Election 2016, October 16-22

What’s on your mind?

ADDED:  Just saw this.

Political Party Quiz

Answer these 11 questions that were part of a national survey conducted by the Pew Research Center to find out where you fit on the partisan political spectrum. And see how you compare with other Americans by age, race, religion and gender.

Advertisements

74 thoughts on “Election 2016, October 16-22

  1. The first time I took the quiz, I was a conservative Republican, I changed one answer and became a moderate Republican.

  2. I don’t understand their rating scale. Independent is in the middle, then going either way, moderate democrat/republican is closer to the middle than democratic-/republican-leaning independent. That doesn’t make sense. The r/d-leaning independents should be closer to the middle than the moderate d/r.

  3. I think the scale is defined by the positions of the people who self identify that way. So for example, I say I am a Republican- leaning Independent (because I am unaffiliated with any party, and I don’t vote straight party lines.) but the quiz result was that apparently my views are most like people who identify as moderate Republicans.

  4. The latest polling has Hillary winning and the democrats taking the senate. What was Mitch McConnell’s strategy in not voting on Merrick Garland?

  5. Haven’t been around much lately because mobile riobaby makes it hard to sit down and type. I tested moderate democrat, probably because the questions allowed no nuance and depending on the day, I can lean more fiscally moderate and pro-environment. And I’m more liberal on immigration. I also think single payer is probably the most efficient way to deal with the healthcare mess. Most of the real-life Democratic Party is absolutely unwilling to tolerate people with my socially conservative views, however. I’ve toyed with voting with Hillary this election against Trump, but I don’t think I can stomach the likely views of her administration on religious liberty so it’s looking like 3rd party for me.

  6. Even though with honest answers I have one view that does not fit with a stereotype “progressive” (a term that many of us have revived to describe views for which the term “liberal” has been watered down or right shifted beyond recognition), all that did was move me one click away from the farthest left/blue on the test scale. I fiddled with some of the other responses and found that changing even one moved me way right.

    Hi Rio – glad to see that riobaby is healthy and happy. Young mom days were the only time I didn’t have a weight problem. I was too busy running around.

  7. Agree that the questions were poorly worded. Immigration law and environmental law are both areas of government where laws need to keep up with the times and not be 30+ years behind.

    The quiz was useful for helping me realize how pronounced my distrust of government is. Having spent my career competing globally, I’ve always had to consider unintended consequences and what’s likely to be the real (not desired) outcome of a change. I realized I share many of the goals of progressives (reasonably clean environment, some level of healthcare for all) but think that government implementation of those goals in our current system is impossibly flawed. I don’t fit into either camp very well.

  8. I got Democratic leaning Independent, which is probably right. The Republicans should have taken Merrick Garland for the gift that he was. But their leadership isn’t playing with a full deck.

  9. that government implementation of those goals in our current system is impossibly flawed.

    In what ways?

  10. “What was Mitch McConnell’s strategy in not voting on Merrick Garland?”

    Seems like they should start the confirmation hearings right now.

  11. Rhett, I assume single payer would be like Canada, where it’s illegal to purchase healthcare outside the system. In that system, cancer survivors, for example, can’t always get timely follow-up care and people who, in my opinion, are more responsible for their health situation (addicts, for example) sometimes/always have priority over cancer survivors for healthcare resources. I would support a program like Germany’s or Japan’s, where government ensures a basic level of care (everyone gets C-sections, vaccinations and appendectomies covered, etc.) and if you want more (better access to scans after cancer, for example), you pay extra for it or you don’t get it.

    It’s my usual argument that single payer advocates haven’t dealt with the economic reality that healthcare will be rationed by queuing or fiat rather than by income.

    Based on the VA hospital access fiasco and the lies associated with queues, I also don’t trust any access statistics that government provides to be accurate. In a competitive system, there is a little more motivation to have accurate data on queues if you want to keep customers.

    I’m not familiar with environmental law details, but at least some specific acts don’t include cost-risk-benefit analyses. As far as I can tell, many of the people who support strong environmental laws don’t like their effects on small businesses (dry cleaners, for example) and so want large corporations to spend far more to abate a given amount of chemical x. If chemical x is to be abated, it should be done at the lowest cost. (I like huge chemical corporations more than many progressives, I suspect.) I also think environmental laws should consider global effects and possibly trigger tariffs on products (especially including mined metals, etc.) from high-polluting countries. But that would be a huge change to global trade laws, I think.

  12. Rhett, I assume single payer would be like Canada, where it’s illegal to purchase healthcare outside the system.

    Why would you assume that and not a system like Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands, etc?

  13. Rhett, probably because of the people I’m around. Oregon’s healthcare insurance system was a huge failure and I was talking to one of the spouse’s of the people on the advisory committee at SWE. (Spouse is a healthcare system CIO). The politicians make grandiose promises and make huge investments that fail in large part because they choose incompetent people to head these projects. (The competent people who tell them early on how and why the systems will fail are ignored, even when they are working for free on the advisory committee.)

    Naysayers in tech spent a few years being vilified, but many of us are employed again, as companies realize you need people who can implement ideas and understand what is NOT implementable with given resources. This is one of Bill Gates’ current discoveries for the Gates Foundation as well.

  14. From what I have heard countries with government provided healthcare have tightened their immigration laws. They also made it harder for recent immigrants to bring in their extended families. They had to tighten because they couldn’t fund healthcare for all the newcomers who required time to be fully contributing citizens.

  15. I came out moderate Republican which is (a) probably how I FEEL I am and (b) farther to the right than I usually come out on these types of polls.

    Environment: so here the governor wants to save at least 1 (probably 2-3) aging nuclear plants to help enable his 50%-no-fossil-fuel-energy by 2030 plan. Given the recent and projected cost of natural gas as an input to electricity production, we’d be much better off rate-wise letting the owner(s) shut the plants. But no, we’re going to subsidize the operators (with a specific rate surcharge paid for mostly by industrial users, but also by residential customers) for the next few years because mostly I think he doesn’t want to see the hundreds of employees at these plants, with average earnings of $125k, laid off with no chance of ever getting comparably paying jobs in their remote small towns.

    No issue from me on nuclear. Yeah there’s risk, but everything has risk. I’m willing to tolerate it.

  16. The Environmental Species Act (1973) was deliberately enacted without cost risk benefit analysis. (Cost analysis was added later and in some executive orders.) And in areas of environmental law like clean air, it’s hard to say what the harm is of any particular contaminant, especially because natural contaminants (from forest fires, for example) so often outweigh the manmade ones. The level of manmade contaminants from, say, cars also depends on population density. The return on cleaner snowmobile engines, for example, accrues mostly to people in rural Alaska.

    My point was that with ongoing cost/benefit analysis, environmental regulations can and should be tweaked to particular times and locations.

  17. My point was that with ongoing cost/benefit analysis, environmental regulations can and should be tweaked to particular times and locations.

    That of course being subject to a cost/benefit analysis. If it’s cheaper and easier to have one nationwide snowmobile/jetski engine regulation vs. +50 local ones then we’d have to go with one reg.

  18. I suspect in reality it’s easier for snowmobile makers to adjust to the strictest state standard than to change the standard in law as technology improves. But I’m open to either approach.

    As an example of when corporate power works better than government power, consider the effect that Large Shareholder Warren Buffett has had/may have had on Wells Fargo. I think Buffett is sensible and understands trade-offs that can improve companies. I think Buffett’s ability/power to support almost-real-time improvements is better than having to wait years for prosecution and changes to laws that are intrinsic to government regulation.

  19. I think Buffett’s ability/power to support almost-real-time improvements is better than having to wait years for prosecution and changes to laws that are intrinsic to government regulation.

    What do we do with all the companies where Buffet doesn’t own a significant stake? Are you saying shareholders will keep companies honest absent government regulation?

  20. No, but I think we need to figure out which government regulations are still appropriate and enforceable rather than piling more regulations on top of existing dysfunctional ones. Too much power is left in the hands of prosecutors and judges to decide which laws to enforce when, and that makes lobbyists too important.

    I just spent a weekend with my family of anti-Clinton supporters and the biggest complaint I heard is that judges and bureaucrats effectively make laws rather than interpret them and that government (CPS overreach is a common example and huge fear) has too much power.

  21. Rhett, I don’t know. My career would not be particularly affected by an unfounded CPS investigation, but their careers in healthcare and teaching might be. I read about a defense attorney who noted that we use our sex offender laws to prosecute both people who rape infants and people who get drunk and urinate in public, with similar lifelong effects in some cases.

    I note that none of my 9 nieces and nephews attend public school and the children of my aunt and uncle, who are just starting families, will probably be similar. Part of this is concern about “the homosexual agenda” (families come in all types curricula), part of it is recognition that bright, English speaking children probably don’t get optimal educations in large classes with a significant minority of ESL children and part of it is religious indoctrination.

  22. Just took the quiz. Not suprisingly, I am as far to the extreme of liberal Democrat as the scale allows

  23. WCE, why do you always point to the VA instead of pointing to Medicare, which is the program most people who want single-payer want to see expanded?

  24. Rhett, Germany and the Netherlands don’t have true single payer. Their systems (like most of Europe) are more like Obamacare with enforcement of the mandate on steroids.

  25. RMS, if the numbers work for funding at Medicare (vs. Medicaid) levels, and 90%+ of physicians accept Medicare and new patients can get a primary care appointment within 30 days and a specialist appointment within the guidelines set by actuaries, I’m fine with Medicare expansion.

    When my grandmother lived in Denver, some physicians didn’t accept many Medicare patients. Has that changed?

  26. Please note the CPS is an entirely local/state level of regulation, guidance, law and enforcement. One cannot blame the federal government for deciding how many blocks a child can walk home from school alone and at what age. Cultural expectations are certainly influenced nationwide by mass media, but media on all sides of political and social spectrum feed into hysteria of all sorts.

    I am not averse to a greater emphasis on local or regional regulation – more and more I would like to be allowed to pay taxes, obtain health care, educate my descendants, enjoy public services, and maintain the hard separation between church and state in the modern Massachusetts version of the US experience. (Massachusetts was an actual theocracy at its birth, and into the early 19th century with churches supported by taxation, and later on during the heyday of Catholic political power in the big cities the Church had an effective veto at the legislative level, mostly by controlling the election via endorsement from the pulpit of state legislators, local assemblymen and mayors. So the Commonwealth hasn’t always been a secular haven).

  27. The countries with true single payer (Canada, Britain, Italy) vary quite a bit. Single payer works well if the government funds it adequately. Most of the horror stories coming from Britain’s national health service are due to totally inadequate funding. Canada is different, too, because the single payers are by province, and thus the quality varies by province. I think Quebec is considered to be pretty good.

    Getting good cancer care is such a huge issue even in this country that I don’t really want to throw stones at Canada. They are pretty good with pediatric cancer, and very willing to pay for a kid to go to the US if needed. The problems they have in treating more uncommon cancers is a problem of numbers: here in the US, we might have 200 cases per year of cancer XYZ – in Canada, that may be 5 cases a year. You can’t develop cutting edge treatments when you have so few cases.

    Back when I was more involved in that world, I was on an international mailing list for the particular kind of cancer my kid had. We heard stories from everywhere, My takeaway was that the best country to get cancer in is France. They get so much support there and have all the same clinical trials we have. France is not a single payer system. They instead have this truly weird hodgepodge of subsidized insurance plans that are allocated based on your line of work, as I recall. It is a byzantine system that even HIllary Clinton could not have come up with. And yet, it functions very well.

