosen solely on voting demographics rather than on some rational contemplation that people at that age still have time to save. If you are 55 are not well on your way to have saved enough, another 20 years of working when you are past your peak earning years is not likely going to save you.
DeleteThe government can't afford to do nothing, but as I said above, reality trumps ideology. A comprehensive plan would likely contain some degree of all the choices you listed there. But, since neither party is allowed by their base to work with the other party, there can't be any united front to tell all of America we are going to fix this. Each party has their base and each party provides their base an escape clause.
As a person just about to turn 47 years old, I believe that people of my generation need to have the limits of SS taxes removed. I don't earn enough currently to max out, but this would be one step. At the other end, I think there needs to be means testing. That won't fly of course, but I think these two things are an example of paired pain. For years we have been turning terminal illness into chronic illness and our ethics views are nowhere near being up to date like our medicine. It's fine to dump on the ACA because we all need a face to aim our anger at, but the alleged "market" system we had was nothing but a shell game of cost transferring while middle men sucked profit out and took advantage of the altruistic nature of people who became doctors to help others.
I look at the problem in terms of this, we have millions of seniors who are going to require and enormous amount of resources in the next 50 years. We can take an approach of saying screw them if they didn't save enough money, or we can accept that this is reality. I see no way for us to care for so many people if we refuse to consider the concept of greater good. that view is not popular.
Max I hear ya and don't disagree with a lot of the things you're saying. The SS ponzi scheme has run it's course and needs major surgery.
DeleteNo mention of tort reform in your discussion of the ACA and medicare/medicaid. Without this restructuring everything else is a dead issue.
I have no qualms towards mean testing if done fairly.
We have not had a "market system" since medicare/medicaid were introduced.
Middle men are present in all sorts of endeavors. Unavoidable. The government is ultimately the biggest middle man of all. The bigger the middle man the least efficient a system will be. See US Postal Service, AMTRACK, or name any US government department you chose.
The upcoming large wad of seniors that will require care should indicate in a fair market that your occupation is positioned nicely to benefit. Stay with it, they will be dying to come through your door.
Hey Max.
DeleteThe problem with removing the limits on SS is that:
1. Removes spending money from your pocket.
2. Costs employers more in matching funds.
Would the results be reduction of employees to reduce costs?
I am a bit jaded with the ACA, the extra 2400 a year is a bit aggravating as it could be used for something productive and not for maternity care as well as other no so free things advertised as free but paid for in higher premiums.
There is a difference in greater good for those that cannot afford services, food etc. There is no greater good for someone getting a subsidy making 400% over poverty or for those that chose to not participate as it's better to live on the government dole.
Well, if I actually made enough money to surpass the cap on SS taxes, I would still have more money in my pocket than I do right now. I'm not being sarcastic in saying this, I realize that all taxes pull some money out of the economy. I wouldn't like to pay more taxes, but after having made double what I make now and paid a lot more taxes, I can assuredly say I still had more money at that point. I don't like government waste either. But that's a whole thread.
DeleteA major problem we agree on Lou is that this county does not take its health seriously and we pay literally hundreds of billions a dollars a year in health care costs that could be avoided. Ultimately, IF we invested in expanding our risk pool and IF we stopped playing this game of suppressing the truth about shitty food and IF we looked at our healthcare system is something we should treat with a sense of stewardship, life would be vastly different. But, the real world does not work this way.
You are correct the US doesn't work that way.
DeleteOne size fits all insurance for healthcare. No penalty for poor health habits. Yet we can penalize people for smoking. Over eating is as bad as smoking.
Here we have POT. No penalty for consuming pot either. And people wonder why healthcare is expensive.
It isn't just that it takes from the person but it's also matched by business. They are still quite unsure how to deal with the ACA costs and we nail them with more taxes on SS. Not a great plan with a limping economy.
Having paid more in Federal Income Tax than most people make in a year, this year has been a breath of fresh air without the business. Interesting thing is the only expenses I have are utilities, taxes, insurance and college tuition which are quite manageable.
The tuition with scholarships is close to the state school so it's not to bad.
Hope things are going well in school.
