Kink and whatever

If you have good insurance, your insurance company actually negotiates lower prices. The US government does that for Medicare, keeping allowed charges so low that many doctors refuse to take those patients. But, the government is prevented from doing that for Rx prices because the companies lobby corrupt politicians. Also, as hospital systems grow into monopolies they can keep prices high. The US government could tell those greedy hospitals to fuck off and set better reimbursement rates. Even better, the government could take over healthcare and trim ALL the profit from the system. That works very well in other countries as evidenced by actual outcome measures where the US ranks piss poor!

Look, I know the inside of Medicare and healthcare provision a bit too. Not 20+ years, but some. And I don't doubt that many of the bureaucratic worker bees in the field legitimately are trying to help people (others of course are just in it for the paycheck, like any other white-collar administrative industry). But subjective intentions don't matter much when the entire system is ossified and scleroticized to within an inch of its life.

The more we can cut out middlemen between medical practitioners and patients (and the more practitioners we empower to treat patients) the easier this will be for everyone, and the cheaper. Government should fund/subsidize hospital and clinic operations *directly* to help defray the costs of large capital expenditures that would otherwise excessively drive up service costs to patients.

Years ago I had long discussions with a fiscally conservative good friend about the broken US healthcare system. He clued me in on the shortage of MDs as a deliberate artificial constraint that drives up the cost of medical care.

We ended up agreeing on almost every point. The irreconcilable gap we came to was how much should the US pay for healthcare. With healthcare at that time at 18% of GDP and rising, he didn’t see it as a problem. In a capitalist economy, he reasoned, if people want to spent 25% of GDP on healthcare, that’s their choice. I disagreed vehemently, saying with all the profit being squeezed from a necessity like healthcare, we could instead be spending that money on other important needs, not lining the pockets of already rich people.

No, the real culprits are those who were wealthy long before the boomers came along. The boomers and their parents made up the largest and loudest block of voters from the 1930s through the 1970s when all of the impactful economic and social legislation was passed. They belonged to unions. They supported a 90% income tax rate on the super rich.

It was those with extraordinary, generational wealth who regained control of the political levers, and the public’s perceptions, who tore down the government programs intended to lift ordinary people out of poverty. They did it by pandering to the fears of middle class and poor white boomers, just as the OP describes.

But I believe that had we not allowed the oligarchs to regain control, to feed the ugliness of racism and white privilege, we would be in a better place to have the long overdue conversation needed to address the racial, economic and social disparity that never went away, was merely masked by the perceived prosperity of the “golden” decades of the ‘50s and ‘60s.

To cast the current crises we face as a generational problem, blaming the boomers, simply plays into the hands of the wealthy in the same way that blaming immigrants or lazy poor people does. This is 100% about the ultra wealthy vs the rest of us. It’s a class struggle, not a generational divide or a racial divide.

February 3, 2021: Afternoon

Good morning Anon. I’m afraid you don’t have it yet. Let me see if I can help you understand polyamory better. I’ll confess that I’m still learning about it myself, so will appreciate others who have lived in it longer using the back of this post to add additional enlightening information.

Monogamous and Polyamorous Relationships:

Monogamy

Dating or becoming emotionally involved with one person. All your romantic, emotional, and sexual eggs go into one person’s basket. One does not behave romantically or sexually with others if they are involved in a monogamous relationship.

Examples of Monogamy are apparent in your everyday world. These are the vast majority of relationships that you will see happening during your lifetime. A common goal within monogamous relationships is often the desire to meet one person to marry and have as an only partner for the rest of your days. 

Non-Monogamy

Dating or becoming emotionally/sexually involved with more than one person at the same time. 

An example of a non-monogamous relationship might be someone who is young who is interested in dating many people at the same time and pursuing each of those relationships. Another example might also be a husband who steps out of his marriage to cheat on his wife. In both instances someone is dating more than one person. One of these is ethical, and one is not. Let’s look at the two types of non-monogamy...

Non-Ethical Non-Monogamy

(Head Low Polyamorous Relationships) This is what you are practicing if you are in a monogamous relationship with someone, but pursue other emotional/sexual relationships without informing them. This is having other/multiple relationships outside of a partner’s consent. This is commonly referred to as cheating, and is a cruel and dysfunctional way to carry on relationships. 

Ethical Non-Monogamy

(Head High Polyamorous Relationships) This is when someone dates/becomes involved with multiple people at the same time, and are open and honest about it with everyone they are dating. This is having relationships with other people with all your partners’ consent. 

