53% of Millennials Would Vote for a Socially Liberal, Fiscally Conservative Candidate

Reason-Rupe has a new survey and report out on millennials—find the report here.

A majority—53 percent—of millennials say they would support a candidate who described him or herself as socially liberal and economically conservative, 16 percent were unsure, and 31 percent would oppose such a candidate.

Interestingly, besides libertarians, liberal millennials are the most supportive of a libertarian-leaning candidate by a margin of 60 to 27 percent. Conservative millennials are most opposed (43% to 48% opposed).

A libertarian-leaning candidate would appeal to both Democratic and Republican voters. For instance, 60 percent of Hillary Clinton voters, 61 percent of Rand Paul voters, 71 percent of Chris Christie voters, and 56 percent of those who approve of President Obama all say they would support a fiscally conservative, socially liberal candidate.

Registered voters are also more likely to favor (58%) this kind of non-traditional candidate than non-voters (48%).

Support for such a candidate also increases with educational attainment. Forty-nine percent of those with a high school degree or less would support a socially liberal, economically conservative candidate, compared to 63 percent of those with post-graduate degrees.

Religious millennials are far less likely to support a libertarian-leaning candidate. Among those who say religion is very important to them, 43 percent would oppose this non-traditional candidate, and 44 percent would support. Among those who say religion is not important to them, 58 percent would support a libertarian-leaning candidate, and 24 percent would oppose.

While partisanship and voting intention often vary by race and ethnicity, this is less so for a libertarian-leaning candidate. Fifty-five percent of both white and Latino millennials would support such a candidate, while 30 percent would oppose. Slightly fewer African-American and Asian American millennials would support the candidate, by a margin of roughly 46 percent in support to 37 percent opposed.

The fact that a socially liberal, fiscally conservative candidate mainly attracts liberals over conservatives indicates that social issues rather than economics largely drive millennials’ political judgments. It also suggests millennials are more socially liberal than they are economically liberal.  

Download the PDFTo learn more about millennials, check out Reason-Rupe's new report.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • briannnnn||

    Nope

  • KB Check Release||

    What does it mean to be socially liberal?

    Oh wait, social justice bullshitters. My mistake.

    I sometimes hate my generational peers.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    And what does it mean to be "fiscally conservative"? More likely than not, something like raising taxes + "responsible" regulation to cover the spread between government inflow and outflow.

  • robc||

    Ive always hated the definition of libertarian as fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I prefer fiscally libertarian and socially libertarian.

    And those who dont see the difference are idiots.

  • GregMax||

    Color me "idiot".

    How can fiscal (in the collective realm) be "libertarian"? I can see it in the personal realm.
    And "liberal" has been co-opted by statists but should mean the same thing as "libertarian" - liberty, free to make your own choices.

    It's all just labels anyway.

  • robc||

    Should there be any fiscal in the collective realm?

    That answers your question right there.

    Conservatives think there is a fiscal policy they should be trying. Think Chicago School vs Austrian School or something.

  • Mint Berry Crunch||

    Anybody who supports abortion gets credit for being "socially liberal." Doesn't matter if that person also supports the war on drugs, thinks polygamists are gross, and isn't bothered that prostitution is illegal.

  • GregMax||

    Socially liberal means to keep your nose out of people's choices.
    Fiscally conservative means to spend what you bring in and keep it to the "necessary".
    It really isn't all that complicated.

  • robc||

    Except it doesnt mean that, in practice.

  • GregMax||

    I'm sure, but I'm just saying what it means to me.

  • Faceless Commenter||

    Oh for God's sakes here. Quit the language purity and take your dose of optimism.

  • Mr. Soul||

    100% of 53% cannot define what makes someone fiscally conservative or socially liberal.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Keep chasing the dragon, Reason.

  • John||

    Interestingly, besides libertarians, liberal millennials are the most supportive of a libertarian-leaning candidate by a margin of 60 to 27 percent. Conservative millennials are most opposed (43% to 48% opposed).