I didn't mention Tort reform William because I think that's just another bill of goods being sold as a cure. Don't get me wrong, I've seen some really stupid lawsuits brought forth by scammers and I don't deny it makes health care more expensive. But I also see the cost of treating the uninsured in ER's and how that cost is passed around, just as the cost of of a smoker who gets a pneumonia and goes septic gets passed around to everyone else. Knock on wood, I think I am in pretty good shape and I do a workout six days a week (P90, just like your buddy Paul Ryan!). As long as I stay healthy and keep paying my premiums, I'm paying for those that are sick. it's just another ponzi scheme.
DeleteTort reform would bring a small savings to the system especially to doctors and the saving on insurance. What would have been beneficial would be to sell insurance cross border. Makes perfect sense as the Federal Government sets standards for coverage.
DeleteIt's all about politics.
School is actually going pretty well (knocking on wood). I am at the 3/4 point in the semester this week with pathophysiology and pharmacology and it's been a really heavy workload. It's been so heavy that I've had to burn through a lot of my vacation time so that I could take every other Monday off. I've got a test today and tomorrow and then it's just a month to go. From here, I'll have a new class every 8 weeks until the end of the year. Out of the four I have to take, disease prevention and healthcare policy are the two I'm interested in. Once I take those, I'm sure I'll have a ton more crap to come here and spew, LOL.
DeleteAnyhow, I completely agree with selling across state lines. To me, I don't want a single payer system because I want socialism, I want a single payer system because I want a bigger risk pool. Insurance companies get the young people, and profit, taxpayers get seniors and chronic illness. If everyone paid a small percent for a very modest level of coverage that included checkups, and catastrophic coverage for hospital bills that go over 100k (or even a higher number), insurance companies could still sell supplemental coverage.
Again, I am concerned with the outcome and in finding a workable solution. To the purists, nothing is acceptable because at some point it's a loss of freedom. I'll freely admit, this point can't be disputed philosophically, though in reality, forcing people to have health insurance potentially lowers my risk down the road of paying higher premiums for uninsured people. This is a bad law that needs to be fixed, and once the philosophical debate is done, perhaps it will be.
Personally, I want higher rates for people who have an unhealthy life stye from food, drugs, smoking, etc.
DeleteWe should have a basic healthcare plan period. Not a healthcare plan that covers BC Pills, colonoscopies, mammograms, immunizations, physicals for free, just a basic plan. Want more, pay more.
I want the government out of healthcare. Because the government decides they will pay 24% less for medicare reimbursements doesn't make it less expensive to provide services. We all pay the price of the cut in higher prices. Government regulations, they are not free to implement to the providers.
Want single payer? Fine a sales tax should do the trick. Everyone uses healthcare, everyone pays. Free encourages abuse of the system. 40 dollar co pays make people think, do I really need to go to the doctor for my cold?
A larger pool doesn't lower your risk as long as there is no penalty for poor habits.
Kid's almost made it through her first year. I see her every 2 weeks or so as OI take her care packages (food) from home. Still can't get use to the bulk food at college. LOL. Last weeks comment: Was that really roast beef? I didn't know it was gray.
Where's she going Iouman?
DeleteColorado College in Colorado Springs, Colorado.
Delete1st semester, 3.8 GPA, looks like same for the 2nd semester.
Told her if she had good grades she could move to an apartment next year. Can I use the excuse, sorry you didn't get a 4.0? LOL.
you are correct, a bigger risk pool doesn't lower risk, but it helps make up for the fact that Americans generally don't want to make the effort to live healthier and pay the extra cost to buy healthy food. I didn't mention it, but I also agree on the copay. And the point about medicare is also correct. Denying paying payment doesn't make the delivery of healthcare cheaper, and both medicare and insurance companies have taken this approach.
DeleteThe new NHS director here in the UK has had a hard look at the books and finds that going forward the NHS will need considerably more money to cover its growing shortfalls. For as long as I have known, the NHS has been lurching from one financial or service dilemma to another. One thing that is always an issue is frivolous use. Part of the NHS philosophy is preventative care which, by its nature, encourages people to visit the doctor with any concerns... leading to visits for things that anyone with common sense would deal with one ones own with over the counter remedies. The problem of course is that if you find a way to restrict usage, like a copay, you also kill the preventative medicine aspects of the system leading to worse outcomes later. Some yahoo in Parliament just introduced a measure that would have people pay a 'membership' fee monthly. Something small like 10 pounds.. but I gotta ask... if 'free' causes people to abuse the system, what kind of entitlement will membership create?
