The UWCR must have been on double-secret probation.

The rules of conservatism:

1) Nothing is ever your fault.
2) ALWAYS be a victim
3) Whatever underhanded thing you are doing, accuse your opposition of doing it.

And really, any young person who identifies as a Republican in the age of trump is showing that they are both amoral and intellectually vapid.

Tr666p is Peak Florida Man.

He and their fake governor, moRon DeSATANis, deserve each other in this marriage made in the eternal lake fire of hell.

Incredible, finally someone willing to propose cuts to military spending for the benefit of the middle class. I didn't think pragmatism existed anymore.

As for New York City, cheers to you guys. Enjoy the celebration you're no doubt throwing.

I'm seeing 52 trillion and 20.5 trillion for the medicare for all plan, anyone know why there are differences? Regardless that is an insane amount of money

Also, I read elsewhere that the oil spill was 350,000 gallons. It previously leaked 400k+ gallons just a couple years ago. Good thing we're building the Keystone XL pipeline so this can become a yearly occurrence.

The kids trick or treating have really become dicks over the last decade or so.

I am not going to get all hung up on the traditions and all, but it would at least be nice if most of the kids said a thank you or even looked at you before robotically just trying to grab as much candy as they can and rushing off. Half of them don't even bother to say "Trick or Treat" before demanding tribute.

Just strikes me as being an ungrateful little shit. We always buy the full size bars, and so make sure to tell them to choose ONE, but they still try to grab 4 and give you some shit eating grin/try to ignore you when you stop them.

It's very rude.

Re: Life expectancy going down

I just have to hope that whatever comes after this is gonna be better, and that enough honest, decent people are engaged and activated and dedicated to ensuring that this is the last disastrous leadership we’ll have for our lifetimes. I mean, it’s not like the last half century has been just peachy, more like a downward spiral, so it’s only up from here, right?

It is gonna change though, one way or another due to demographics alone. We’re finally seeing the crumbling of the countless charlatans, frauds, abusers, and apex predators this nation has endured at the top of our society. With the Silent generation and the Boomers on the cusp of enjoying their final Klan rally, this is gonna be a very different country ten years from now.

@8: Never said all the kids are assholes. Many of them are quite nice, or too young to be assholes yet.

Very weak, even for you.

Sorry, but I just cant. Non-native Alaska Salmon? Every species of salmon in Alaska is also found in Washington. They also migrate from Washington to Alaska and back. Do you mean Atlantic salmon?

@13 With all due respect, every Republican president after Ike has been jettisoning or subverting large swaths of conservative thought in a rather naked power grab.

Republican legislators, in aggregate, have been worse.

If you ever doubted the existence of paid blog commentariat:

Inside a troll farm

“The big question is how regulators everywhere are going to respond to the challenge posed by this kind of activity,”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/01/undercover-reporter-reveals-life-in-a-polish-troll-farm

Smart move by Trump since felons can now vote in Florida.

@17 nailed it

Raindrop dear, see Rule #1 of conservatism above, then think about your post.

@13 "Conservatism is essentially a tribute to individualism over the state"

That's propaganda, as shown by conservatives trampling civil and human rights when they feel they need to. For example, the very same people who wrote this book also thought that Joe MCarthy was a groovy fellow even though he used the full power of the state to trample individual civil rights like there was no tomorrow, which deeply affected the nation's political landscape for decades to follow.

Conservatism is better described as opportunism in the defense of entrenched power (opportunism as in anything will do).

Poor dog. btw there are far more comfortable options than those dreadful cones that vets give out to prevent a pet from messing with the surgery/stiches. Check them out online.

Debate all you like about it, but the thing with the labels "Conservative and "Liberal" right now is that the people we call Conservatives in America are not conservatives,and the people we call Liberals are not politically liberal.

The people we call "Liberals" are postmodernist neo-Marxists who apply the philosophy of Derrida to everything. A real Liberal would be fighting for free speech, civil liberties and economic freedom. Modern "liberals" hate all of these values, even if they pretend not to.

The people we call "Conservatives" are essentially large-government hacks who simply want to use state power to remake the nation in their view. A real Conservative would be fighting for smaller government and less government overreach, not trying to force the government into your bedroom and expanding the power of the executive to the Nth degree.

What you are really arguing about at this point is Nationalism vs. Globalism.

No true Republican puts sugar on his porridge.

If you take the view that political parties are vehicles for abstract principles, you're eventually going to start saying some ridiculous things. Political parties are agents of interest groups and Trump represents the interests of the GOP's principle interest groups (crony capital jackals and xenophobic rednecks) perfectly.

@7

Never let children or Boomers help themselves.
Their little hands should never get anywhere near your candy bowl.
If you want to give them a choice, show them the candy out of their reach. Make them use their words.
Never let children or Boomers help themselves.

@25 You passed self parody some time ago. It's just sad now.

@28 The president sets the agenda but the implementation is up to Congress. If you want anything like a public option it's better to elect somebody who wants to shoot for Medicare for all. The public option may well end up as the compromise position.

@13,

I honestly don't think he was ever much ideologically anything. Just an empty headed blank slate, willing to say whatever might make him sound like a fierce and cut-throat businessman, rather than the clownish, bumbling buffoon we all know him to be. As far as political donations, I saw where he did in fact donate $175k more to us than the GOP over the period spanning 1989-2010, but this is surely due to his residing in a heavily democrat dominated area during this time, rather than some sort of calculated and considered ideology, which again, we know him to be utterly incapable of performing.

@28
Private health insurance and a "public option" cannot exist together.
When someone with private insurance develops an expensive medical condition their insurance provider will drop them. The insurance companies will be nothing more than a leech on the system. They'll take good money from healthy people, while the public option delivers all of the expensive care.
This would drive the overall cost of healthcare up dramatically.
Supplemental private insurance may have a place, but comprehensive private insurance cannot exist alongside public health insurance.

@28 When you know you're going to be haggling, you don't start by revealing the price you'll settle for.

The reason the Affordable Care Act falls short is that the initial proposal from the Dems included a public option, which got traded away in negotiations.

@32 There are other ways to structure it, and other countries have successful health care systems that include both public and private insurance.

Think supplemental private insurance, and/or simple regulation to prevent the kind of condition-based coverage refusal you mention.

@25 Libertarians are radicals, not conservatives. Don't be misled by the fact that they vote Republican.

@27: Nah, I'm an optimist, and as a kid I always hated when people assumed I could not handle something because I was young. I will continue to give the kids a chance to be decent, as disappointing as it may be.

@29: Well don't be so coy you little devil, explain yourself. Unless you have nothing to say.

@ 20,

I was specifically referring to our failed system of government and the disastrous results it produces. There’s a reason that no other democracies use it.

American “democracy,” with the insatiable greed of the 1% married to the sociopathic racist hatred of white voters as it’s foundation, has gifted us with Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II, each one more sleazy, corrupt, and degenerate than the last. And then there’s Newt Gingrich and the Ku Klux Kongress, another gift of American “democracy” that keeps on giving. Political scientists demonstrated years ago that what Congress does has zero relationship with what the American people want and would benefit from.

Obama was the best president in most of our lifetimes, and the first thing he (and Holder and Geithner) did was work overtime to ensure that none of the Wall $treet oligarchs and CaliguBush/Cheney sycophants could ever be held accountable for their actions. It’s not easy to look back on those years in the aftermath of the economic collapse with rose-colored glasses. Obama then abandoned us to cash in on his presidency after Tr666p’s illegitimate installation in office. A doctor has a duty to render aid if she sees someone drop on the sidewalk, a moral imperative even more pressing for a president when a nation is at stake.

Can’t remember who said this, but “when you add up the American equation, Tr666p is the result.” There’s no chance of fondly remembering America’s “democracy” when Prezirapist AntiChrist and his cadre of criminally insane, lying, grifting, hateful morons are what it shits out.

Regarding #13’s comment about the republican’s largesse regarding freedom for the individual against the government bla bla bla (laughter) folk’s comments have already beaten that to death.

However, I will add that the people who actually do stand up for the individual against the state’s intrusion on our freedoms includes the Anarchist Movement. That is a movement that the state is truly afraid of including people like raindrop who are ok with the wealthy smothering our platforms and putting us in prison.

"This is the most complete attempt to answer the "how" to the attractive Medicaid for All idea."

An attractive plan that becomes a lot less attractive to 150 million people when they understand that it takes away the healthcare they have now. (Good luck selling that to the Unions that have negotiated ironclad healthcare for life into their pension plans).

Also... She needs to explain how she plans to convince doctors to accept hose deep cuts to their payments. And how that's not going to reduce the number of doctors practicing while increasing patients looking for doctors... Sounds like a great idea!