    Didn't it turn out that the Libertarian candidate for Virginia governor took more votes from the Democratic Candidate than the Republican one, at least if the exit polls are to be believed? People always assume that the Libertarian candidate hurts the Republicans. But I am not sure that is true. The Democratic Party has gotten so bad on civil liberties and cronyism, you have to think they have alienated any liberal with any self respect or integrity (an admittedly small percentage but not a nonexistent one). When you combine that to the intensity of the Republican vote base, it would make sense the Libertarian candidates would hurt the Dems more than the Republicans. Libertarians have always attracted protest votes and a lot of liberals thing they are all about gay sex and pot anyway.

    This would also explain why "Libertarian" has become such a bogie man in the liberal media. Whenever a common theme emerges from those assholes it is by design and in response to a threat to the Democratic Party. If they though Libertarians were likely to hurt Republicans, they would be saying nice things about them rather than demonizing them.

  • briannnnn||

    Logically, they should hurt Republicans more than Democrats. I mean, the average Republican has WAY more in common with a libertarian than the average Democrat. But these are dumbass kids who just want free pot and abortions, so they vote for the guy who has a sign that says: "Pot and abortions!!!!"

  • John||

    And the kids are likely to be complete economic illiterates. So it is not like they are going to understand the economic difference between the two parties.

    The bigger issue is that Libertarians are an avenue for protest voters. If your team has pissed you off to the point you just can't vote for them this year and you hate the other team even more, voting Libertarian can be an attractive option. For this reason Libertarian candidates are likely to hurt which ever team has the most demoralized and angry partisans the most. This year that is likely to be the Democrats.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    For this reason Libertarian candidates are likely to hurt which ever team has the most demoralized and angry partisans the most.


    I think this is about right. During the Bush administration, you saw all kinds of crap about how "immoral" and "unpatriotic" libertarians were from the usual Republican deadbeats. It wasn't quite as bad as the tsunami of anti-libertarian nonsense coming out of Slate and Salon on a near-daily basis, but it was similar in tenor.

  • John||

    The assholes at Slate and Salon don't go to the bathroom without detailed instructions from the White House Press office. And they all didn't one day decide Libertarians were the new Goldstein by accident. And they sure as hell wouldn't be panicked about Libertarian candidates if they thought they were going to hurt Republicans.

    It is not hard to figure out.

  • briannnnn||

    I just can't see millenials in general voting libertarian. They love free shit way too much. Seriously, the biggest issue I had with my most recent ex (24 years old) was that she was unemployed and got lonely because I worked too much (40 hours per week). She didn't complain when I bought her stuff or drove her places, just when I was obtaining the resources necessary to do those things.

  • John||

    I don't think that is true. They don't get much free shit. The free shit generally goes to the old people.

  • briannnnn||

    Millenials have the worst participation rate, and my personal experience (clearly anecdotal evidence, but still, I am, live around, and associate almost exclusively with millenials), kids between 18 and 30 basically don't want to work because they've never had to. I was lucky enough to grow up in a family where someone who was purposefully unemployed was called a "fucking worthless piece of shit loser."

  • John||

    That is their parents fault. It is also the fault of the government in that we have cut the bottom rungs out of the work force. I think people act on the incentives put in front of them. And we have created an incentive structure that makes work both hard to find and unrewarding for young people. That is a real problem.

    I think the other problem is that many parents have babied their kids so much they don't value independence. When I was in my late teens and 20s, I would rather live in a shitty apartment with a roommate eating raman noodles every night on my money and having the freedom that goes with it than live in luxury at my parents house. I think a lot of middle and upper class kids today don't think that way. They have never been given any freedom so they don't appreciate it.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    When I was in my late teens and 20s, I would rather live in a shitty apartment with a roommate eating raman noodles every night on my money and having the freedom that goes with it than live in luxury at my parents house.

    No doubt. The day I left to college was the best day of my life. After the day I got married. And the day Ohio State beat Miami for the National Championship.

  • craiginmass||

    Hopefully your free market college experience wasn't paid for with tax money, parental money, etc.

    We used to call colleges "parent operated communes" - and in a sense, many were.

  • John||

    Me too EDG. And I had great parents. I was plenty close to my parents (and still am though I lost my mother) and had a great childhood. I just wanted to be on my own.

  • Eggs Benedict Cumberbund||

    Bogus pass interference call lead to a bogus victory...and I'm not a Miami fan at all (nor Michigan).

