We’ve all likely had a chance to participate in a political survey at some point in our lives. They are typically loaded questions that are weighted to be favorable to the party and/or candidate sponsoring the survey. This is a multi-part series on various topics surrounding political topics that should foster discussion to help determine where you stand compared to others. If you answer honestly and openly, the discussions on these questions will hopefully be constructive. Let’s be respectful to those that have a differing opinion and have open minds to potential areas of confirmation bias that ultimately forms from algorithm bubbles. There are no wrong answers, only closed minds unable to question their own biases.
Feel free to answer the questions in each series post in the comments section, however, the discussions would take on a life of their own if you re-blog each post and answer on your own site. This way those that follow you, can connect with me and the series, and also extend the reach by answering on their own respective sites. I’m interested to see how far this can go in a climate where divisiveness is common and constructive discussions are few and far between.
I will be providing my own answers in-line with each series of questions.
The questions being asked for the entire series were generated by AI using the following prompt:
“Can you generate a list of open ended questions that help determine where someone stands on popular political topics in the form of a Q&A?”
Part 1: Economy and Social Safety Nets
Mobility and Wealth
What responsibility, if any, does the government have in addressing wealth inequality, and what trade-offs are you willing to accept between market incentives and wealth redistribution?
I have already touched on this in my post <post> published a few days ago. I’m a proponent for reinstating the legislation that has been defanged and overturned over the past few decades. A few examples are The Glass-Steagall Act (Banking Act of 1933) and Dodd-Frank Act Protections for Regional Banks 2008 (rolled back in 2018). Both of these, and others, helped to reign in wealth distribution, tax caps on earnings, and corporate tax rates. I believe the government has a bigger issue beyond wealth inequality, that being the capability of lobbies and wealthy donors to use their power in order to have laws and regulations removed that impede their ability to amass more wealth. Everyone should have the ability and more even playing field to amass their own wealth that doesn’t alienate majority of the population in order to do so.
Healthcare Delivery
How should a society balance universal access to healthcare with the cost, innovation, and efficiency of market-driven care?
First, I do not believe that market-driven care is efficient or cost-effective when it costs upwards of $30k for routine surgery. Every level of the healthcare system has their hand in the pot demanding their share of the pie unfortunately to the detriment of those that are beholden to the very system that is driving up the prices in the first place. Universal or single-payer (U-SP) healthcare is not perfect by any means of measure. There are however multiple examples of where it is working well enough to not immediately dismiss it with “we can’t afford U-SP.” Society deserves access to basic healthcare at a minimum, which isn’t free to anyone working and receiving a paycheck. We all pay into the system that we would be participating in. A modest increase in federal taxes is far less than the total cost we currently pay in healthcare premiums, co-insurance, co-pays, and health savings account contributions. How can anyone with a logical mind say that all those costs in total are less than a potential 5-7% increase in federal taxes. The premiums, co-insurance, co-pays and HSA contributions would go away overnight.
Social Safety Net
What should qualify someone for public assistance, and where is the line between providing a necessary safety net and creating systemic dependency?
We have a bare minimum income required to live a semi-comfortable life. That being a life where you can own a house, at least one vehicle, put food on the table, cover utilities, and be able to put some money into savings each month. In other words, not struggle pay check to pay check and decide to pay the electric or eat for the next two weeks. Public assistance should be offered to anyone below that minimum income level. It takes, on average, about two years for an individual to obtain an Associate’s degree or a achieve a Certification in a trade. That should be the total length of time any one person should have access to a safety net before having to have a break period of at least 6 months to a year. I believe that would be acceptable and give the majority of those on public assistance the ability to get themselves off of public assistance. We have systemic dependency because the system is rigged against the non-wealthy to be stuck on the hamster wheel. We would all be better off if the hamster wheel was a temporary thing that everyone with a little motivation could do on their own.
Leave a Reply