Examples of Ethical Non-Monogamy: 

1. A kinkster who identifies as poly, finds a caregiving dominant who also identifies as poly. This caregiving dominant serves most of their kinky needs and desires, but is not a sadist, and does not like giving impact. Same kinkster then meets a sadist who identifies as poly. Kinkster engages with both partners in discussion about dating someone new and receives consent from existing partner to do so. Now kinkster is having all their needs met and exploring a consensual relationship with both partners. 

2. A couple who decides to invite someone into their bed, discusses it together, and then follows through with a consensual partner. 

3. As stated above, anyone who is dating multiple people who all understand they are not the only one the person is dating. 

4. 8 people getting together to consensually have an orgy one afternoon. 

Basically anytime you are being open and honest and are consensually relationshipping with more than one person, you are practicing ethical non-monogamy. 

Whether you identify as polyamorous person or say you are monogamous and temporarily enjoying polyamorous behavior is another matter. The couple who invite a third into their bed may very likely identify as monogamous, but want to briefly visit some of the joys found in polyamory. I hope this helps you understand the difference between monogamy, non monogamy, and ethical non monogamy a little better anon. 

I personally look forward to reading people’s additions to this post over time. Teach me more about being polyamorous. 

All polyamourous relationships are a type of ethical non-monogamy, but not all types of ethical non-monogamy are polyamourous.

Polyamory only succeeds with honesty and respect between all the participants. In many ways it’s more work - but can be more fulfilling - than a monogamous relationship. Managing your own feelings and being respectful and supportive of other’s feelings is work with only one partner. Adding more people multiplies the effort needed. When it works, the intentional honesty that makes poly relationships work avoids the traps many monogamous relationships fall into.

Let’s be honest. Those idealized relationships, where two people complement each other so well that they fulfill one another completely, are extremely rare. But society teaches us that we should seek that perfect, harmonious union with our soul mate. And as a result many people are unhappy. Couples break up. Half of marriages end in divorce.

Polyamory starts with the acknowledgment that expecting one person to meet all of your needs is unrealistic for just about everyone. On top of that, poly people realize that they’re able to love more than one person. Love isn’t a finite resource. We can give and receive as much as we like and we’ll never run out.

For many people I’ve talked with, time management is the biggest challenge. Making sure that all partners involved are having their needs met fairly and respectfully takes work, communication and trust. Plus a lot of flexibility and understanding.

If you have good insurance, your insurance company actually negotiates lower prices. The US government does that for Medicare, keeping allowed charges so low that many doctors refuse to take those patients. But, the government is prevented from doing that for Rx prices because the companies lobby corrupt politicians. Also, as hospital systems grow into monopolies they can keep prices high. The US government could tell those greedy hospitals to fuck off and set better reimbursement rates. Even better, the government could take over healthcare and trim ALL the profit from the system. That works very well in other countries as evidenced by actual outcome measures where the US ranks piss poor!

The fatal flaw in my reasoning five years ago was this: I didn't take into account that the courts could simply do nothing in the face of rabid, uninhibited, GOP dumbf**kery. There's little risked by doing nothing. Non-action doesn't grab attention, doesn't demand a response, doesn't warrant a backlash. Nothing is powerful.

That's what we're seeing happen with Roe. Texas and other red states have trotted out the wackiest abortion bills you can think of every session for years now, but they haven't been able to implement the worst of them because they've been stopped by the courts. With SB8, an utterly bonkers bill that allows private citizens to become abortion bounty hunters, Trump judges finally said, "eh, let's just see what happens if we let this one go into effect."

...

We're headed that way no matter which side the courts are on; if they're conservative, they make the rules apply to one side and not the other. If they're liberal (which they aren't), then the conservatives will just ignore them by saying that the constitution doesn't explicitly give the courts the power of judicial review. The courts gave themselves that power in Marbury v Madison, but there's no article or amendment that says they can do that, everyone just agrees to it. Conservatives are saying judicial review only exists when they want it to, so it'll break down and everything will become lawless.

Once again, Americans are being herded with fear. This time it’s fear that our freedom is endangered. But it’s the invented - not Constitutional - freedom to be selfish, to endanger our family, our friends. And just to pile on, fear that people far away, or those who come from far away, are stealing our very way of life.

"something something constitution," so? Write an amendment or law?

I want a healthcare system on par with Japan for if/when I need it. I'd rather my taxes go towards that than turning Syrian kids to skeletons or something.

"Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

And to @theconstitutionisgayculture: the post should have said "per Capita" spending. Here's a graph: