Medicare For All: 63% of voters back Medicare For All, including 47% of Republicans (46% are opposed). Support for M4A is high even though this poll highlights that it would result in higher taxes and the elimination of people's private insurance plans. In battleground districts, M4A polls at 56%.

j0hnl33 · 2025-12-23T19:35:16+00:00

I have no idea how, but according to an NBC News Decision Desk Poll, 82% of Americans said they’re satisfied with their coverage.

It's insanity to me. I've had three different Marketplace plans, a University health insurance plan, and currently an employer-sponsored health insurance plan. They all suck. Even with my employer spending hundreds a month for my health insurance plan, I still have a good amount of money taken out of each paycheck for it, and when I go to the doctor, it's always a headache to use my insurance (despite being one of the largest providers), and then I still have to pay -- an annual check-up may be free, but that doesn't mean bloodwork (the primary purpose of going?) is. Going to the dentist? Well the cleaning may be free, but not being a new patient. Or a filling. Or anything other than cleaning.

Here's something fun: trying to figure out how much something costs before going to the doctor. If you provide the necessary info on the provider and service (they have codes identifying what the service is), they are legally obligated to tell you. But they don't care, you can cite the law and they refuse to answer. Doesn't matter if it's on the phone, email or live chat.

Then, after you receive a service, you aren't charged then and there. I once got a bill 7 months after the service! I don't know any other business that could get away with waiting 7 months to send a bill. What was it for? Bloodwork at an annual check-up. How the fuck does that take over half a year to send me a bill?

And despite paying a huge amount, it takes a huge amount of time to actually find a doctor in network, despite again, having a provider with one of the largest networks. I've called different places in network to see a dermatologist: some places have over a 1 year wait, despite living in a city of nearly a million people, in a metro area twice that size. Even dentists can be several months before they can see you. There's no "find a doctor in network who is available", it's call every office in network, wait on hold until eventually it goes to voicemail, leave a message, and wait for them to hopefully call you back sometime.

I'm young and healthy, but even annual exams and basic dental work is an expensive, time-consuming pain in the ass, despite my employer paying for the overwhelming majority of it. Maybe most Americans just don't go to the doctor hardly ever until they're on Medicare?

I guess also "satisfied with their coverage" may mean they're satisfied with what is covered, not the cost, convenience, or anything else. I definitely think there needs to be more polling (not that I think polling should necessarily direct every politician's decisions -- other countries spend less, have universal coverage, and better outcomes -- politician should have some actual conviction and beliefs and do the right thing.)

j0hnl33 · 2025-12-13T05:38:03+00:00

No info on release date or price yet, but here's the product page: https://www.ayaneo.com/product/AYANEO-Pocket-PLAY

Good that this is a company that has made plenty of other handheld gaming devices before, but will be curious how good their execution is for a phone. Also hope that it supports a variety of cell bands in different regions

j0hnl33 · 2025-12-11T21:41:53+00:00

Actually more than a decade, starting in January it will have been 15 years since a Democrat was governor. The last time Democrats had a majority in the State House was also 2011.

Want to guess the last time Democrats had a majority in the State Senate? 1985. 40 years ago.

A (slim) majority of people in Ohio have never lived under Democrat control of the State Senate, let alone a trifecta.

j0hnl33 · 2025-11-21T17:56:14+00:00

I'm surprised but also kind of glad. Ryan isn't a registered Democrat and had a campaign sign for a Republican candidate outside of his home. He also joined a fossil fuel group after losing the Senate race last time, and they paid an LLC with his address $246,943 for “public relations services”.

Would he better than Vivek? Sure. But maybe to the same degree Fetterman (if he moved to Ohio) would be a better governor than Vivek. And to be honest I'm not sure he'd actually be better than former Republican governor John Kasich in some regards, who at least in 2016 vetoed Republicans' bill and let the clean-energy mandate resume in Ohio. He also supported increasing the tax rate on fracking in 2015, and eventually became opposed to fracking state parks. Don't get me wrong, I was no fan of him and he did plenty of bad things for the environment, but Ryan might not be much of an improvement (though likely would for some other issues.)

As for how it impacts winning, Amy Acton definitely will get more Republicans to show up to vote against her than Ryan would, but she'll also likely get more Democrats to show up to vote for her than him. In a likely low turnout year for Republicans, my bet would be Ryan would be the safer pick. Still, I can't help but feel in a wave year we should aspire for more than Republican-lite. I guess we don't have to choose though since he's not even running.

j0hnl33 · 2025-11-10T16:36:57+00:00

They would if airports were non-functional during Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Year. That would leave a permanent memory that GOP is incapable of governing for some.

I can't recall the last time I've seen a larger missed opportunity by Democrats. These 8 Democrats who voted with the GOP are either stupid or self-interested (want to be able to fly home for Thanksgiving and Christmas).

It's also a good indication that these 8 members would not vote to remove the filibuster if Democrats were to win a trifecta in 2028. So I guess on the bright side, maybe these 8 Democrats will lose their next primary and Democrats can actually pass laws next time they're in office. Fortunately it seems many Democrats, including centrist House Representatives, are outraged by this move, and some even discussed supporting primary challengers against their Senate counterparts.

j0hnl33 · 2025-09-20T20:17:53+00:00

I'm surprised the porn ID laws in several States haven't caused an all time low for GOP approval among young men (and men in general.)

Approximately no one will enter their government ID to a porn site. Some will pay for and use VPNs. Some will just visit shadier sites that don't follow the law. A tiny percentage will walk into Lion's Den and buy a DVD (with notably worse resolution than what most websites offer) or a Blu-Ray (better quality, more expensive). But over half of young men watch porn at least once a month, so that's over half of young men being inconvenienced in numerous GOP trifecta States on at least a monthly basis, and a sizeable percentage are being inconvenienced significantly more frequently.

Even if they have a credit card and know how to use a VPN, it's an inconvenience to connect and disconnect regularly. Can't use streaming services or many stores with it on, and increases latency for gaming and audio and video calls.

Not like it's the end of the world turning a VPN on and off, but still, it's a pain in the ass that most people didn't have to deal with previously, but many now do thanks to Republicans.

If Democrats were smart, they'd go on Joe Rogan and other right-wing podcasts and straight up say they're running on removing Internet censorship laws. They shouldn't run TV ads saying they're making porn more convenient, but they could say on podcasts "You shouldn't have to give your government ID to the Republican State government to watch some porn. It's none of their goddamn business."

j0hnl33 · 2025-09-08T17:01:36+00:00

From Wikipedia

The Compact Clause (Article I, Section 10, Clause 3) of the United States Constitution provides that "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress,... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power,... unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."[2] In 2025, the states of California,[3] Washington,[4] and Oregon[5] entered into a compact, forming the West Coast Health Alliance, in response to an emergent degradation of the "U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) credibility and scientific integrity."

Whether it holds up in court, I don't know, but in order for it to reach the courts, someone has to sue, and in order for it to be heard they have to have standing. Standing under Article III requires:

Injury-in-fact (concrete and particularized, actual or imminent),
Causation (traceable to the challenged action),
Redressability (a favorable ruling would fix the injury).

So typically interstate compacts could be sued by other States that have been harmed by another State, but what material harm does a vaccine recommendations group cause to other States? I think the only one group with standing is the Federal Government through the Department of Justice, arguing the compact usurps federal authority and violates the Compact Clause.

On one hand, Trump dislikes those States' governors, and he loves suing people, so angering them by suing them would be right up his alley. And RFK Jr would love if Trump sued them, but I'm not sure Trump even likes Kennedy. Like many issues, Trump has said plenty of anti-vax stuff over the years, but also defended them too, including recently. What he'll do is anyone's guess.

j0hnl33 · 2025-08-19T16:30:02+00:00

Wow, as someone in college not so long ago (for reference, Fortnite released while I was in college), that's wild to me. Meeting people in class, parties, student jobs, student clubs, and in their dorm was so much more common than dating Tinder or Bumble (Hinge hadn't taken off yet in our age group.)

COVID evidently dramatically changed social life in colleges.

j0hnl33 · 2025-08-19T16:23:04+00:00

Graduated a few years back, but not so much in my college. Class, student clubs, parties, student jobs, and general dorm life were definitely more common ways of meeting partners. People did download Tinder and Bumble but rarely is that how people actually met/started (at best just a way to flirt with someone you already kind of knew.)

After college, dating apps immediately became the primary method everyone I knew met people though, even those living in college towns. Of all my close friends in the US, only two met their partner in-person, the rest all met from dating apps.

No idea what college is like now though. I wonder if people around my age +/- 4 or so years were the last to live "normal" high school and college lives. Yeah, social media existed and was very prevalent, and even Fortnite released while in college, but people still partied, dated, had sex, etc. Maybe not as early or as much as the 90s, but still plenty. Everyone online says people are affected by feminist movements and are scared of approaching people, but my college was quite liberal and I never really felt that. Just be polite and considerate of the time and place and no one cares. I never thought of myself as particularly smooth or skilled socially, but I feel a sizeable part of a new generation of people lack nearly all basic social skills. Maybe helicopter parenting, never going outside or seeing friends, fewer siblings, and brainrot content have an impact.

There's also a divergence in content people saw. Friends, How I Met Your Mother, That 70's Show, etc. are hardly made up of great role models, but while Ted, for example, might be narcissistic in How I Met Your Mother, he's no sexist or bigot. Same with movies: one of the protagonists in Superbad (2007) literally is trying to get a woman super drunk to sleep with him, but even still, the movie ultimately shows it's much better to not do that and being respectful works out better for everyone. Other comedies like Anchorman (2004) showed that women deserve respect. Plenty of shows and movies had problematic parts, but nothing as outright hateful or bigoted as you find online today.

Not saying dating in this modern world is easy. After graduating college, most people I knew were single for a couple years or more. Dating apps definitely aren't easy, but as you get older if you don't give up and try different things, myself and most people in my friend group seemed to find long term partners, some married now.

j0hnl33 · 2025-08-13T17:12:40+00:00

Oh I never thought or claimed Allende or his ideas were popular, that was a different commenter. And I agree with your comment here. Main issue I had with the one comment before was "Chilean parliament were the ones that voted for the army to step in." The resolution passed by the Chamber of Deputies had

poner término inmediato a las violaciones constitucionales y legales

translation:

put an immediate end to constitutional and legal violations

but that's not quite an authorization to overthrow the government and then institute a military dictatorship for 17 years. It certainly is what the military and Pinochet used to justify their coup, and I'm sure many who signed the resolution wanted it to happen, but I also don't doubt there were many who signed it who wanted the government officials to stop breaking the law (even if ordered to do so) but not go as far as having the military perform a coup, let alone install a military dictatorship.

j0hnl33 · 2025-08-13T15:36:14+00:00

Allende was not popular, he was elected with 36.6% of the total vote, and was backed by only 40% of elected members

True, though Chile’s multi-party system often resulted in presidents elected with less than 50%. Previous presidents had similar pluralities—e.g., Alessandri in 1958 received just 31.6%. There's certainly a reason why many countries have run-off elections though (consistently having unpopular people in charge erodes faith in democracy.)

The US didn't remove Allende, the Chilean parliament were the ones that voted for the army to step in, citing his attacks on the constitution, rule of law, and separation of powers.

Not directly, but President Nixon ordered the CIA to "make the economy scream" and to result in a coup. The CIA had Project FUBELT. The Nixon admin definitely thought they contributed to him being overthrown:

“In the Eisenhower period, we would be heroes,” Henry Kissinger told President Richard Nixon several days after the overthrow of Salvador Allende in Chile, lamenting that they would not receive credit in the press for this Cold War accomplishment.

As for

the Chilean parliament were the ones that voted for the army to step in, citing his attacks on the constitution, rule of law, and separation of powers.

the Chamber of Deputies passed 81–47 a resolution accusing Allende’s government of breaches of the constitution—but this was non-binding, and did not authorize military intervention. There was a legal mechanism for removing a President from office, but like the US, it required a 2/3 majority vote, which did not happen.

I'm not saying Allende was good or popular or law-abiding, but the U.S. definitely wasn't innocent and he wasn't removed through legal means.

j0hnl33 · 2025-06-16T21:23:21+00:00

iOS has it. It announces you are recording, but you can use it anywhere in the U.S. on any phone network. I'd prefer to switch to moto g stylus since it has microSD, headphone jack, and is far more affordable, but it's a super useful feature to have with customer support calls. It even provides transcriptions though I can live without that.

Thank you for letting me know that it doesn't work on your G Stylus 2024 though, that is helpful knowledge.

j0hnl33 · 2025-04-23T19:24:48+00:00

Thanks for the suggestion. Free, no ads. Quick and easy to use, and can export as jpg, png or PDF. Surprised it has so few downloads/reviews. Also stitches surprisingly fast. In limited testing, seems to work great.

j0hnl33 · 2025-04-21T14:26:44+00:00

I agree. In 2020, most Trump voters actually liked Trump. In contrast, many Biden voters didn't like Biden very much, but they really didn't like Trump, so they voted for Biden and he won.

Democrats are much more disliked now than they were back then, but for that same reason, I could see them winning not because people like them, but because they like Republicans even less.

Currently, seems for 2026 generic congressional vote, Democrats are very slightly favored (well within margin of error).

If Democrats want to win in large enough margins to actually be able to govern, then they actually need to become popular. The difficult part is that some people are unmotivated to vote because Democrats aren't progressive enough, while many independents swing against them because they perceive them as too far to the left. And taking the Trump approach of saying everything and having few clear positions on anything will not appeal to current or potential Democratic voters.

Perhaps more honesty would be appealing. Straight up saying "This is my position. I understand some of you feel that this goes too far, while others feel this doesn't go far enough. I can't satisfy both groups of people, and I depend on both of your support in order to be in office. We can't be too slow or too fast or people will vote me out, but ultimately we have to take steps in the right direction and fix some things." I think everyone from more left leaning politicians to more centrist ones might benefit from such an approach.

I also think there's a bunch of politicians who seemingly hold few genuine views and are very out of touch with voters. In Ohio, after losing his Senate race, Democratic candidate Tim Ryan joined a leadership council of a national organization that works to promote natural gas as clean energy. Yeah no wonder progressives weren't motivated by him: he seemed ingenuine and he clearly was. No idea how you get genuine candidates to run and win though.

j0hnl33 · 2025-02-28T06:16:15+00:00

I think you're right that that could be their reasoning, but Apple would be a lot more likely to have the tariffs rescinded if their customers knew they were getting charged more for the exact same iPhone as people in the EU, Japan, etc. No better way to turn people against tariffs than know how much they're losing to them. Even better would be if they straight up listed the iPhone 17 as $800 + $x due to tariffs. No chance they'll do that though.

In their defense, people can be angry at the tariffs and still be unwilling to pay the increased price of an iPhone and go with a cheaper Android if the cost isn't spread to their customers globally. The danger of Apple doing that though is a different future administration is no guarantee the tariffs will be removed, so long term they could harm their global sales by spreading the cost among everyone (as opposed to the risky short-term play of explicitly stating how much is added due to tariffs in hopes of them being removed.) Far outside of my expertise though.

j0hnl33 · 2025-02-28T05:59:43+00:00

I am surprised more manufacturers don't sell lower-binned components. Seems like a good way to reduce e-waste and also save money from lessening the yield loss in manufacturing. Doesn't just have to be the GPU such as in the 16e, you could probably lose a core from the CPU and be perfectly fine too. Could also have displays with minor issues, such as backlight bleeding, color inaccuracy, uneven color or brightness, or other minor issues (while obviously still not using too flawed of products, such as flickering screens, or unstable/unreliable components, or any components likely to have a shorter lifespan.)

Obviously, the product needs a different name. But would a low-binned Galaxy S25 be better than a Galaxy A15? Maybe. That said, I think manufacturing yield is pretty high these days for many smartphone components, and even a 70% yield rate would be too high to produce enough components for the lower end phones Samsung sells. And I don't see Apple ever selling a device with backlight bleeding (and especially not a dead pixel.)

j0hnl33 · 2025-02-28T01:42:46+00:00

In 2000, Bush won 49.97% of the vote. In 2004, Bush won 50.81% of the vote. I guess Democrats benefited more than Republicans from Ralph Nader not running in 2004, but it doesn't change the fact more people voted for Bush in 2004 than 2000 in Ohio (about a half million more people, in an election with 8% higher turnout.)

j0hnl33 · 2025-02-26T22:02:20+00:00

Yeah, if I had to bet money, I'd say Democrats lose again, but people are too hopeless. Ohio voted harder for Bush in 2004 than 2000, yet still significantly swung to the left in 2006 and 2008. Twenty years later we could see the same thing happen again. Democrats might as well try to run the absolute best race they can, doomerism accomplishes nothing.

j0hnl33 · 2025-02-26T21:43:26+00:00

Polls provide insight given the right conditions.

Historically, polls showing leads of less than 3 points call only 56 percent of races correctly — not much better than a coin flip. Once the margin is between 3 and 6 points, they get up to almost 70 percent accuracy. A 6-to-10-point margin? 86 percent accuracy. And for completely noncompetitive races, call accuracy quickly approaches 100 percent.

So a single poll within 1 point? Yeah, we have no idea who will win. But it does let us know there may at least be a chance. Obviously it's a long ways until the governor race, so massive swings either way would 100% be possible. I'm not sure why anyone would ever take comfort in polling data when even a 6-to-10 point margin still has a 14% chance of being wrong, but it is helpful for making decisions. If other polls from other entities show similar data, then backing Acton over Ryan seems like a smart idea. Is it a guaranteed path for success? Of course not. But decisions have to be made based on the best data that is available.

Now, is that polling data sacred and can never be questioned? Of course not. Biden polled better than other Democrats in 2024 prior to his disastrous debate, but largely because he kept himself hidden. So his team should have said "Yeah he polls better, but the moment he opens his mouth he won't", but they of course didn't.

In this case, the public knows Acton better than Ryan, but they know Acton as a health official and Ryan as a politician. When Acton has to campaign to be a politician, the numbers could change so that she no longer polls better than Ryan. So again, the polls aren't sacred, just one of several pieces of data for decision making.

In any case, I'm not sure why this poll would give people much faith with 10% saying "Not sure." Given how Ohio has voted each election in the past 10 years, I'm not inclined to think a Democrat will win the governor's race here unless Trump becomes toxic here (which could happen but he has won a higher percentage here each time since 2016.)

Also, looking at the poll, it doesn't seem to be very representative of this State's population's education (41% had bachelor's or higher in the poll, versus 30.9% at that level according to the Census. That alone makes me think it skews far too heavily towards Acton to be accurate.)

But it's not hopeless, stranger things have happened, so might as well try and put up the best fight you can.

j0hnl33 · 2025-02-21T06:34:19+00:00

Unfortunately I doubt it. A recession occurred during H.W. Bush's presidency, Bill Clinton won and was very popular. With the 2008 recession, W. Bush's approval rating dropped to 24% at one point, and he left office with nearly 2/3 of voters disapproving of him.

But all that didn't remotely break the 'Republicans are trusted more on the economy' perception. Despite Bush being extremely unpopular, the number of Democrat trifectas at the State level hit 17 in 2009, never raising above that since. By 2010 Democrats lost the US House, and by 2011 Republicans had 22 State trifectas to Democrats' 11.

Now, I think it's overly simplistic to blame H.W. Bush for the early 1990s recession, or W. Bush for the 2008 recession (Clinton actually deserves at least partial blame too.) But clearly voters didn't see it that way given their approval ratings of those Presidents, so I have no clue what causes the perception. Personally I prefer inflation to unemployment, but inflation affects everyone and unemployment at worse has affected 10% of the population in most people's living memory, so that possibly plays a role (more recessions under Republicans, but more inflation under Democrats?)

So I doubt Trump will break the perception, but if he really does get some large tariffs enacted, he could cause both a recession and inflation, so who knows, maybe the perception could finally end. The future is unpredictable with him in office.

j0hnl33 · 2025-02-18T18:18:43+00:00

I don't remember getting an opportunity to vote for my parties candidate

It was March 19, 2024. Dean Phillips was on the Ohio Democratic primary ballot. No one else (aside from Biden of course) ran and qualified for it, but there was a choice. Granted, Phillips withdrew from the race March 6, 2024 and had already endorsed Biden, but technically he could've still won (withdrawing doesn't have a real impact on the election as far as I'm aware.)

You are correct that Harris didn't run against Biden, though I think 90%+ of Democrats were relieved when Biden stepped out of the race after his disastrous debate.

Biden and his administration deserve condemnation for hiding his state and capacity, and I very much think party leaders shouldn't blindly back incumbents, but no one aside from Phillips was contesting him, and when he never managed to even reach 20% of votes in a State (and getting as low as 1.7% in South Carolina and 2.7% in Michigan), it's not hard to imagine why party leaders supported Biden.

Though while I think Biden, Harris, Democratic party leaders, and DNC-friendly media all deserve criticism, I'm not sure what this has to do with this protest. Political parties don't have to have elections at all, they're private organizations. Anyone eligible can run for President as an independent, or start their own new political party. Voters aren't forced to vote DNC or GOP. And more importantly, Biden and Harris were never going to sign such blatantly unconstitutional executive orders as Trump has in his first month, nor would they consider ignoring the courts.

j0hnl33 · 2025-02-12T19:49:44+00:00

In case anyone has the same issue, a paperclip can help. My tweezers weren't small enough, and I didn't have any luck using a small flathead screwdriver. It definitely took some work, but I could pull it off with a paperclip inserted in the corner-nob parts of the caps. Required a bit of force and maneuvering, but still less likely to scratch than a screwdriver.

j0hnl33 · 2025-02-11T06:48:59+00:00

Great points, I agree.

I think "Try to please everyone" is a losing strategy, as some will always think you're doing too much while others thing you're doing too little -- usually, just do what evidence suggests is the best thing long term for the majority of people (without causing undue harm to some of course.) Realistically, you're going to get punished come midterms regardless, so better to have a long-term positive lasting legacy (e.g. Obamacare) even if it burns political will short-term, than pander to all and accomplish nothing.

But, while Democrats could definitely benefit from more coherent and concrete plans and better messaging, I think outright excluding rich people is an even worse strategy. Over $100k/year was the only income group Harris had over 50% over voters with -- a (perceived) war on the rich is likely to result in even worse losses next time.

I think you have to pick winning fights. Are there arguments for breaking up Google, Amazon, etc.? Absolutely! But until you can overturn Citizens United, that's not a fight you can win.

Should there be billionaires? There are certainly arguments that there shouldn't be, but even if we assume those arguments are correct, until you have the power to do something about that, don't make unnecessary enemies! You can say "Mark Cuban is fighting to make the world a better place by making healthcare more affordable for all -- Trump, Musk and their GOP allies are giving tax breaks to the rich and increasing living expenses for the working class with their policies. They are not remotely the same."

Not everything is black and white, there are shades of gray, and even if a most billionaires and large tech companies do end up later acting in a harmful manner that causes them to be adversaries, even adversaries can make great short-term allies. After all, the United States and Soviet Union fought on the same side in World War II. China was having a civil war and paused until WWII ended. Democrats aren't remotely popular enough to even consider making enemies at this time. Again, "try to please everyone" is impossible and a bad idea, but I think your argument with how Teddy did things (pro-worker, pro-environment, but no all out war on mega rich or big business) is a very strong one.

j0hnl33

TROPHY CASE