The country is so polarized right now, I can't see it ever getting less polarized, only more polarized. 

 

In light of this, maybe it's time for a divorce.  Let the red states form one country, and let the blue states form another country.    I'm sure there are a lot of details to be worked out, but I'm just sick of the bickering between the two sides.   Split it up and be done with it. 

 

what do you do with purple states?

---

One can dream my friend one can dream.......

I'll watch it on Hulu so they don't get my advertising bucks

 

oh wait they get it there also don't they.... 

---

The country is so polarized right now, I can't see it ever getting less polarized, only more polarized. 

 

In light of this, maybe it's time for a divorce.  Let the red states form one country, and let the blue states form another country.    I'm sure there are a lot of details to be worked out, but I'm just sick of the bickering between the two sides.   Split it up and be done with it. 

Didn't we elect a guy in 2008 who was supposed to fix all of that?

 

Heck, he just said yesterday he's the least polarizing person out there.  Then he went on to whine and complain about how much he hates the other side of the aisle, and how they won't let him get his way, and his attorney general is out there blaming any opposition to dear ruler's goals as racism. 

 

They've taken a polarized situation and made it exponentially worse by using wedge issues to further divide the country in order to push their agenda. 

 

Historically, polarization has been a reality in this country from it's inception.  There's no way to split the nation up in a way that will eliminate that from being the case. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Here's something I've never really received a sufficient answer on from our friends on the left.  If liberal ideology is so great and works so many wonders, what's the problem in Detroit?  It's been run by the left since the '60s.  You'd think it would be a paradise by now.

---

 

 

The ACA isn't just flawed.  It's an unmitigated disaster that is dragging this country and this economy down the drain. 

 

I agree....however, I'm skeptical enough to think that it isn't by "accident" either. 

 

I don't trust this president/ administration at all. 

---

I agree....however, I'm skeptical enough to think that it isn't by "accident" either. 

 

I don't trust this president/ administration at all. 

Read up on Cloward and Piven and you'll get a real good understanding about a lot of things going on in this country today. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Here's something I've never really received a sufficient answer on from our friends on the left.  If liberal ideology is so great and works so many wonders, what's the problem in Detroit?  It's been run by the left since the '60s.  You'd think it would be a paradise by now.

Wasn't the garden of paradise a rural development?  Isn't that what's becoming of Detroit as they knock down entire neighborhoods?

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Read up on Cloward and Piven and you'll get a real good understanding about a lot of things going on in this country today. 

 

I will. Thanks for the tip/ heads up! :thumbsup: 

---

what do you do with purple states?

Sell them off to Canada. We'll have non of that bipartisanship in the US. 

---

Here's something I've never really received a sufficient answer on from our friends on the left. If liberal ideology is so great and works so many wonders, what's the problem in Detroit? It's been run by the left since the '60s. You'd think it would be a paradise by now.

Yup.

In many cases, states/cities that have been almost exclusively Blue for decades are in serious economic/financial trouble. While states/cities that have been red for a long time are in much better shape.


Of course, there are outliers and exceptions, with many factors that play into it.

But, that is the headline fact that just glares out.

---

You just provided an example as to why regulations help large corporations, then argued that regulations are needed to avoid monopolies. 

 

Because that particular piece of legislation is written purely to benefit large corporations. Regulation should take force when a company becomes big enough to take advantage of is position in order to push out competition and ideally should only effect those large enough to handle the extra restriction. Unfortunately the American system right now is butt backwards because of the following:

 

I'm not sure how it works in European nations but state side monopolies are supposed to be illegal, what happens is very large companies become contributors to campaigns and find ways to have government endorse their monopolies. That's the problem we don't have true free market capitalism at all anymore, every field has become saturated with crony capitalism or blend of large corporations working with government.

 

it's why I stand to abolish almost all forms of modern government from the Department of Education, to Transportation to the NSA, the Homeland Security, the FBI the CIA and the IRS get ride of them all.

 

Like I said

 

Anarcho-Capitalist.