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    It's not about getting free shit, it's about Millenials being -- by far -- the most indoctrinated generation ever. As a rule, they spend roughly all of their formative years getting fed pro-state propaganda in their schools and then some more in universities. Their entire frame of reference is an institution which has nothing to do with capitalism, and where free market incentives are pretty much nil. It's like expecting the members of a Catholic monastery to poll favorably on the tenets of Buddhism or the Protestant Reformation.

  • John||

    But TIT no one was more indoctrinated than the kids in the Soviet Union. And they eventually figured out communism was horrible. Solzhenitsyn talks about being part of the first generation raised in the USSR and how he and his entire generation were raised to believe in the great soviet experiment. The terror and World War II debased them of all of that.

    Hopefully we won't have to suffer something that horrible. But I think reality is starting to break through the indoctrination. The problem is that no one has ever taught these kids how to think critically. What worries me is that they don't have the intellectual skills to move on and learn from their losing faith in their indoctrination and will just be left angry, confused and alienated. That won't end well.

  • briannnnn||

    The problem is a lot of them live on their own until they run out of resources and then run to mommy (or uncle Sammy) when their own resources run out. Unfortunately for those of us who have to associate with them, mommy welcomes sweet baby home, and if not, uncle Sammy picks up the tab.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    According to the polling, Russians today rank Stalin as one of the greatest rulers in Russian history. IIRC, abare majority rank the USSR and its guarantees favorably, and most believe that the Great Terror was necessary. Russia today is unrecognizable compared to how it was prior to the Revolution, and its current state doesn't speak to the ability of the native-born Russian population to discard the propaganda it grew up with. Hell, there was never an organized dissident movement within Russia along the lines of Solidarity. The propaganda eventually failed the Party, but not so much the ideology.

    Maybe we'll get to the same point of disillusionment with our population -- but I don't see it quite yet, and it's just as likely that this disillusionment will simply result in a different form of cherishing of big government as it has for Russia. Our system is somewhat less obviously ludicrous than Socialism, and so far the Millenials seem like they're going to be very complacent subjects.

  • Eggs Benedict Cumberbund||

    Critical Thinking is taught by the English depts. How derpish is that? You would have thunk that if a course like that was really needed then Logic or maybe something like remedial Number Theory or Stats would do the trick.

  • toolkien||

    Which is why, last night, I gave my 9 year old daughter the skinny on inflation, how it is caused, who it benefits and who it hurts, during the 3 minute drive through at McDonalds.

    She's gotten similar lectures on the ridiculous scam that is public works, tax burden, and many other snippets. I drive my kids home from school and I take the opportunity to give them some real education. Explaining reality really doesn't take that long. How much good it does against the general programming I don't know. I might have gone a little too far when I scoffed at a social science homework sheet that described our economic system as capitalist and told her it was corpora-fascistic. She tosses that phrase out in the 4th grade class, someone might be ending up in the "principal's office".

  • waffles||

    libertarian dads are fucking awesome.

  • elfprince13||

    Libertarian grandpas are awesome too :)

  • GregMax||

    That's a function of ovaries.

  • briannnnn||

    Well of course you're right. But I felt like introducing my bitchfest into this somewhere and it's the only place it fit!

  • waffles||

    Don't forget the Mexican ass-sex!

  • briannnnn||

    I couldn't if i tried!

  • craiginmass||

    ""Libertarian" has become such a bogie man in the liberal media."

    1. Rand Paul going to black colleges and then explaining to them that Abe Lincoln was a republican.

    2. Rand Paul hemming, hawing and then always coming down on the side of the Fundamentalists when pressed about family planning.

    3. Rand Paul clearly starting that our problem was that we are not religious enough and that all leaders should be tested for religion.

    4. When pressed about our bloated security state, Rand Paul offers up some milquetoast which claims he will not increase defense much......but not cut it in 1/2 or 1/4 as the "liberal" Nader says needs done.

    I could go one, but the clown show we see from Libertarians seems just about a slight rebranding of the Republicans and neo-cons who just can't associate with the Grand Ole Party as much after Bush.

    But, don't fret. Bush is being forgotten quickly. Soon a new generation will come along and you can fool them again with some mutation of the same old GOP crap.

  • Marktaylor||

    "74 percent of millennials say government has a responsibility to guarantee every citizen has a place to sleep and enough to eat"

    How is this an example of supporting small government. It looks like millennialist support the Soviet constitution line by line from the polls.

  • briannnnn||

    That's the number one stat you need. Along with maybe the one that over half want to start a business...some day. Basically, they want the government to take care of them until mommy and daddy die and they can open a pot store with the inheritance.

  • Faceless Commenter||

    They're just kids. Their brains need to be turned in-side-out and shaken good and hard.

  • Hawk Spitui||

    So... people who haven't made any money yet are more likely to vote on social issues than economic ones? Do tell.

  • HTuttle||

    Too bad they still don't realize that 'progressive' means progressively fascist.

  • seguin||

    The only thing left to do is leave. But there's no where to go.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    On the sunnyside; last night I had an extended conversation with the bouncer at my local bar. Nice guy. A handsome giant millenial kid who should be a defensive end in the NFL, or an extra in viking films. Anyways, it turns out he too is a libertarian. There is hope.

  • craiginmass||

    Yeah, he sounds like he could be a bully, a thug....or if a really good guy, maybe a Pat Tillman in the next trumped up conflict.

    Generally, the guys sitting at the top of the heap...like the Kochs, your handsome kid, etc......always feel like everyone could be like them.

    Do you think if this handsome kid finds out he has some horrible genetic disorder next year - and needs millions in care (mostly from the gubment) that he will still be libertarian?

    If not...well, then, he's not a libertarian. Simple. Until you are tested, it's all a bunch of dribble.

  • GILMORE||

    Kids say the darnedest things

  • CE||

    Unless he's a Libertarian candidate you mean.
    And no Democrat or Republican is fiscally conservative, so there you go.

  • Marktaylor||

    In a way Ocare may have helped the libertarian movement. Many voters just don't care, and nothing in Washington ever really affected them. But when their insurance was cancelled, and they had to navigate a bureaucracy to purchase a more expensive option they started looking at what Washington was doing. Informed voters are the enemy of big government.

  • craiginmass||

    There is some truth to this - but it's a temporary one. In the middle of changing or obtaining insurance, they may be upset.

    But give it a year or two and when they realize they are getting much better policies, included preventative care, no caps, no being dropped from the rolls, etc. - they will then consider those and have forgotten about the original hassle.

    That's the way humans work.....the more time that goes by, the better Ocare is going to look to many as compared to "no O". Of course, it's not the best plan we could have - but it was the best one able to be legislated being as one party have abdicated their duties of governance.

  • Marktaylor||

    So Stockholm syndrome is a good excuse for slavery? Eventually the serfs will grow to love their cages because they provide protection from the outside workd they've never seen?

  • craiginmass||

    Huh?
    It's the other way around, my friend. Formerly, corporations were allowed to "take care" of us in ways which ran up their profits...and ran DOWN our health.

    Let me liken it to something else. You plant strawberries. Wow, you worked hard. A year later there are no strawberries. Two years later there are some. Three years later you are very happy with your strawberries.

    In the end people care more about now being dropped from the rolls, about not being kept away from preventative care by the costs and about not having to look at their bank and credit card balances every time they get sick.

    Your so-called "world" seems to need updated. May I remind you that Western Civilization..what we call civil society, involves man as a social being and as part of a whole...and started flourishing with the Greeks? Are you hoping we'll go thousands of years further into the past when we were more about warlords and local tribes? That doesn't seem to work out too well in Somalia and Afghanistan. Then again, they don't have health insurance or the big bad gubments and civil society we do.