20 - which population benefits from the clean water etc. of which you spoke?

Not Gaza, the child slaves in Africa and destitute in much of the world. Even people in Detroit for example. Why are you not seeing them?

41 Oh come on. The other industrialized nations are way ahead of the U.S. on this. People lose their homes over medical bills here not so in these other countries. Its cheaper to have universal health care than not. People will be able to have preventative care which provides better outcomes and lessens expensive emergency care. It means savings for the taxpayers as well.

@40 Nobody is afraid of an ideology that has been spontaneously imploding every generation or two for the past 200 years.

Anarchism is interesting, not frightening. Today's flavor seems to be a corner that a particular segment of leftists end up painting themselves into as they flee from unintended consequences of other political philosophies. Well, unless you count anarcho-capitalists... and lets face it, most anarchists don't.

To add on number 42 comment - Poisoned water in Flint, Michigan and Native American reservations. #20 You are not including those persons.

@35 neoliberalism is radical too, which suggests that your definition of the GOP and how it relates to Libertarians isn't worth a pile of beans.

@47 Could you please read my definition of the GOP back to me? I don't seem to be able to locate it.

45 Yes, Anarchism is interesting and has many fascinating ideas. Capitalism is not workable at all with Anarchism since anarchists are against hierarchies and consider people equals no matter their status in society. They are for the liberation of labor and many for community control of their own communities in general. There are different schools of anarchism and I am only speaking of my understanding and experience on the matter.

@17 for the win!
Also what Mrs Vel-DuRay said!

49 We don’t have a level playing field, The legal system is set up for the wealthy. Ask all the millions in the jails and prisons in this country. Predominantly guilty because they are poor. We have more people incarcerated in this country than anywhere else in the world. How is that explained?

@50 Capitalism is having an awfully long run for something that's not workable, isn't it? Its imminent demise was first declared in 1859. We've been in "late capitalism" since the term was coined 1902. Yet capitalism is still going, and seems to weather crises quite readily.

Why would you say it's not "workable?" Not fair, not enjoyable for most, not even a well-defined concept, once you start trying to pin it down... but "not workable?" Surely all available evidence says it's "workable," if not particularly likable.

@48 your comment @35 indicates that said definition includes 'conservative' and excludes 'radical', which is complete nonsense in light of their marshaling the last 40 years spent going back to robber baron time while corporate spin on science has may be placed us within sight of environmental collapse.

@44
All I know for certain is that I like the healthcare I have and I'll vote against anyone who wants to take it away from me.
And I don't think I'm alone.

@55 I have no idea how you got that from my comment. I'm saying there are radicals (Libertarians) voting Republican. And I certainly haven't suggested there aren't other kinds of radicals voting Republican. They've got a whole spectrum of radical support, from Christian radicals to white nationalist radicals to gold-standard radicals, and more.

Also, slow down and try to take on one topic at a time. You get a bit incoherent when you try to stuff every opinion you hold into every sentence you write.

53 This system is truly frightening and not all radicals agree with each other. Some methods are dumb and right now for example. unhoused people are dying on the streets because of cruel decisions by those in power here in this so called liberal city. For example, Its not about choice because homelessness is primarily caused by greed and the corporatized housing. Forty years ago homelessness was rare. If Finland can house its people so can we.

For what it's worth, the New York Times noted the Keystone oil leak/spill as 383,000 Gallons. That's a far cry from 9,000.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/31/us/keystone-pipeline-leak.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur

52 See my previous comment. What’s really scary is the system, The police state and the brutality by this system here and all over the world. That is why it is important to make a stand.

@60 40 years ago most of our postwar federally-funded public housing was still standing, and mental hospitals were still federally supported. We had more government then, not less.

We did have problems when the United States Government was more involved in housing and mental health care. Some of the housing was terrible. Some mental health treatment was cruel. But we didn't have tents lining the sidewalks of every American city below the snowline, either.

@59 That explains a lot. Thank you for letting us that you do not understand the meaning of what you write. Also note that i didn't broach another topic since leading to extreme concentration of wealth and power, AND overseeing the destabilization of climate are the acts of radicals.

52: You're right, capitalism is thriving. And it still sucks, still produces massive inequalities, and is still killing the planet. Of course, this capitalism is not really the capitalism envisioned by conservatives and libertarians, but rather a system that freely uses the state to suppress competitors, political enemies, and the general public. It's a capitalism that is actually dependent on and intertwined with governments, one that is monopolistic rather than competitive, and one that openly exalts an oligarchy that it views as a natural aristocracy. It's pretty terrible that this is what you've tethered your cart to. Don't get me wrong, the market has its advantages and many alternatives have failed, but don't pretend it's this awesome, reliable thing that somehow exists without being propped up, because it's really not.

@64 Seriously, slow down. Take one bite at a time.

@66 I don't believe I was tethering my cart to anything, or even praising it for that matter.

Thanks for doing a bang-up job of describing just how loosely defined the word "captialism" can be, and what wildly different ideas are attached to the word by different people.

@54 Laissez faire capitalism is not workable as it always devolves into crises that threaten to consume us. Mixed economy capitalism has a much better record but it is also questioned by the probable end of growth and consumerism due to fast approaching environmental limits

68: The entire global system is capitalism, and the main differences from one national system to the other are just permutations. Social democracy puts a nice civilized veneer on it, liberal democracy gives it the "open society" spin, the Chinese model does it up authoritarian-style. The mixed economic system is modern capitalism from top to bottom. That's just how it works. That's something libertarians never figured out: the state has always been a part of capitalism.

@67 gaslighting like branding people aren't argument about anything although it is evidence of gutter ethics.

"UW College Republicans have been declared illegitimate by state and national Republican leaders"
Foreshadowing the torrent of splitteRism about to rain down on this country. haha

FitBought --- missed micro-headline opportunity there.

@2 - DARVO. Deny, Accuse Reversing Victim and Offender. Classic psychological abuse/ manipulation tactics. Conservatives are the abusive partner none of us actually ever agreed to even date in the first place.

@7 - You (& Nathalie) let kids -choose-? WTF? No, YOU pick whatever you what to give them (trick or treat) and put it in THEIR bag. Children are borderline-personality-disorder level of crazy. Don't let them make such important choices. Good lord. How will they ever learn?

@8 - Ken, I'm getting truly worried about you. "Wine at nine" is not a good rule to live by. My man, get a bit of help, ok? No shame in having your head shrunk. It'll match the size of your heart at least. ;>)

DRAIIIIIIIIIIIIiiiiiiinnnnnaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaggggggggeEeee!! DRAINAGE, Eli, you Boy.

Drained dry, I'm so sorry.

@69 I'm not sure "laissez faire capitalism" has ever really been implemented, anywhere-- I'd argue that markets can't even exist without regulation. But I'm not here to post "no true Scotsman" arguments.

As to "captialism" (with the scare-quotes indicating the ambiguity of the term), you're right, it always devolves into crises that threaten to consume us-- but it also seems to weather those crises and come out the other side pretty much intact.

It's definitely not likable, but it does seem durable (or malleable, or just easy to redefine, which may be it's real secret).

Constant cycles of crisis were a notable feature of every large-scale civilization that existed before the word 'capitalism' was coined, too. This suggests that switching to a different sort of political economy will not automatically fix human society or end its cycles of crisis.

I think I'd be OK with a social order that goes through a crisis periodically, but doesn't shower luxury and power on a tiny fraction of people who have never done an honest day's work in their lives, but instead inherit everything from their carefully chosen parents.

@71 Offering tips on how to write more coherently isn't what "gaslighting" means. You haven't even been bothering to check your grammar lately, and it's not helping you make your case.

@74 whether laissez faire ever resulted into the model it is supposed to deliver is precisely the question. They were other moments in history similar to the present that were characterized by deregulated commercial activities, extreme wealth concentration, and oligarchic rule. Hopefully, it's not news to you that these moments are referred to as an unfettered form of capitalism. These moments resulted into crises so deep they required massive and sustained government intervention in direct refutation of Laissez Faire ideology so I don't think you can say, it worked, because it didn't. Mixed economies undergo crises as well but their amplitudes are usually not as large.

@75 I see. Today you are offering me tips. It doesn't do much for your argument but you gave up on that a few comments ago.

Thank you, Catalina (2) for that brief and succinct definition of conservatism.

AND, Cooke Aquaculture SUCKS! How does Washington State make them go away forever with their aging, rusty aquafarm equipment and too few employees to make sure their fish don't escape, which they want to because the pens are never cleaned? I like fish like the rest of humankind, but NOT from Cooke Aquaculture - Pleeze! The State has been spending tax money to rid us of this corporate vulture, and now it looks like they'll have to spend even more. BUT....GO Bob Ferguson!