DeleteTS, in very simple terms, here is the entire problem with health care, nobody wants to pay for what they consume, and a relatively small amount of people are genuinely interested in being healthy. You can, and will find an issue with every plan that could be put forth because SOMEBODY will allegedly get something for nothing or abuse the system and will be encouraged to do so because of embedded socialist thought that punishes the hard workers.
DeleteIn a true free market system, there would be no provider sponsored plans and everyone would pay a price relative to their risk. Family history of cancer? TFB, you pay more. Did you ever smoke? TFB, you pay more for life. Instead of treating all patients, as Reagan proclaimed we had a duty to do, a free market system would place armed guards at the doors of hospitals and medical clinics and they would tell the uninsured, go die somewhere else because we aren't treating you. This is reality. For all the gnashing of teeth and wailing about how the constitution forbids this, the reality is that unless society is completely willing to make employer health care illegal as well as outright say you can't get treatment if not insured, the griping about how people will abuse the system eventually starts to just sound like hollow bitching.
You are very intelligent, very well schooled in libertarian thought and generally raise some interesting and valid questions. However, you can never seem to let go of "what is right" based on philosophy or constitutional thought, to engage in a discussions that addresses the reality we have present in 2014. I don't want government control of my life. But, neither do I want a vastly unstable society. Life experience has told me that no matter what you do, there are scammers who would rather scam than work who will look for a way to get something for nothing. But, to loop it back, if you have health insurance of any kind, you could say you are being encouraged to live an unhealthy life. Why not just outlaw all insurance and make every individual negotiate with their provider for services?
Good for her Iouman! Got her looks and brains from mom's side?
DeleteProbably not as she's adopted.
DeleteWish I had her abilities.
She's one of the truly good people in life. Made better as she can laugh at you as well as herself.
Max,
DeleteThe problem with the system is it has major flaws.
As a society we should provide for those unable to take care of them selves. The problem is the system cannot differentiate between the people who need help and the people who take help and are quite able to take care of themselves and their families.
As to healthcare, one size doesn't fit all. There should be male insurance, female insurance, family insurance. Different care, different prices. There should be provisions for those that chose to live an unhealthy lifestyle, much higher costs. Those with genetic disorders receive discounts as it's truly not their choice.
I agree with second para and I guess my question is, "If it's true the system can't differentiate, are we better off to have no system for fear that someone is going to scam?" My answer is no. When we redid the bankruptcy laws, it was estimated that 30% of those filing were gaming the system while the vast majority were people who were bankrupted by medical illness. So to spite the 30%, we changed all the rules. I think we spend an inordinate amount of time worrying about how people will game the system.
DeleteI think there should be incentives to live healthy. If you can get your body weight and/or body fat down to a certain level, and you have good cholesterol levels and don't smoke, ect, you should get a break for that. But, from an insurers prospective, you shouldn't get any break because they need people like you to balance out the risk. I think that we are currently trying to go about it backwards. Which is to say we are first deciding what philosophy is most important and what we can do within those parameters. Instead, I think we should look at what the goal is that we want to achieve. If we want basic care for everyone with some catastrophic coverage, we should focus on how to do that. No system will please everyone.
Good on her Iouman. Good on you.
DeleteActually Max I was just making comment that the NHS always seems to be cash strapped and lurches from one crisis to another in search of the answer and an illogical proposal some MP came up with to fix the problem. Nothing more sinister our though provoking than that.
DeleteBut since I have been accused of not seeing reality as it is in 2014, I guess I have something to say about that. The reality of 2014 is that in almost every area of life in America an over intrusive and ill considered government has created most of the problems we have today. You cannot evaluate and properly solve the problems as they exist without looking at how the problems developed.
Whether it is a broken medical delivery system or the incursion of insurance as middlemen in the delivery of basic and primary care, you can find the government. If you want to know why home prices are out of reach of a large portion of the population or why education costs have made it impossible for the average person to ‘work their way through college’.. look at government policy and interference.