  28. I have just started my Medicare journey, with an HMO type plan rated 5 stars. My husband has the same plan, using a different medical group or “care circle”. What I can say is that i have no reason to expect issues, seeing any regular doctor or routine specialist. and my husband is a power user who has had NO trouble ever. We are in a well served area, of course. I did not go cold turkey from broad employer provided health care to straight medicare, and I chose a medical practice 6 years ago that had a vigorous commitment to seniors (a family practice group) in anticipation of the transition. For mental health services it looks like many practitioners do not take insurance or only the Cadillac fee for service plans, but that is true even at the pre-medicare level.

  29. In our area, very few mental health professionals take any insurance. I pay out of pocket for my son’s therapist. The developmental ped that he sees, the one that we can’t get an actual appointment with, is the truly rare intersection of GOOD and TAKES INSURANCE. She may be the only one with that combination in the county, based on discussions I have had with local parents. That is why I can’t get an appointment with her until January.

    We have rationing here too, but it is done by insurance companies who set reimbursement rates lower than what the market demands.

  30. When my grandmother lived in Denver, some physicians didn’t accept many Medicare patients. Has that changed?

    I’m sure there are physicians who don’t accept Medicare in Denver. My mother was able to see her primary care physician, a neurologist, and a dermatologist without too much trouble. There’s a wait to see neurologists, but that’s true for regular insurance too. She didn’t have cancer so I can’t address that.

  31. Mooshi, good point that rationing can be by a combination of queuing and money. I didn’t mean to imply that the ways economists categorize rationing (cost, lottery, queuing, fiat) are mutually exclusive.

  32. My point was that with ongoing cost/benefit analysis, environmental regulations can and should be tweaked to particular times and locations.

    In a previous life, I was an economist doing cost/benefit analysis of government regulations. The assumptions in the analysis could easily be tweaked so that the estimated costs did not reach the threshold for a required analysis.

    Not to mention that the analysis was often based off of assumptions about decades old technology that hadn’t been used in ages. I recall one analysis regarding crop dusters that assumed that there were still flaggers in the fields when chemicals were applied and had no idea about the use of GPS systems in airplanes, which had been standard technology for decades.

  33. In a previous life…had no idea about the use of GPS systems in airplanes, which had been standard technology for decades.

    The GPS system became fully operational in 1995 so I’m surprised that in a previous life that technology had been standard technology for decades.

  34. Trying to separate national from local level actions doesn’t make sense. An example: the Asian-American using the thisis2016 hashtag. That is all very local in nature, and has increased because of national events.

  35. “When my grandmother lived in Denver, some physicians didn’t accept many Medicare patients.”

    I believe it’s also common here for MDs to limit the number of medicare patients they see.

  36. If it’s cheaper and easier to have one nationwide snowmobile/jetski engine regulation vs. +50 local ones then we’d have to go with one reg.

    Not to mention that a snowmobile in Oregon emits the same amount of pollutants as a snowmobile in Alaska.

  37. Of course if everyone has medicare then all the docs will accept it because they won’t have any patients if they don’t. Aside from a handful of concierge practices.

  38. Finding docs who take medicaid is a much bigger problem, especially specialists, because the reimbursements are lower.

  39. “Of course if everyone has medicare then all the docs will accept it because they won’t have any patients if they don’t. Aside from a handful of concierge practices.”

    Unless it is specifically banned, my guess is that in areas with enough wealthy people, alternative systems of medical care will emerge that serve the wealthy, but also will benefit the general population because many advances in care will come from these alternative systems.

  40. “It’s my usual argument that single payer advocates haven’t dealt with the economic reality that healthcare will be rationed by queuing or fiat rather than by income.”

    A couple of other factors are wealth and the willingness to pay for medical care.

  41. Denver Dad said “Finding docs who take medicaid is a much bigger problem, especially specialists, because the reimbursements are lower.”

    And as I noted above, this is also a problem that private insurance has with some specialties that are in high demand, such as developmental pediatricians, and mental health providers. Insurance companies are simply not willing to pay market price. Middle class people, who can’t afford providers who don’t take insurance, are the ones who end up waiting for months to see someone

  42. Mooshi, I’m wondering about the possible option to pay full price to providers that don’t take insurance, and getting partial reimbursement.

