A serious question for liberals/progressives/socialists/leftists

[Ramo]

Actually, the trend changed recently. Rtwinger is correct, right now, the more degrees one has, the more likely you are to vote GOP. Interestingly, though, high income levels tend to correlate with voting Democratic. My guess is that someone got the results mixed up.

That's not really true. Education zigzags. People with little education (high school or less) and lots of education (graduate degrees) vote Dems, and people in the middle tend to vote GOP.

What was the last grade of school you completed?
Category Obama McCain % Total
Did not complete high school 63 35 4
High school graduate 52 46 20
Some college or associate degree 51 47 31
College graduate 50 48 28
Postgraduate study 58 40 17

Income correlates far more strongly with voting patterns, and you have the correlation reversed. Poor people tend to vote Dem, rich people tend to vote GOP. There's a small uptick towards Obama at the highest bracket in the exit poll, but that's very aberrant. Most elections are not like that.

Even if you only look at only white people, the income pattern largely holds (though is more muddled):

Category Obama McCain % Total
Under 50k and White 47 51 25
Over 50k and White 43 56 49

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26843704

[Ben Kenobi]

In fact, people with bachelor's degrees are more likely to vote Republican in national elections than are people with more advanced degrees OR without a college education. This is robust over the last few election cycles.

How does that contradict my point that the longer you are in school, the more likely you are to be Democrat? Thanks for playing.

50 48 28
58 40 17

I would love to see the breakdown for Masters/PhD, rather then just 'postgraduate study', which can be anything from 1 masters course to multiple PhDs.

BTW, Kitty, I've done research on this particular effect wrt to Gallup polls on liberal/conservative issues, and it's a very strong correlation, at least here in Canada. I haven't done the American numbers.

[Ben Kenobi]

Under 50k and White 47 51 25
Over 50k and White 43 56 49

250k and over is like 60-40 for Obama.

Democrats are the party of the wealthy.

[Ben Kenobi]

Can you imagine where Americans today would be if all we had to rely on for our retirement was our investments in the stock market??

Yeah, must be nice social security is still around for you.

When there are equal ratios of payees and payers the whole system will collapse, unless they tax us like 100 percent or so.

That's why you should be hoping my generation has lots and lots of kiddos, the ones you guys never got around to having.

[Ramo]

250k and over is like 60-40 for Obama.

[Kuciwalker]

Please don't quote people on ignore lists

[Ben Kenobi]

Ideally, I don't think we should have government-run healthcare. That said, the data's also in, and it suggests that almost every nation with government-subsidized health care has better average health for the citizens with lower per capita cost for that health care.

Those are ****ty measures. Why do you believe people are only healthier because of the health care system? If your health care sucks, but people have the money to take care of themselves, that is exactly what you are going to see. People are going to take more of an effort to stay well and stay out of hospitals if they don't trust the system.

This is where my pragmatism kicks in--if the data suggests that we would do better with a national program to help make health care affordable to all citizens, why not do it?

You've been lied to, I'm afraid. All the comparisons never take into account the wait lists.

[chequita guevara]

Since you're a moron, Ben, let me explain a little something to you about how American medicine works.

We have wait lists too. It took me months to see a specialist, and that was with a good health insurance plan. As with NHS or even Canadian health care, for basic and emergency care, there is no wait. . . . unless you're uninsured.

[Q Classic]

Affordable health care with wait lists for those who couldn't afford it before > No health care with no wait lists for those who can't afford it.

I'll be honest. During times without health insurance, I carry around a note in my wallet that says, "Please do not resuscitate. I can't afford the medical costs and I don't have insurance." In a month, I'll have medical insurance again, and it'll be nice to actually go into the doctor and, y'know, figure out why my otitis externa won't go away. At least, I think and hope it's otitis externa, because that's relatively minor.

Something which I haven't done for about six months because I didn't have health insurance, and because, frankly, I can't afford spending over $200 to have it looked at. If I could pay $25 and give up maybe half a day, I'd've done it.

Besides, I'm not sourcing that pragmatism from just one study. It's a multitude of studies. Universal access to affordable health care tends to leave a country with a healthier populace. The current American system gives poor, meager care to those that cannot afford it, acceptable care after much effort to those with insurance with a risk of debt, and great care to those capable of paying handsome sums. Thus, we pay more per capita for medical care than any other industrialized state, with less bang for our buck. Something is not working as it should be.

[Kidlicious]

All the comparisons never take into account the wait lists.

Sometimes it's better to wait. Do you expext doctors to wait around for patients to show up? Do you want to pay for that or do you want to wait for a little while?

[Kidlicious]

"Please do not resuscitate. I can't afford the medical costs and I don't have insurance."

[Q Classic]

As far as people being healthier because of the health care system: so far as I understand it, the Japanese health care system doesn't really suck. Nor does the South Korean system. They might not, say, be the best in the world, but they're pretty decent. It's a nationwide insurance, in which you must select either private health insurance or government-subsidized insurance.

Yes, there are financial problems because they have set costs, leading to the departments having large deficits, but, conversely: they both have comparable lifespans to the US and Canada; obesity rates are lower in those countries compared to the US (not necessarily due to the health care, but it correlates to better health); per capita spending on that health care is half what USians pay.

I've had experience with the Korean health care system, too, so I'm not just saying this in a theoretical sense. Treatment for my mom's accident (when some ******* backed into her) would have been a little more comfortable (plumper pillows, nicer room paint job, an individual television) in the States. There would, of course, have also been far more arguing with the insurance companies, back and forth between what procedures were acceptable, and in the end, her deductible would still have been very high. Conversely, in Korea, no arguing with the private insurance company. Deductibles were actually surprisingly low, made lower by the fact that on top of the guy's car insurance paying for some of it, he also gave a monetary contribution because it was his fault; the wait for the X-Rays were no longer than in the US (when I was working as a gopher at the UChicago hospitals as part of the oncology department, I saw some of the schedules).

In fact, now that I think about it, the only reason why I think it would be nicer in the US is because, like a good little Asian son, I spent every waking hour and spent overnight at my mom's side, and in the US hospital, I'd've had a plumper chair.

Finally, pragmatically speaking, if people are going to take more effort to stay healthy due to not wanting to spend time in the hospitals, isn't that a good thing? We want people to be healthy, after all.

[Q Classic]

Actually, no, it's quite sane, and I'm perfectly willing to sacrifice my life over this idiotic political problem we have in the US: the lack of universal access to affordable healthcare.

I am already under some financial strain from having to pay back student loans and some credit card debt. I cannot afford a very large medical expense, as I do not wish to enter bankruptcy proceedings, particularly in light of the recent company-friendly law changes. I lack health insurance, as well.

The instance that note would come into play is a catastrophic event, for example, a stray bullet or a drunk driver going onto the sidewalk. The emergency health insurance that I could have gotten would have only covered the initial ICU/ER costs with a fairly high deductible, and none of the recuperative therapy costs.

I cannot afford the deductible, nor can I afford the therapy.

Additionally, I have not made any major contributions to the world, thus a loss of 1 / 6 billionth of the population would quickly be forgotten.

Therefore, it makes more sense to request that they not attempt to resuscitate me because of my inability to pay. It frees up resources in the hospitals for paying customers, and it prevents me from getting hounded by bill collectors and prevents the hospital from having the unpleasant task of trying to extract unaffordable payments.

After all, if I am to apply cold but pragmatic reason to other people, why should I not apply it to myself? And, if I am to play in good faith with the current system we have, why should I not play by the rules? If I cannot afford it, I should not partake of it.

In the current health care system, it's neither free as in beer, nor free as in freedom. It's not affordable like wine, either. In fact, it's only free as in freedom if you're willing and capable of buying an entire pallet of Dom.

[Kidlicious]

Actually, no, it's quite sane, and I'm perfectly willing to sacrifice my life over this idiotic political problem we have in the US: the lack of universal access to affordable healthcare.

The system will function better if you die instead of accumulating more debt. I try to accumulate as much debt as possible.

[Q Classic]

I'm aware of that. Reducing the potential number of applicants to a system of universal healthcare means it's far more likely. Conversely, ladening the current system with so much debt only makes it more difficult to switch to a system of universally affordable health care, unless it's accompanied by debt forgiveness.

And you're not a third world nation.

Besides, being the non-douchy person I am, if it turns out the expensive and ultimately useless medical help failed, at least I won't be passing that debt onto my family.