There's the source of 90% of your problems. Politicians are really only interested in keeping their seat, to do that they need to campaign, to campaign they need money, lobbyists for corporations pour money into campaigns funds, politicians enact laws to benefits their largest contributors. 

---

Because that particular piece of legislation is written purely to benefit large corporations. Regulation should take force when a company becomes big enough to take advantage of is position in order to push out competition and ideally should only effect those large enough to handle the extra restriction. Unfortunately the American system right now is butt backwards because of the following:

 

There's the source of 90% of your problems. Politicians are really only interested in keeping their seat, to do that they need to campaign, to campaign they need money, lobbyists for corporations pour money into campaigns funds, politicians enact laws to benefits their largest contributors. 

 

Agreed which is why I don't trust nor ever advocate government regulating those companies or industries they're to easily corrupted. Instead I advocate making government so limited those companies and industries lose the incentive to buy off these politicians. Make the market as small as possible than it is controllable.

---

Sell them off to Canada. We'll have non of that bipartisanship in the US. 

It really depends on your definition of the term bipartisanship.

 

If you ask his royal highness, Obama would tell you agreeing with him is bipartisan. 

 

It's difficult to work in a bipartisan manner when the expectation is that either you get in line with what one sect believes, or they will trash you for being an obstruction. 

 

ACA is a good example of partisan politics.  The entire legislation was written by and voted into law by one party.  Any attempts by the other side to have any input in the process was dismissed summarily.  You've got career politicians so entrenched in their positions that nothing is going to change until they die.  Unfortunately, by the time that happens, another generation of the same kind will be as deeply entrenched behind them. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Yup.

In many cases, states/cities that have been almost exclusively Blue for decades are in serious economic/financial trouble. While states/cities that have been red for a long time are in much better shape.


Of course, there are outliers and exceptions, with many factors that play into it.

But, that is the headline fact that just glares out.

The south has been red for decades and is among the poorest and least developed regions in the US. 

---

Where did I say that?  Corruption has always been a part of the problem.  Giving a corrupt government even more control over 1/6 of the economy is a recipe for disaster. 

 

Our healthcare system is going to be driven in that direction because of the ACA.  If you can refute the fact that rates are increasing, and that care is starting to suffer, go right ahead and do so.  I'd love to see facts that refute either point.  You focused on the last comment as hyperbole (which it was), but completely ignored the rest.  Good job. 

 

You're fixated on the money.  You say making a profit isn't a bad thing, but clearly you think otherwise based on your comments. 

 

Let me give you one example of a greedy, profit driven doctor who is on the verge of retiring because he can't afford to continue under the guidelines of ACA.  This is a very good friend of mine who is an oncologist here in Florida. 

 

Over the past several years, he has been a provider on Medicaid and Medicare's list.  He has accepted both forms of payment.  As the years have passed, the amount MC pays out has steadily dropped.  They set the bar for usual and acceptable, and it's gotten to the point where this doctor can barely maintain any sort of profit margin.  Now, I know to someone who just thinks he's being greedy, they're just going to stop right here and bash him because he's on the verge of throwing in the towel because he's barely able to break even.  This is a top tier oncologist who has worked for two major cancer centers during his career.  He spent nearly 1/3 of a million on his education.  He started his own practice, and employs a staff of 10.  He has overhead to maintain his offices, and to pay his employees.  When Medicare/Medicaid step in and say they're only going to pay 70% or even less on his billing, that means he's losing money.  You'll say he's greedy, but as a result of their cuts, he's already had to lay off half his staff, and he's taking fewer patients because he can't handle the workload.  He's considering dumping his practice all together because of the ACA.  This guy is an expert on the subject, and the horror stories he tells are epic.  But to you, he's just a rich doctor who is complaining about not making enough money.  Right?

 

FYI, if you don't think rates are going up for the vast majority, you need to do some research on the rates that have been submitted by each state to their insurance commissioners already.  And if the ruling by an appellate court this week holds up, those subsidized rates that are artificially making the prices look lower than they are while taxpayers pick up the tab are going to go away.  Watch what happens then. 

I thought you were implying the government was the sole source of corruption in the healthcare system. If that's not what you meant than ok,

 

I never called the doctors greedy. I said leaving because of making less money, if that was the reason, would make sense. I don't know enough to really comment but I would assume if your example was indicative of the profession as a whole would be or will be seeing a mass exodus sooner than later. I have not personally seen indications that this is the case but will take what you are saying in this regard at face value and do some research for myself on that matter.

 

You are right, I am fixated on the money in general. Money is the reason poor laws get passed and good laws get gutted. It's the reason we, as a people are not represented by either side of the aisle. It's the reason the wealth gap has increased exponentially and shows no sign of slowing down. It's the reason gov and quasi-monopolies are so corrupt. 

---

The south has been red for decades and is among the poorest and least developed regions in the US. 

 

not at all, many of the States in the south simply thrive on smaller budgets. You don't need 500k to buy a home in the south. you can raise a family on 30-40k in the south. it cost less to live here so when you compare incomes it doesn't look proportional at all.

---

I thought you were implying the government was the sole source of corruption in the healthcare system. If that's not what you meant than ok,

 

I never called the doctors greedy. I said leaving because of making less money, if that was the reason, would make sense. I don't know enough to really comment but I would assume if your example was indicative of the profession as a whole would be or will be seeing a mass exodus sooner than later. I have not personally seen indications that this is the case but will take what you are saying in this regard at face value and do some research for myself on that matter.

 

You are right, I am fixated on the money in general. Money is the reason poor laws get passed and good laws get gutted. It's the reason we, as a people are not represented by either side of the aisle. It's the reason the wealth gap has increased exponentially and shows no sign of slowing down. It's the reason gov and quasi-monopolies are so corrupt. 

Government does not hold an exclusive when it comes to corruption. 

 

We are seeing a mass exodus of doctors who are no longer taking Medicaid, and in some instances, they're not accepting new Medicare patients either.  I read a report a couple of months ago that stated that the exodus is so large that something like 45% of doctors are still taking on new Medicare patients.  In some areas, that number is below 30%.  They don't want to deal with the reduced payments and increased paperwork.  It's not worth it.  My friend is in that category.  He's no longer taking on new Medicaid patients.

 

Income inequality is not something the government can control.  If they could, we wouldn't see that gap growing at the fastest rate in decades under the guise of a president who claims he's focused on fixing that.  In reality, his policies are doing nothing but exacerbating the issues. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

what do you do with purple states?

 

Split it up three ways.  The purple states become the United States.   The red states become the United Red States.  The blue states become the United Blue States. 

---

Government does not hold an exclusive when it comes to corruption. 

 

We are seeing a mass exodus of doctors who are no longer taking Medicaid, and in some instances, they're not accepting new Medicare patients either.  I read a report a couple of months ago that stated that the exodus is so large that something like 45% of doctors are still taking on new Medicare patients.  In some areas, that number is below 30%.  They don't want to deal with the reduced payments and increased paperwork.  It's not worth it.  My friend is in that category.  He's no longer taking on new Medicaid patients.

 

Income inequality is not something the government can control.  If they could, we wouldn't see that gap growing at the fastest rate in decades under the guise of a president who claims he's focused on fixing that.  In reality, his policies are doing nothing but exacerbating the issues. 

This is true but leaving the main culprits of this unchecked can't be the solution, IMO. I'm not sure what it but I know it's not that

---

 

 

It's amazing just how disastrous this entire thing has been, and what's even more shocking is how little attention is being paid to this by those who should be reporting on the problems. 

 

Not shocking when you consider the people that are supposed to be reporting the full news are generally liberal.  

 

It really depends on your definition of the term bipartisanship.

 

If you ask his royal highness, Obama would tell you agreeing with him is bipartisan. 

 

It's difficult to work in a bipartisan manner when the expectation is that either you get in line with what one sect believes, or they will trash you for being an obstruction. 

 

 

Spot on, FBT!

 

We may clash over some football stuff....but we're on the same page politically it seems. 

---