  43. ” the possible option to pay full price to providers that don’t take insurance, and getting partial reimbursement.”

    That’s not uncommon among those who can afford it. When you submit claims for those in-demand providers who charge high fees your insurance company may only reimburse you for about 20% of the doctor’s bill.

  44. I have done what Finn described. It was reimbursed at 60% under out-of-network care. Since I had been willing to pay it all myself, getting reimbursed 60% was a huge win. It was for a recurring twice-weekly appointment for months, so it added up to quite a bit.

  45. I took DD to a specialist at the top hospital/medical center in the city. It was not part of my insurance network so I planned to pay for it myself. I ended up getting nearly 50% off the bill because I paid it with a credit card, and they didn’t have to go through the insurance process.

  46. The specialists that I am referring to here typically are not part of ANY insurance network, and would never knock off 50% of the bill because you paid with a credit card! You pay upfront and then handle all the insurance paperwork yourself, so you can get some of it reimbursed

  47. Mooshi, I’m wondering about the possible option to pay full price to providers that don’t take insurance, and getting partial reimbursement.

    Yes, it’s called out-of-network.

    Are reimbursement rates better for medicare than medicaid?

    Yes, especially for specialists. Specialists lose money on Medicaid reimbursements, that’s why so few of them take medicaid.

  48. anybody watching the debate?

    Donald started out fairly controlled, but is losing it now…typical outbursts.

  49. He kind of held it together (though some significant departures with Republican ideas were interesting) until he said he might not concede. That was it. Game over.

  50. They are both such disappointing candidates.
    I am sorry that DS and his fellow college students will be casting their first presidential votes this year. What a sad spectacle all around.

  51. I thought that this was the best of the 3 debates by everyone. Chris Wallace did a good job. Hillary did great. Trump was the best he has been, but the hombre stuff and calling her a nasty woman was pure Trump. And the stuff about not accepting the results is just how he is and why he is so dangerous. He actually has many of his supporters convinced that we don’t have fair elections.

  52. I got Liberal Democrat, I think when I took the Pew survey in 2012, I was Moderate Republican

  53. Another fun political quiz
    https://votecompass.vox.com/

    I agree with HIllary Clinton 81% of the time, with Jill Stein 73% of the time, with Gary Johnson 44% of the time, and with Trump 25% of the time. Wow, I had no idea I was in any agreement with him
    They also give you a graph of where you fall on the political landscape – I am between Stein and CLinton. And they give you tons more – how much you agree with the candidates on specific issues, etc. Very detailed

  54. Clinton 82%
    Stein 70%
    Johnson 49%
    Trump 30%

    I overlap Clinton. Right on top of her dot.

  55. Peaceful transfer of power is a hallmark of our country. But I don’t actually take Trump’s “let wait and see” comment to be a sign of the apocalypse. Let’s just suppose that come election day, the Russians manage to pull off a tremendous hacking job and Trump, contrary to all expectation and polling, appears to be the winner. Do you believe the Democrats would just accept the results without question? I don’t — I think they would certainly want to investigate possible election tampering before making any concession. And after all, the electoral college doesn’t actually vote until December, so there is time built into the system.

    Having said that, I don’t think this could ever actually happen – elections are administered by so many small offices scattered throughout so many states and in so many different formats that systemic tampering would be virtually impossible to pull off. And I think Trump’s talk of a “rigged election” is poisoning the atmosphere to an unprecedented degree. I find that much more disturbing than his comment about “wait and see how it goes.”

  56. Clinton 60%
    Johnson 47%
    Stein 45%
    Trump 40%

    Of course, I’m skeptical about the Clinton number. She’s changed position many times (e.g., the Asian fair trade agreement), so I’m not sure on what I’m in agreement with her.

  57. One of the easiest questions in the Vox survey:
    “How much should wealthier people pay in taxes?”

    Of course everyone wealthier than me should pay more taxes.

Comments are closed.