  • Mand13||

    I don't know why you comment here. You make no persuasive arguments but throw out a lot of BS that is likely to make the average reason reader angry and less likely to take anyone on your side seriously.
    Ask GM how providing healthcare to their employees worked out for their bottom line.
    Strawberries produce fruit one year after planting or 1.5 if you plant in fall. The fruits of Obamacare are likely to be long waiting lines and a failed exchange system that costs the tax payers hundreds of billions. Pretty much the VA involving everyone.
    The idea of preventative care costs being alleviated by insurance is idiotic. Preventative care is basically something the insurance companies assume you will use, just like birth control, so it is just added into the cost of the premium on top of the risk assessment of your likelihood to use other resources. Basically you remove people from the actual cost causing them to not shop for value causing price creep. Also the majority of people don't need to go to the doctor when they get sick, most vaccinated adults can easily fight off any disease normally encountered in the US.
    Lastly you are a complete idiot if you think going to a more free society, for healthcare would mean a removal of mandated coverage options, voucher systems for healthcare assistance and equal treatment for all healthcare expenses by the tax code as a start. None of these things cause the US to turn into Somalia, but it might keep us from becoming Greece.

  • craiginmass||

    "Ask GM how providing healthcare to their employees worked out for their bottom line."

    Hmm...I was talking strawberries, not cherry picking!

    Why aren't you using Apple, Google, IBM or any of the tens of thousands of other US companies giving health care as an example?

    You and I know why.

    I'm not trying to get people to my or any side. I would like them to actually use reason and logic and look at stats and outcomes. That's where the rubber meets the road.

    I think the average "reason" reader makes up their mind well before any facts are in, and then bends their words and debates to meet their original conclusion. For example, how many Reason readers would have guess this:

    "A poll of Obamacare enrollees published Thursday by the Commonwealth Fund found that 74 percent of newly insured Republicans are happy with the plans they bought. Overall, 77 percent of people who had insurance prior to the rollout of the Affordable Care Act said they are pleased with the new coverage they obtained in the last year.

    The survey revealed the current uninsured rate among working-age adults in the U.S. has dropped to 15 percent, down from 20 percent in July-September 2013 -- meaning an estimated 9.5 million people have gained coverage since then."

  • ||

    Where are these much better policies that are way cheaper than the one I had before? And can I have some of the crack you're smoking?

  • Faceless Commenter||

    You have to lose your income in order to get one. That's what's called a Balanced Budget.

  • craiginmass||

    Well, you should check it out. I speak as an employer who has had (and paid for) health care for about 35 years.

    The new rules state things like:
    1. Insurance must pay out 85% of what they take in - in other words, predatory policies are not allowed.
    2. Preventative care such as physicals - 100% covered.
    3. No penalty for pre-existing conditions
    4. Keep your kids on the policy longer
    5. Cannot be canceled or dropped
    6. Refunds if and when the actual cost is lower than projected (I get them every year).
    7. No lifetime caps

    More people in the USA are now insured than before the ACA - yet health care costs already dropped so much that the GDP actually went DOWN.

    I would "betcha" when the stats are run, outcomes are better- that is, we will see longer life, less infant mortality, better health (in general compared to existing curves).

    So, as an executive and employers - the "executive summary" is - better policies better value.

    It's you who has a pre-existing condition. Obama Derangement Syndrome. Unfortunately, they haven't come up with a cure except to wait 50+ years.

  • Marshall Gill||

    More people in the USA are now insured than before the ACA - yet health care costs already dropped so much that the GDP actually went DOWN.

    A+ You really should apply for a job at the White House.

    Now, just among us. You surely don't believe that garbage, right? Adding several thousand pages of regulations, millions of pages of documentation, and tens of thousands of bureaucrats made costs go down? Yeah, I will take some of that crack.

  • MegaloMonocle||

    Haven't we learned by now that "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" means supporting every leftoid social engineering scheme, and opposing any cuts to the government budget?

    Because you can't cut the budget without impinging on some social engineering scheme, and when those two come into conflict, social engineering wins every time.

  • briannnnn||

    Right. Socially liberal means fiscally liberal in today's context because socially liberal isn't allowing gay marriage and pot, it's the government sponsoring it.

  • craiginmass||

    Rand Paul, being a proponent of intruding into family planning, etc - would NOT be considered by these folks to be socially liberal.

    Polls like this are a sham because when the actual candidate enters the scene, the voters find out where they truly stand.

    Obama is a heck of a lot more socially liberal/fiscally conservative than Paul. So more of these folks would vote for Big O.