NO!! Coal plants and mercury poisoning in our water supplies is NOT cool, Nathalie!
Meanwhile, California is on fire. This is NOT cool at all.
@51 pat L: Agreed and seconded. @ Catalina Vel-DuRay and @17 DOUG for the WIN!
@77 leftist: Agreed and seconded.

@76 Another tip: never declare yourself the winner of an internet argument, and don't declare anyone else the loser, either. It can feel good, lord knows, but it always makes you look terribly insecure.

Theodore, you are thinking about the right things but you are really muddled in your thoughts and probably want to read better sources.

Liberalism refers to a focus on individual rights vs the collectivist, and liberal capitalism includes a focus on the defense of private profit and property. The reason it's called liberalism is because of the idea of a social contract- basically that we agree to give up some of our individual rights to the state in exchange for the enforcement of the rule of law, and in liberal capitalism that includes state defense of private property/profit. Capitalism is simply the privately owned production of goods distributed for profit in markets, and it could be liberal or not. Our current system of capitalism, whether or not you are a Republican or a Democrat, is liberal capitalism. And its exportation around the world in states which are not able to enforce a rule of law is why it so often fails to be liberal while capitalism itself remains. Capitalism can be state/dictatorial instead of liberal, it can be anarchocapitalism as well- liberal capitalism is simply our current system.

Conservatism simply means preferring things to not change, traditional values- as such it's a meaningless word really to define by any specific "beliefs" - a conservative salafist has a totally different of beliefs than a conservative christian etc.

The opposite of liberalism is not conservatism but rather collectivism.

Interestingly, as capitalism continues to increase wealth inequality and more and more people become desperate and/or violent in response, they start to challenge that social contract on which liberalism rests in the first place. There are two responses to this: increase liberal concessions in order to maintain the public's cooperation in the social contract (defense of individual rights, considerations of individual interests, things such as the welfare state) or fortify capital against the demands of the public in order to make the public's cooperation unnecessary and to make the social contract moot (prisons, military occupation, concentration camps, borders, state violence).

Capitalism can survive either way, but ironically it's social democratic policies that are trying to defend liberal capitalism. The alternative is an escalation into state defense, anarchocapitalism and a destruction of the social contract- which is why we see increasing violence around the world.

The distinction you are trying to make about nationalism and globalism is more accurate than the other bullshit you said, but you've missed the key point. The question is who gets to control borders and who gets to cross them- this is at the center of every political-economic theory in existence. It works like this. Under our current American capitalist system of trade agreements around the world enforced by US military power, capital gets to cross borders (set up shop just about anywhere) while labor must stay put. This contradiction is unstable, it's something Keynes discussed at Bretton Woods when the current global monetary system was established with the US currency as the standard (skipping over another deep dive about gold standards vs current fluctuation which is important but another discussion). So this means that there will always be places that have cheap labor available and it removes any nation's ability to pass legislation that has a real affect on their economies. This is why any attempts to control an economy locally (nationalism) requires military enforcement of the border and why attempts to break away from global capitalism as a state has led to totalitarianism. You'll see that libertarians suggest fixing this problem with open borders- the idea being that if labor could compete as freely as capital could, you'd have real free trade. It's also at the crux of any leftists (collectivist anti-capitalist) project- it must be global, hence the I in the IWW- because otherwise capital flight and militaries can simply destroy any attempts domestically.

FINALLY -You can't be post modern and Marxist, it makes no sense and it's why Jordan Peterson (who admits he's never read Marx or Derrida btw) had to add the "neo" and anyway all he meant was "cultural bolshevism" but he needed to put a new spin on it so that A) he could sell books and B) he wouldn't be called an anti-semite. And while Derrida certainly had read Marx and plenty of people like/learn from them both, most of his critics were Marxists, he was not a Marxist himself, and basically no one outside of academics has read Derrida anyway, certainly not modern mainstream liberals- you are regurgitating YouTube pop politics, it's embarrassing.

W not I for anyone that catches that typo.

And to be more clear, Theodore, "globalism vs naitonalism" is a distinction that muddies the waters- I suspect on purpose- kind of like "liberal vs conservative", it stops you from discussing what you are really observing.

Here's a quick exercise. Just make a list of different systems according to if labor or capital can freely cross borders.

Liberal capitalism is the one that allows for the crossing of capital but not labor.

Globalism wants the crossing of both. So capital can set up shop anywhere, labor can compete as well, cross borders to work in different countries.

Nationalism wants the closing of both. So capital must stay at home (keep those manufacturing jobs) and labor stays put as well.

Neither of these systems are compatible with a global system of fluctuating currencies which means they would both, in their pure forms, lead to the collapse of the dollar and the decline of American hegemony.

The compromise is liberal capitalism in which capital can cross borders but labor cannot. And it's only liberal within borders, hence rights to citizens. It really doesn't matter if there are any rights within other borders, so long as those borders are maintained - closed to free travel of labor, open to free travel of capital. A breach of either of these (illegal immigration or state closure to capitalism) will be met with an American military defense.

So if you want to start thinking about things like nationalism and globalism and what liberalism means, etc, then get your shit straight. We are in a conundrum, and it's worthwhile to ask who it serves for Americans to walk around thinking things like "liberalism means mumbo jumbo about free speech and post modern neo marxism" while "conservatism means small government"- this is all total bullshit.

It's also why a nationalist system (closed borders to both trade and labor) can be capitalist or communist and both lead to totalitarianism. In cases where such things have been attempted, the US has intervened w/military or else internal pressures caused collapse.

Likewise theoretically a globalized system (open borders to both trade and labor) can be capitalist (libertarianism) or communist (workers of the world unite) and neither has actually been attempted as it would require the dissolution of individual nation states, though zones have been created (NAFTA, Eurozone) to varying levels of success/failure.

Again, it's only liberal capitalism that requires the contradiction of borders open to capital but closed to labor, and this is really important to understand because what we are seeing globally right now is the challenge to this system in the form of a migrant crisis and internally failed nation states around the world. The question of our times is not whether or not you like this system, but rather how you will respond to the mass global challenge to it. Military fortification? Giving up of the social contract? It's liberal capitalism, not capitalism itself, which is being challenged, and left unaddressed, the response will be the death of liberalism, not capitalism. This actually matters, so get your terms straight.

"All I know for certain is that I like the healthcare I have and I'll vote against anyone who wants to take it away from me."

Are you talking about insurance? Because healthcare and insurance are two very different things, and no one is proposing that we not have healthcare.

In my experience, people don't know how good their insurance is until they have to use it. That's when things get real.

@84
I mean Insurance.

And yes, I've used the fuck out of it (cancer).

I know how "good" it is... total out of pocket to me was a couple hundred at most. Not enough to notice (I've had more expensive nights out), I saw all of the specialists I wanted when I wanted, got the best care available anywhere, and am clear of cancer now.

Things got plenty real (I could have died) but I never had a single worry about the quality of healthcare I was receiving or my insurance coverage.

Well isn't that nice for you, You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me dear! I am truly happy that your Highly Theoretical Cancer didn't cost you anything more than you would have spent on an equally theoretical night out.

But it all depends on one's policy, doesn't it? Your Highly Theoretical Cancer was theoretically paid for by your Highly Theoretical Wonder Insurance. But not everyone is that fortunate. You may consider that the luck of the draw, or something you achieved by hard work and determination, or even moral superiority. I'll just quietly murmur that one is never "clear" of cancer. It always comes back. I just hope that when it does, you'll still have that amazing policy.

But it all depends, doesn't it?

@86
One of the primary reasons I work for my employer is because it is committed to providing golden cadillac standards of medical insurance to its 1,000+ employees. It was a decision I made (and continue to make) even though I have been offered more money to work elsewhere.

I know my coverage is better than average and I'll kill to keep it.

@86
And yes... It does all depend. Currently the biggest threat I see it dependent upon is the radical left's fetish for socializing medical care (aka: "the attractive Medicaid for All idea").

You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me dear, you realize that your employer's "committment" to good insurance is only good as long as the balance sheet is positive and the board of directors/senior managers aren't jerks, don't you?

I've also been blessed with excellent insurance coverage. First with the Washington State Software Alliance, and now with the City of Seattle (but I don't kid myself that we have that for any other reason than our unions)

But you've got yours. For now. Bully for you. I hope you can keep it. You seem like the type who would collapse without it, and end up on your dreaded Medicaid.

@89
My employer is a public agency also... but not unionized. Left private industry primarily for the 401A (no more social security withholding) and the health coverage.

@89
Oh... and the whole doing good for the common man / civil servant thing of course.