You want to talk about the state of banking TODAY, lets look at the regulators who had law to prevent banks from incurring losses with worthless CDS’s, was warned by the FBI in 2004 about mortgage fraud but did nothing and the SEC folks who were watching porn rather than doing the jobs they were paid to do.. or the FDIC who ALLOWED banks to go insolvent by 50% before they got off their butts even thought their mandate is for ‘swift and comprehensive action’ to protect depositors and secure the insurance premiums collected. Of course all of this leads to a shadow banking system that has grown rather than shrunk since 2008 and has outstanding obligations of more that all of the tangible assets on this planet.
How about the bad behaviour of people and equal justice under the law. The banking industry fabricated tens of thousands of documents to present to the courts... I guess fraud upon the courts means nothing. Or Fast and Furious, or the NSA, or the hundreds of cases where police executed their duties in a manner that killed innocents and ruined lives.
I am sorry that I am not an apologist for government nor do I so willingly give government a pass particularly when they have such a strong record of successfully screwing up the lives of so many people. Your solution to most all of the problems is more government, particularly central government, throw more money at the problem and continue operating until the system melts down again. We act as if it is some kind of surprise that the demographics of our country is what it is. No one could predict the population bubble that developed and collapsed 50 years ago or longevity that has been steadily rising for the last century or the immigration problem created by the people who are suppose to only one clear mandate is to defend our borders. Amnesty, higher taxes, more regulations, greater centralization and less individual responsibility... that is the answer of the progressive.
So no, I don’t look at our medical delivery the way you do, I see most of the problem as having been created by government in the first place. When you say, unless you can roll back this or that, you never talk about how it got that way... Progressives, by their nature, just shrug their shoulders and say ‘Oh well, better luck next time... By the way, we need more money to fix this.’ You get me wrong if you think I don’t understand the problems of delivering medicine to the poor or providing a safety net for those who have caught a bad break... I do. But progressives never see government as being the problem... and in my eyes, that is the problem of talking about solutions with folks such as yourself.
So, all I was doing was making comment on how difficult it is to manage the behemoth that is the NHS and the silly policies that bureaucrats sometimes come up with for its management. An organization by the way that serves only 1/6th of the population over 1/35th the geographical area.
“I think we spend an inordinate amount of time worrying about how people will game the system.”
DeleteI didn’t read this until I had posted my last... too bad to because, in many ways, this is the essence of our differences in perspective and at the heart of much of our discourse. Of course, the two obvious things you would label as ‘rants’ are the extraction of wealth from productive individuals in the execution of your idea of love and fairness and the bleat above about so many people ‘scamming’ the system which you dismiss pretty much as little more than ‘the cost of doing business’ or ‘collateral damage. As you point out above the bankruptcy system had waste of some 30% plus overhead. Certainly no business runs on the premise that 30 of 40% waste is acceptable, but it seems all too easy for a government agency to do so in the name of fairness. Firstly of course, a program that runs with so little efficiency steals from people who earned the wealth in the first place. This is repeated by people on here all the time and secondly the monetary and personnel resource of a program are diverted from the people who really need it; the reason the program was approved in the first place.
This attitude comes from one of three possible sources. 1) people don’t care about the waste as long as those who need the help offered, get it 2) people just don’t see the waste and think all of the ‘rant’ is just so much noise by hateful, self-indulgent people or 3) its admission stands in the way of the progressive movement.
This third one is the thing that really lights my fire. I don’t know how many times, when confronted with evidence that a program is ineffective, inefficient or detrimental, that I have heard progressives proclaim that they ‘will not back up on the gains they have made’. Progressives stonewall the discussion about the efficacy of a program; the real effects of the program on society and on the individuals because any admission that state intervention is wrongheaded; to admit even the possibility that many of these programs actually hold people back would cause much of the democratic party platform to vaporize...
Democrats say republicans won’t compromise and raise taxes... well, Democrats don’t appear to wanna solve the real source of problems either.
People game the system. There in lies the problem we face today.
DeleteWhen you have the Federal Government establishing 1 standard for the entire country it opens the door to people taking advantage of the system. If the poverty level is set at 20K for the nation, people in LA county would be poverty stricken where 20K in northern Alabama is quite different.
That alone demonstrates why the Federal Govern shouldn't set standards and administer programs form the Bubble of DC.
The biggest problem I perceive is either people are unaware of how their taxes are spent, don't care or believe government spends our tax dollars wisely. Are social safety nets necessary? Yes they are. Are 70 different food programs necessary run by 70 different organizations? No way. At one time we had over 120 different programs to assist people with home loans. Washington being Washington is inefficient government.
Perhaps it's time to return funding to the state local level and administer the programs at the local level.
As to the healthcare, people who pay little or nothing are thrilled with the ACA, why wouldn't they be? Young people are angry, why have coverage you won't use and the deductible is more. Rules established by HHS cancels policies people pay of and are happy with that meets their needs. The government rhetoric claim their policies to be junk. Ours are better and cost more and you will be happy. Sorry you can't afford them. Business is given a waiver for political expediency, can't mess up an election with bad policy. Older people haven't felt the heat yet but will when the IPAB begins reducing payments, new rules that pay providers less. Single payer system? Only problem with that is the Federal Government running it and will be a wonderful new opportunity for fraud.
The choice, insurance companies run healthcare and police it quite well with minimal fraud or the government runs it with unknown amounts of fraud.
There are no easy answers, the only problem we face is 17 trillion in debt and the country cannot afford another government run fiasco that adds to that pain.
In any case, Rant complete.
60 today after a foot of snow yesterday, spring time in Colorado.
Louman,
DeleteWith primary care anyway, I think that the choice between insurance or government is a false choice. Because of medicare caps and the increasing amounts of paperwork, more and more private physicians have stopped processing insurance government of third party. The cost of processing insurance use to be about 15% of operating costs but in appears that now the amount of paperwork has gone up and they require specialized staff to do the work... the overhead is now upwards of 60%. These doctors are now providing service ala carte(as it should be) and cutting overall costs by 50% or more just because of the overhead savings. Of coarse because many people use insurance, they have moved from these practices but the trend is growing. More and more doctors already restrict access to Medicare and more will as the ACA kicks in. Perhaps the best way to control fraud is to get the insurance middle man out of the business of medical care all together.
Of course their will be some who will contend that this arrangement stifles preventive care and will insist that we have a government program anyway....
Of course there are fewer willing to serve medicare patients. The doctors are at the mercy of lawmakers, bandaid the 24% cit or not for another year? All the while the costs continue to rise for doctors.
DeleteGovernment believes they can cut the cost of healthcare by reducing payments without the thought of the cost to maintain business. Add to that the digital mandate, penalties for repeat visits, more regulation, yes doctors are refusing new patients.
The insurance companies are required by the ACA to return 80% of premiums to the users of face a payback.
The insurance industry isn't plagued by fraud as the government run programs are today. Why, it's their money and they actually do a decent job of tracking and preventing fraud. Government, not so much.
I didn't make my point completely clear... doctors are turning away from 3rd party insurance as will. Insurance... all insurance is, no more than a middleman industry... they can only add cost. It got its start as catastrophic major medical and with the help of the government and unions, worked its way into all functions of medical delivery. I agree that they have a vested interest in preventing fraud but they also have a vested interest in outcomes that are more financially driven than medical and they don't really have a Hippocratic oath to operate by. Interestingly enough this same argument about cost vs medical necessity is an everyday argument within every single payer system as well.
Delete@ Louman congrats on the kid in college. We are at the end of that road as mine will Graduate from east Carolina University in may with a bachelors in CAD Graphics and design and mechanical engineering. Looks like now he is going to grad school to up his game in the field. His girlfriend is in nursing and still has a year or two to go and I guess he doesn't want to leave her there alone and/ or just hang out and do nothing.
DeleteAs for your dislike of the preventive care features of the ACA, that is the part that makes the most sense. Hell it should be a requirement that everyone get a physical and check up yearly. Preventive medicine is the greatest cost saver in a healthcare system. Any disease is better treated with better outcomes if caught early. I don't care if you are fat smoke and get pregnant yearly it has been proven that early detection is a cost saver in most cases.
DeleteLove to write that check every semester, LOL. The upside is tuition is 51K this year, merit scholarship brings it down to the state school rate. 3 more years, probably grad school.
DeleteLooking at engineering but likes economics and business, time will tell.
As to preventative medicine, a physical may be a fine practice for some Americans but 60% of the population that is overweight, obese, it's a waste of time. Address the root cause then a physical might be considered preventative.
Until we get people to quit stuffing their mouths, the high cost of healthcare will continue. But this is America, personal responsibility not required and we have a right to be fat.