    I just don't see sensible women (and many men) voting for the American Talib candidates....even if they are fiscally conservative. It's just not the major issue with most - except for those who votes are already in the bank (tea party, so-called "libertarians" here and at other Koch sites, Drudge Readers, etc.)

  • briannnnn||

    You mean libertarians who just want to the government to leave people the fuck alone? Only stop one person from harming another? They sound like the consummate libertarians to me...

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    And here comes the village idiot to confirm what we've been saying. Thanks, craig!

  • Dave C||

    Derp

  • ||

    "American Talib candidates"

    Hi shreik!

  • Free Society||

    Polls like this are a sham because when the actual candidate enters the scene, the voters find out where they truly stand.

    Voters find out where candidates truly stand? Like when you found out what Obama's real policy preferences were back in 2007?

  • craiginmass||

    Sure, I think Obama has been exactly as I pictured him. Unlike authoritarians or cultists, I know a bit of history and also have realistic ideas of what can actually be accomplished within the small sandbox that the POTUS occupies.

    I think, considering that many of our Congress actually stopped working (but collected their salaries and benefits), he's done as well as can be expected.

    That's why the historical rankings given by scholars and historians are putting him at about top 1/3 - exactly where I guessed he'd end up.

    In a comparative sense - that is, compared to either GW or the possibility of McCain....well, that's hardly worth discussing. GW destroyed the country, the economy and much of the world. Obama is at least slowly piecing it back together.

  • Free Society||

    Of course all is exactly as you have foreseen, because you yourself dreamed the fantastical delusion of reality you inhabit.

  • craiginmass||

    "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

  • Marshall Gill||

    I know, I know! Amanda Marcotte?

  • Marshall Gill||

    I know a bit of history

    And yet you missed the part about Central Planning killing 100M people during the 20th Century? Clearly a very small "bit".

  • retiredfire||

    You talk about sham polls, right after you quote one from the Commonwealth Fund - an organization dedicated to socialized medicine.
    Socialism is great, until you run out of other people's money.

  • Tony||

    What is the opposite of "fiscally conservative" that people are meant to contrast it with? Fiscally irresponsible? Meaningless term.

  • briannnnn||

    Fiscally conservative generally means people pay for their own shit, and fiscally liberal means the government pays for it. At least that's what I read when I see those terms.

  • lap83||

    People tend to be fiscally irresponsible when they're spending someone else's money.

  • Tony||

    So the opposite of being fiscally responsible is "embezzling"? Yeah, great poll.

  • Free Society||

    No Tony. Tax money is other people's money seized form them by force. Do you literally believe the government gets it's budget from a magic wand?

  • Tony||

    It's no more seized by force than is the money you give to a restaurant after eating a meal there. It's not "your" money being stolen, it's money that belongs to the US Treasury that you owe.

  • ||

    That would be when you keep borrowing money to pay for shit you don't need even though you've got a fixed income.

  • Tony||

    The US government has the extreme opposite of a fixed income.

  • Free Society||

    Borrowing to cover deficits does not increase tax receipts, increasing taxes does. Meaning; fixed income.

    The basic shit people have to explain to you regularly is just incredible.

  • Tony||

    Can raise taxes = not a fixed income.

  • Free Society||

    An old lady on social security can hypothetically mug people passing by her front lawn. This hypothetical possibility does not somehow make her not on a fixed income.

  • ||

    Reallly, cause the average revenue for the last 16 years has been about 2.2TT.

    Borrowing and printing are NOT income.

  • Invisible Finger||

    53% of Millennials Would Vote for a Socially Liberal, Fiscally Conservative Candidate

    Anything below 85% is dangerously small.

  • briannnnn||

  • Tony||

    Oh God I just read the other post about these polls. What a waste of fucking money. "What's better, capitalism or Satan boiling you alive?"

  • briannnnn||

    It's 12:06. Shouldn't you be calling Rush Limbaugh to yell him down?

  • lap83||

    Oh shush, you'd love getting boiled alive by Satan. You could blame it all on Bush and avoid spending eternity with SnoConz

  • Black Warrior Waterdog||

    Millenials don't want to be nannied - but want the government to provide health care, food, and a roof over their heads. The Free Shit Army walking contradiction rages on.

  • Agent Cupcake||

    Bulllshit.

    Somebody has to pay for all that "socially liberal" stuff. You can't be fiscally conservative with a socially liberal economics policy. Doesn't work.

  • ||

    having a liberal economics policy is the opposite of being fiscally conservative.

  • craiginmass||

    So, in your opinion, it cost MORE to...for instance...have health insurance buy an IUD, than to have 8-10+ children??

    Or, it cost more to make insurance companies pay out 85% of what they take in...as opposed to telling them they can sell Grandma a slickly marketed program which only pays her 50% of what she pays in.

    Fantastic!

    Sure, "your way" puts more money in the billionaires pocketbooks, but I'd say it's not good for the general welfare or happiness of the people. In fact, most metrics prove that austerity is quite damaging.

    What works is increases in efficiency.

  • Eggs Benedict Cumberbund||

    It would all work better if inter-state barriers were removed, price was exposed (screw cost, cost based systems always fail) to the consumer, and catastrophic high deductible plans with an HSA seeded either by 401K's for those of us who can support our selves or gov vouchers for the few that need assistance. Those three things would make our health care better in any measurable way inside of a decade without resorting to Progressive bullshit.

  • craiginmass||

    Sounds like you get your news from Rick Perry and the oil-men and resource extractors.

    So, I'm supposed to believe that letting some dummy corp in Alaska make deals with Mass General Hospital and the doctors on our state will result in much better prices?

    That's fantastic. WIll the invasion of alien life forms do the same? Should we remove national barriers also and allow "PutinCare" or "HoChiMihn" or "CarlosSlimCare" to lower our price?

    Should we also hire Putin to save us money on our local fire departments? Why not?

    High deductible plans do not keep people healthy - in fact, the complete opposite. Penny-wise, pound foolish. A penny in time saves nine. Measure twice, cut once.

    It's much cheaper to have a healthy population, preventative care, healthy lifestyles and early intervention (based on science, stats, medicine) than wait until your liver ceases because you popped too many Tylenol extra strength.

    That's common sense. Reason. Logic. Proven. In all cases, beyond any doubt.

    Yet you perpetrate the myths? Do you also suggest an aspirin between the legs for family planning? Or, can one only get pregnant if you want a child?

  • retiredfire||

    If you, really, believe this crap, I feel very sorry for you.
    Nothing you say is proven, at all, but keep living in your government can do anything world and we, responsible adults, will continue to try to get to where the concept of personal responsibility is honored.

  • Eggs Benedict Cumberbund||

    So full of derp.

    High deductible plans + HSA's do not deny preventative care. My company - an engineering services company with about 300 employees and 200 million in revenue - self insures with the majority of the plans being high deductible with seeded HSA's. I guess all these engineers, physicists, developers, etc. are all too stupid to know what's best for them.

    What is this nonsense about removing national barriers? Totally fucking idiotic straw man. There is no good reason to regulate HC within state borders. Nor is there a good reason to arbitrarily equate removing the artificial inter state regulation with so called Putin care.

    I used to think you were somewhat reasonable/logical now it is obvious that you are just a craven Prog control freak.

  • craiginmass||

    So, you are saying employees in your company don't have access to primary care cheap or for free?

    Most self-insured companies I know provide as good, or better, care than the "socialist" policies - and if you agree- then the science and medicine are proven. Primary care helps.
    So, we can move on from there.

    Most companies do not and cannot self-insure. Many people do not work for companies. For THOSE people, lack of access to primary care means worse health and outcomes.

    You know that's true.

    I suspect you are looking at your situation and thinking this applies to joe blow born with a 95 IQ and to a family of little means....

    I also guess you may have been among those shouting at their TV's "Let 'em Die" about whether a victim should be taken for ER treatment if he didn't pay up.

    If you were not - and believe he should be taken in at taxpayer and your and my expense - well, welcome to Socialist Modern Life.

    Now you just to add the "Engineering Services" you claim you work at. Those disciplines would usually suggest that if you can design a system to BREAK LESS, you will save money and increase efficiency. So, if we had provided primary care to that victim or installed those bad bad gubment-nader Air Bags in his car, we may not have to take him to the ER and we all saved money - and also valued LIFE.

    Get it?

  • ||

    So car insurance isn't made cheaper by being able to be sold across state lines? That will be news to my friends in the insurance industry.

    Fuck you really are worse than Tony.

  • craiginmass||

    Are auto body shops now doing brain surgery? Wow... you act as if medicine is just like Amazon.com.....

    Why not spell is out. Detail it.
    With the ACA or RomneyCare, we are assured at getting 85% minimum back in care based on premiums we pay. Even in a single state like MA. 6+ million customers are certainly enough to get "quantity discounts" from the hospital or supply house. When PutinCare calls in from Russia and asks for a discount of "30,000 more bypass operations", he's not going to get a vast discount (IMHO).

    So, they have to pay back 85%. Negotiations are constantly being had. Where is this vast savings going to come from? Someone has to make less money, right?

    Of course it may be possible to return 88% of premiums instead of only 85%. But when you consider the costs, bonding, capital and everything else a faraway insurance company would have to deal with to administrate, track and negotiate with - it's hard.

    Lastly, I'm certainly not "against" removing state barriers - I'm just saying that this Echo Chamber Talking Point is not going to bend the curve. It and a few others ("tort reform") are thrown around just so the "anti-ACA" crowd can offer something up...whether it's true doesn't seem to matter much.

  • Agent Cupcake||

    If you don't want or can't afford 8-10 children, I'd say the problem is your stupidity.

  • craiginmass||

    It may be true that some fruitful are ignorant, but we all end up paying the price. So, I want to save money and stop providing incentives for very large families. That's done by allowing family planning and also doing a bit of education.

    People may be stupid - but they don't have to be if we advance as a civil society and teach them something.

  • Eggs Benedict Cumberbund||

    Advance as a civil society...Prog code for Historicism based utopias. One of the basic Prog "features": man will be perfected through government.

    The other features being: no timeless axioms of government (that is things like freedom of speech are not absolute principles but merely fads that can only have historical context).

    Another fun "feature" is rule by technocratic experts...cause if we just tune the right buttons everything will work out.

    Fucking monsters. I wish I could go back in time and shoot Woodrow.

  • craiginmass||

    I think you really have to turn the time machine back to ancient Greece - of course, there were no guns so you'd have to spear them or something.

  • craiginmass||

    Read it and weep, folks.
    Republicans = the new socialists!
    :-)

    "Republicans who signed up for Obamacare this year are liking their new insurance coverage, according to a new survey.

    A poll of Obamacare enrollees published Thursday by the Commonwealth Fund found that 74 percent of newly insured Republicans are happy with the plans they bought. Overall, 77 percent of people who had insurance prior to the rollout of the Affordable Care Act said they are pleased with the new coverage they obtained in the last year.

    The survey revealed the current uninsured rate among working-age adults in the U.S. has dropped to 15 percent, down from 20 percent in July-September 2013 -- meaning an estimated 9.5 million people have gained coverage since then."

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    Well, those are Mass Republicans aren't they; or as they call them in Red-State America: Socialists.
    (they call the MA-Dems Commies)

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    Socially Liberal - Fiscally Conservative.....
    Cognitive Dissonance.
    If you are 'socially liberal', you will be in favor of public policies that will enlarge government spending, thereby defeating that 'fiscally conservative' position.
    The only way to be fiscally conservative, is to promote a government restricted to it's enumerated responsibilities, otherwise, there will always be some cause to spend upon, which is why we're in the pickle we're currently in, and getting worse.

  • craiginmass||

    Actually, without the Security State (largely a construct of the right - but a big party for both parties), and with adding basic efficiencies to gubment, we'd be fine - in fact, we'd be very well off.

    We have a lot of problems. But they are not due to enlightened policies. They are due mostly to:

    1. The Security State - costs, etc.
    2. Lack of education reform
    3. Tribalism - this covers ALL institutions, from your local school board and small town up to the Fed Gubment.

    Knowing what I do about local governments, I have to laugh when folks talk about "send the money and decisions to the local folks". There are only a couple things worse than the Fed Gubment - and those are the state, country and town ones! Really....out of control completely.

  • sweettea71||

    Hopefully the GPO and Democrats go away before our country does.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement